[
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1714, "culture": " English\n", "content": "Produced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive.)\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the underscore character as _italic_.\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\nreferenced.\n   WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n    BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n                   WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n        FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n  PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n_District of Pennsylvania, to wit_:\nBE IT REMEMBERED, That on the seventeenth day of May, in the\nthirty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States of America,\nA. D. 1813, William W. Woodward, of the said District, hath deposited in\nthis office the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as\nproprietor, in the words following, to wit:\n    \u201cA Body of Divinity: wherein the doctrines of the Christian\n    religion, are explained and defended. Being the substance of several\n    lectures on the Assembly\u2019s larger catechism. By Thomas Ridgley, D.\n    D. With notes, original and selected, by James P. Wilson, D. D. In\n    four volumes. First American, from the third European Edition.\u201d\nIn conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled,\n\u201cAn Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of\nMaps, Charts and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such Copies\nduring the times therein mentioned.\u201d\u2014And also to the Act, entitled \u201cAn\nAct supplementary to An Act, entitled \u2018An act for the encouragement of\nLearning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the\nauthors and proprietors of such Copies during the times therein\nmentioned,\u2019 and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing,\nengraving, and etching historical and other prints.\u201d\nD. CALDWELL, Clerk of the\nDistrict of Pennsylvania.\n_In this first American edition the original text remains unaltered, the\nnotes which Dr. Ridgley had subjoined to his work are retained, and for\nthe sake of distinction, printed in Italics. The other notes have been\nadded by Dr. Wilson; and in every instance wherein they have been\nselected by him from others, they are accompanied by marks of quotation,\nand the name of the author or book from whence they were taken._\nThe influence which the different sentiments of men, in matters of\nreligion, have, for the most part, on their temper and behaviour towards\none another, affords very little ground to expect that any attempt to\nexplain or defend the most important doctrines of Christianity, should\nnot be treated with dislike and opposition by some, how much soever it\nmay afford matter of conviction to others. This consideration would have\nput a stop to my pen, and thereby saved me a great deal of fatigue, in\npreparing and publishing the following sheets, had it not been\nover-balanced by what I cannot, at present, think any other than a sense\nof duty, in compliance with the call of providence. I heartily wish\nthere were no occasion to vindicate some of the great doctrines of the\ngospel, which were more generally received in the last age, than at\npresent, from misrepresentation, as though the method in which they had\nbeen explained led to licentiousness, and the doctrines themselves,\nespecially those of election, particular redemption, efficacious grace,\nand some others, that depend upon them, were inconsistent with the moral\nperfections of the divine nature: these are now traduced by many, as\nthough they were new and strange doctrines, not founded on scripture,\nnor to be maintained by any just methods of reasoning deduced from it,\nor as if the duties of practical religion could not be inculcated\nconsistently therewith. If this insinuation were true, our preaching\nwould be vain, our hope also vain, and we should be found false\nwitnesses for God, and have no solid ground whereon to set our feet,\nwhich would be a most tremendous thought. And, if this be not sufficient\nto justify my present undertaking, I have nothing to allege of equal\nweight.\nI must confess, that when I took the first step, in order to the setting\nthis design on foot, by consenting that proposals should be printed,\nabout two years since, I reckoned it little other than an expedient to\ndisengage myself from any farther thoughts, and my friends from any\nexpectation of it, which I could not well do, but by having a proof of\nthe backwardness of persons to encourage, by subscription, a work which\nwould be so very expensive to the undertakers; but, the design being\ncountenanced, beyond what I could have imagined, and numbers subscribed\nfor, with more expedition than is usual, I was laid under an obligation\nimmediately to prepare my notes for the press, and set forward the work,\nwhich, through the divine goodness, has been thus far carried on; and I\ncannot but take occasion to express my grateful acknowledgment of the\nrespect that has been shewed me, by those who have encouraged this\nundertaking. If it may answer their expectation, and subserve their\nspiritual advantage, I shall count my labour well employed, and humbly\noffer the glory thereof, as a tribute due to God, whose interest is the\nonly thing that demands all our time, strength, and utmost abilities. If\nI may but have a testimony from him that I have spoken nothing\nconcerning him that is a dishonour to his name, unbecoming his\nperfections, or that has a tendency to lead his people out of the right\nway to the glorifying and enjoying of him, my end is fully answered.\nWhatever weakness I have discovered, arising from mine inequality to the\ngreatness of the subjects insisted on, I hope to obtain forgiveness\nthereof from God, whose cause I have endeavoured to maintain; and, to be\nexcused by men, as I may truly say, I have not offered, either to him or\nthem, what cost me nothing. I have, as far as I am able, adapted my\nmethod of reasoning to the capacities of those who are unacquainted with\nseveral abstruse and uncommon words and phrases, which have been often\nused by some who have treated on these subjects, which have a tendency\nrather to perplex, than improve the minds of men: terms of art, as they\nare sometimes called, or hard words, used by metaphysicians and\nschoolmen, have done little service to the cause of Christ.\nIf I have explained any doctrine, or given the sense of any scripture in\na way somewhat different from what is commonly received, I have never\ndone it out of the least affectation of singularity, nor taken pleasure\nin going out of the beaten path, having as great a regard to the\nfootsteps of the flock, as is consistent with that liberty of thinking\nand reasoning, which we are allowed to use, who conclude nothing to be\nan infallible rule of faith, but the inspired writings.\nAs to what I have advanced concerning the eternal generation of the Son,\nand the procession of the Holy Ghost, I have thought myself obliged to\nrecede from some common modes of explication, which have been used, both\nby ancient and modern writers, in insisting on these mysterious\ndoctrines, which, probably, will appear, if duly weighed, not to have\ndone any great service to the cause, which, with convincing evidence,\nthey have maintained; since it is obvious that this is the principal\nthing that has given occasion to some modern Arians to fill the margins\nof their books with quotations, taken out of the writings of others,\nwhom they have either, without ground, pretended to have been on their\nside of the question, or charged with plucking down with one hand, what\nthey have built up with the other.\nWhether my method of explaining these doctrines be reckoned just, or no,\nI cannot but persuade myself, that if what I have said, concerning the\nsubordination of these divine persons, be considered in any other view,\nthan as an explication of the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of\nthe Holy Ghost, it will not be reckoned a deviating from the common\nfaith of those who have defended the doctrine of the ever-blessed\nTrinity; and, if it be an error to maintain that these divine persons,\nas well as the Father, are independent, as to their personality, as well\nas their essence, or to assert that the manner of their having the\ndivine essence, as some express it, is independent, as well as the\nessence itself, then what I have delivered, on that subject, is to no\npurpose, which, when I am convinced of, I shall readily acknowledge my\nmistake, and count it an happiness to be undeceived.\nAs to what respects the decrees of God, and more particularly those that\nrelate to angels and men, and his providence, as conversant about sinful\nactions, and the origin of moral evil, I have endeavoured to account for\nthem in such a way, as, I trust, does not in the least, infer God to be\nthe author of sin; nor have I, in any instance, represented God as\npunishing sin, or determining to do it, out of his mere sovereignty, as\nthough he designed to render his creatures miserable, without\nconsidering them as contracting guilt, and thereby procuring this to\nthemselves. And, when I have been led to insist on the freeness of\ndivine grace, and the covenant of grace, as made with Christ, and, in\nhim, with the elect, and maintained the absoluteness and independency\nhereof on the will of man to render it effectual to salvation, I have,\nnotwithstanding, said as much as is necessary concerning the\nconditionality of our claim to the blessings thereof, and the\ninseparable connexion that there is between practical religion and\nsalvation, which fences against the charge that is often brought against\nthis doctrine, as though it led to licentiousness. This I could not omit\nto mention, that the reader might not entertain groundless prejudices\nagainst some of the doctrines insisted on, before he duly weighs the\nmethod in which they are handled, or considers whether my defence of\nthem against the popular objections, of that or any other kind, be just\nor no. Some, it may be, will see reason to conclude that it is; and\nothers, who think that there are many unsurmountable difficulties on our\nside of the question, may be convinced, that there are difficulties of\nanother nature, as great, if not greater, attending the opposite scheme,\nwhich they themselves maintain. But this I rather chuse to submit to the\nimpartial judgment of those who are not disposed to condemn a doctrine,\nwithout desiring to know what may be said in its defence.\nAs to what concerns the work in general, it may be observed, that when I\nhave occasion to illustrate an argument, by making use of any criticism\nthat may be of advantage to it, or to give the sense of ancient writers,\neither for or against what I have laid down, I have inserted it in\nItalics in the notes, that it might not appear to be a digression, or\nbreak the thread of the discourse.\nThough the title of every page mentions only the general subject of the\nquestion, there is a table prefixed to each volume, that comprises the\ncontents thereof, laid down in such a form, as that the reader may\neasily see the heads of argument, under every question, in their proper\nmethod and connexion.\nAnd, at the end, there is an index of scriptures, in which only those\nare inserted that are either more largely or concisely explained. This,\ntogether with the table, was drawn up by a kind brother, which I\nthankfully acknowledge, as having afforded me more leisure to attend to\nthe work itself.[1]\nAs to what concerns the second edition,[2] it was undertaken at the\nrequest of some who did not expect that the former would be so soon out\nof print. That which gives me great satisfaction is, the acceptance it\nhas met with from many judicious divines and others, in North-Britain;\nand I cannot but reckon the honour that the learned professors in the\nuniversity of Aberdeen did me, in signifying their approbation of it,\nmuch more to be desired, than the highest titles that could have been\nconferred upon me without it.\nI have nothing farther to trouble the reader with in this preface; but\nwould only request of him, that, what thoughts soever he may entertain\nconcerning the way in which I have endeavoured to state and defend some\ngreat and important truths, he would search the scriptures, and explain\nthem agreeably to the divine perfections, and not think the worse of the\ngospel, which stands upon a firmer basis, than the weak efforts of\nfallible men, who use their best endeavours to defend it. If we had not\na surer rule of faith, than the methods of human reasoning, religion\nwould be a matter of great uncertainty, and we should be in danger of\nbeing _tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine_. But our best security against this, will be our having hearts\nestablished with grace, and rightly disposed to make a practical\nimprovement of what we learn; and, if we are enabled to follow on to\nknow the Lord with minds free from prejudice, and, if under a due sense\nof our weakness, we humbly present our supplications to him, who is able\nto make us wise to salvation, we may then hope to attain to that\nknowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus, which shall be attended with\npeace and comfort here, and crowned with blessedness and glory\nhereafter.\nMay the great God, in whose hand is the life and usefulness of all men,\nsucceed, with his blessing, what is humbly offered to his service, so\nfar as it is adapted thereunto, and approved of by him, that hereby it\nmay be conducive to the spiritual advantage of professing families, and\nthe rising generation.\nFootnote 1:\n  edition an alphabetical index to the whole matters contained in the\n  work._\nFootnote 2:\n  _And the same reason may be assigned why this third is now offered to\n  the public._\n                   THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.\nQUEST. I. Of glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him.\n_With what distinction the glorifying and enjoyment of God may both be\nsaid to be man\u2019s chief and highest end_, _Page_ 13\n_What it is to glorify God_ _ibid_\n    _How God glorifies himself_ _ibid_\n    _How creatures glorify him_ 14\n_What it is to enjoy God_ 17\n    _The connexion between glorifying God and the enjoyment of him_ 18\n_Contentedness to perish, that God may be glorified, unjustly made a\nmark of grace_ 19\n_To be quickened to duty by a respect to the heavenly glory, no sign of\na mercenary spirit_ 20\nQUEST. II. Of the Being of a God.\n_Reasons why we should be able to prove this by arguments_ 21\n_The Being of a God may be evinced, From the light of nature_ _ibid_\n    _What meant thereby_ _ibid_\n    _How it proves the Being of a God_ 22\n_From the works of creation_ 24\n    _from creatures below man_ 32\n    _from the structure of man\u2019s body_ 33\n    _from the nature of his soul_ 34\n    _from the nature and office of conscience_ 35\n    _from the boundless desires of the soul_ 37\n_From the consent of all nations_ _ibid_\n    _Objection, That there have been some speculative_ Atheists,\n    _answered_ 38\n    _The belief of a God took not its rise from human policy_ 40\n    _It was not propagated merely by tradition_ _ibid_\n_From the works of providence_ 41\n_From the foretelling future events_ 42\n_From the provision made for all_ 43\n    _Particularly for man\u2019s safety_ 44\n_The objections taken from the prosperity of the wicked, answered_ 45\n_Nothing short of revelation sufficient to give a saving discovery of\nGod_ 47\nQUEST. III. Of the Holy Scripture.\n_The names given to it_ 48\n    _Why called a Testament_ 50\n_How the want of a written word was supplied to the church before_ Moses\n_Whether the church, under the Old Testament, understood the spiritual\nmeaning of the laws contained in it_ 53\n_Whether the prophets understood their own predictions_ 54\n_How far the Old Testament is still a rule_ 56\n_How the scriptures are a complete revelation of the will of God_ 58\n_The scripture a sufficient rule of faith and obedience_ 59\n    _Its properties as a rule_ 61\n    _It is the only rule_ _ibid_\n_Human traditions of no divine authority_ 62\n    _The Popish doctrine of them confuted_ _ibid_\n_The Canon of scripture preserved entire_ 65\n    _Is not perverted_ 66\nQUEST. IV. Of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.\n_In what respects called divine_ 69\n_A divine revelation necessary_ 71\n_Not contrary to God\u2019s perfections_ _ibid_\n_Inspiration not impossible_ 72\n_The scripture proved to be the word of God_ _ibid_\n_From the majesty of its style_ 73\n_From the purity of its doctrines_ 74\n    _Its holiness considered absolutely_ _ibid_\n    _And as compared with other writings_ 76\n_From the harmony of all its parts_ 78\n_Dr. Paley on the genuineness of the scriptures, in a note_ 79\n    _Its harmony shewn in the accomplishment of many predictions_ 86\n    _It doth not contradict itself_ 87\n    _Various objections answered_ 88\n    _Rules for reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture_ 94\n        _Grotius on their authority, in a note_ 97\n_From its scope and design_ 98\n_From the character of the penmen_ 102\n    _These were faithful_ _ibid_\n    _They were not imposed on_ 106\n    _How they might know they were under inspiration_ 108\n    _They mistook not the devil\u2019s impressions for divine revelation_ 109\n    _The words as well as matter of scripture were given by inspiration_\n_From its antiquity and preservation_ 112\n_From the testimony of God by miracles_ _ibid_\n    _Two objections answered_ 114, 115\n    _By the conviction and conversion of sinners_ 116\n_How Christians come to a full persuasion of the divinity of scripture_\n_The inward testimony of the Spirit explained_ _ibid_\nQUEST. V, VI. The principal matters contained in scripture.\nQUEST. VII. Of the nature and perfections of God.\n_How we may conceive aright of the divine perfections_ _ibid_\n_Of the communicable and incommunicable perfections of God_ 122\n_Nothing common between God and the creature_ _ibid_\n_God is a Spirit; what a Spirit is_ 123\n    _Difference between other spiritual substances and God_ 124\n    _Independent_ 124. _Infinitely perfect_ 126\n    _All-sufficient_ 127. _When this perfection is in effect denied_ 127\n    _Eternal_ 129. _His eternal duration not successive_ 132. _How the\n    parts of time are attributed to God_ 133\n    _Immutable. When immutability is a perfection. How peculiar to God_\n    135. _Arguments to prove him so_ 136\n    _Incomprehensible_ 138\n    _Omnipresent_ 139, _and Almighty_ 140\n        _Wherein his power appears_ 141\n        _What things God cannot do_ 142\n        _The improvement of this subject_ 143\n    _Omniscient_ 145. _He knows all future contingencies_ 147\n        _Properties of God\u2019s knowledge_ 149. _Its improvement_ 150\n        _When it is practically denied_, _ibid_.\n    _Wisdom of God infinite_ 152\n    _Different from knowledge_ _ibid_\n    _Wherein it appears_ _ibid_\n    _In Creation_ 154. _Providence_ 155. _Redemption_ 156\n    _In the constant government of the church_ _ibid_\n    _Inferences from God\u2019s wisdom_ 158\n_Holiness of God infinite_ 159\n    _What it is_, _ibid_. _Instances of it_ 160\n    _His suffering the entrance of sin, was no refection on it_ 161\n    _\u2019Tis the standard of doctrines_ 162\n    _Instances of doctrines which lead to licentiousness_ 162, 163\n    _When God\u2019s holiness is contemned_ 163\n_Justice of God infinite_ 164\n    _How distinguished from his holiness_ _ibid_\n    _Glory, how called a reward_ 167\n    _Afflictions of believers not properly a punishment_ _ibid_\n_Mercy and grace of God infinite_ 168\n    _Difference between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience_ 169\n    _Mercy is either common or special_ 171\n    _Grace free and sovereign_ 172\n        _Discriminating_ 173. _Instances of it_, _ibid_. _Afflictions\n        not inconsistent with it_ 174\n        _Leads not to licentiousness_ _ibid_\n_Patience of God, what it is_ 176\n    _Whether devils are objects of it_ _ibid_\n    _Instances of God\u2019s patience_ 178\n    _Wherein manifested to the wicked_ 179\n    _Not inconsistent with justice_ 181\n    _How to be improved_ 183\n    _By whom it is abused_ 184\n_Truth, God is abundant therein_ 186\n    _How he is called a God of truth_ 187\n_Faithfulness of God_, _ibid_. _No impeachment hereof that some\nthreatenings have not been executed_ 188. _Nor that some promises have\nnot presently been performed_ 190\n    _How this perfection is to be improved_ 191\nQUEST. VIII. Of the Unity of the Godhead.\n_How God is styled the living God_ 194\n_Unity of the Godhead proved_ _ibid_\n    _Abernethy on that subject, in a note_ 197\n    _Was not denied by the wiser Heathen_ 200\n    _Inferences from it_ 202\n    _How we should conceive of it_ 203\n_Different modes used in speaking of the perfections of God_ 204\nQUEST. IX, X, XI. Of the Doctrine of the Trinity.\n_Calvin on the word Person, in a note_ 207\n_The doctrine of the highest importance_ 209\n    _How to determine the importance of a doctrine_ 211\n    _What knowledge of it necessary to salvation_ 213\n_It is a great mystery_, 214. _What a mystery is_, _ibid_.\n_It is incomprehensible_ 216\n        _Dr. Bates on mysteries_, in a note 217\n    _Objections on this account answered_ 220\n    _Whether to receive it be to use words without ideas_ _ibid_\n    _Whether the revelation of it be unintelligible_ 221\n    _Whether that which is unintelligible be the object of faith_ 222\n_How this doctrine promotes religion_ 223\n    _In what sense revelation is an improvement of the light of nature_\n_Not contrary to reason, though above it_ 226\n    _When a doctrine is contrary to reason_ _ibid_\n_It is not chargeable with Tritheism_ 227\n    _The use of reason in proving doctrines of pure revelation_ 229\n_It cannot be known by the light of nature_ 230\n    _How it was made known to_ Adam _ibid_\n    _Whether the heathen knew it_ 231\n        _Whitaker on the word_ Logos _used by the Jews_, in a note 233\nTrinity, _not to be illustrated by similitudes_ 235\n    _Rules for interpreting scriptures relating to it_ 236\n    _The word_ Trinity _explained_ 239\nPerson, _the word explained_ 239\n    _The difference between divine and human persons_ 242\n_Sacred Three, in what respect One_ 243\n        _Dr. Jamieson on the Trinity_, in a note 243\n    _How their glory equal, how the same_ _ibid_\n_Personality of the Son_, 248. _Of the Spirit_ 250\n    _Not metaphorically ascribed to either_ 252\n_Eternal generation of the Son, how understood by many_ 259\n    _Another method of accounting for it_ 261\n    _This account thereof proved_ 264\n    _Scriptures relating to Christ\u2019s sonship explained_ 274\n    _Christ\u2019s sonship as Mediator, considered_ 276\n    _Another view of the subject_, in a note 279\n_Procession of the Spirit, how understood by many_, 260. _What it is_\n    _The scripture doctrine of it_ 280\n_\u0152conomy of the sacred Three explained_ 291\n    _How distinct works are ascribed to them_ 292\n_The Deity of the Son proved_ _ibid_\n_From his divine names_ 295\n    Jehovah _God\u2019s incommunicable name_ 296\n        _Never given to creatures_ 297\n        _It is not applied to angels_ 301\n        _Christ\u2019s Deity proved from it_ 302\n    God _and_ Lord, _how applied in scripture_ 304\n        _Christ\u2019s Deity proved thereby_ 306\n        _This argued from_ 1 Tim. iii. 16. 311\n    _When the word_ God _is used absolutely_ 321\n        _Its meaning when so used_ 321\n    _In what sense Christ is styled God by the_ Socinians 322\n_From the ascription of the divine nature to him in_ Col. ii. 9. 325\n    _In_ Philip, ii. 6. _this explained and defended_ 326\n    _Genuineness of_ 1 John v. 7. _defended_ 329\n_From his conference with the_ Jews 335\n_From his Attributes_ 342\n    _Eternity_, 343. _Immutability_, _ibid_.\n    _Omnipresence_ 345\n        _This proved from_ John iii. 13. 347\n    _Omniscience_, 349. _Objections answered_ 350\n    _Omnipotency_ 352\n_From his glorious titles_ 353\n_From his work of creation_ 357\n        _The_ Socinian _account thereof_ 359\n    _Christ no instrument in creation_ 361\n    _How the Father made the world by him_ 362\n    _Men only moral instruments in miracles_ 365\n_From his works of providence_ 366\n    _Christ the Governor of all things_ 367\n_From his acting as Judge_ 368\n    _Subserviency of his kingdom to the Father_ 371\n    _Christ as Mediator below, yet equal with the Father_ 374\n    _Inferiority of Christ, how to be understood in scripture_ 376\n_From the worship paid him_ 377\n    _Christ the Object of religious worship_ 379\n_From Baptism_ 382\n_From the doxologies applied to him_ 386\n    Anti-Trinitarians _differ about the worship due to Christ_ 388\n_Right to divine worship is incommunicable_ 389\n    _Objections against the deity of Christ answered_ 391\n    _Dr. Priestley\u2019s disingenuity_, in a note 397\n_Of the divinity of the Holy Ghost_ 398\n    _His divinity proved_ _ibid_\n    _From his divine Attributes_ 404\n    _From his divine works_ 405\n        _Such works performed by him_ 407\n    _From the worship given to him_ 408\n        _Objections answered_ 410\n_Practical inferences from the doctrine of the Trinity_ 414\nQUEST. XII, XIII. Of God\u2019s Decrees.\n_Some things premised in general_ 417\n    _Dissuasives from prejudices_ 419\n_The general method laid down_ 421\n_In what sense God fore-ordained all things_ 422\n    _That he did so, proved_ 424\n        _Dr. Smalley on the origin of sin_ 425\n_Purpose of God free, wise, holy_ 432\n    _How it renders salvation necessary_ 484\n    _It is unchangeable_ 481\n    _Repentance, how ascribed to God_ 483\n_Predestination, the word explained_ 433\n    _Consequences of denying it_ 499\n_Election, the word explained_ 434\n    _How used in the Old Testament_ 438\n    _How in the New_ 441\n    Fathers, _their sense about this doctrine_ 507\n_Election to salvation asserted in scripture_ 442\n    _Churches, how styled elect_ 443\n_Chosen, part of mankind were so_ 447\n        _These styled a_ Remnant 449\n    _A Remnant chosen out of the_ Jews 450\n    _Men elected to sanctification as well as salvation_ 461\n    Acts xiii. 48. _explained and defended_ 463\n    _Men chosen in Christ_ 467\nSupra-lapsarian _and_ Sub-lapsarian _schemes differ_ 446\n_Proofs of the doctrine of Election_ _ibid._\n        _from God\u2019s fore-knowledge_ 452\n        _from his giving the means of grace_ 454\n    Jacob _loved_, Esau _hated, explained_ 456\n        _Objections answered_ 458\n    _The opposite doctrine, how defended_ 501\n_Properties of Election_ 469\n    _Misrepresentations of it answered_ 465\n_Reprobation, how to be explained_ 486\n    _Preterition a branch of it_ (vide the note, 529) 488\n_Predamnation considered from_ Jude, _ver._ 4. 491\n    Rom. ix. 22. and xi. 7-10. _explained_ 492\n    2 Thes. ii. 11, 12. Psal. lxxxi. 12. John xii. 39, 40. _explained_\n_Wicked, how made for the day of evil_ 495\n_Will of God secret and revealed_ 471\n    _Is free, sovereign, and unconditional_ 476\n    _Its absoluteness_ 477\n    _That it is conditional, cannot be proved from scripture_ 480\n    _Conditional propositions, how understood there_ 479\n    _How God will have all saved_ 501\n_Expectation of God not disappointed by the will of man_ 505\n    _God not really disappointed, grieved, or resisted_ 506\n_Bounds of life fixed by him_ 508\n_Stoical fate, how it differs from God\u2019s decrees_ 516\n_Objections against Election answered_ 507\n    _Practical improvement of it_ 526\n_Dr. Williams on election_, in a note 529\n_Before we enter on our present undertaking, we shall premise a few\nthings leading to the subject matter thereof; and that we may begin with\nwhat is most obvious, let it be considered,_\n_I. That it is a duty incumbent on all who profess the Christian name,\nto be well acquainted with those great doctrines on which our faith,\nhope, and worship are founded; for, without the knowledge hereof, we\nmust necessarily be at a loss as to the way of salvation, which none has\na right to prescribe, but he who is the author thereof._[3]\n_II. This knowledge of divine truth must be derived from the holy\nscriptures, which are the only fountain of spiritual wisdom, whereby we\nare instructed in those things that could have been known no other way,\nbut by divine revelation._\n_III. It will be of singular use for us not only to know the doctrines\nthat are contained in scripture; but to observe their connexion and\ndependence on one another, and to digest them into such a method, that\nsubsequent truths may give light to them that went before; or to lay\nthem down in such a way, that the whole scheme of religion may be\ncomprised in a narrow compass, and, as it were, beheld with one view,\nwhich will be a very great help to memory: and this is what we call a\nsystem of divine truths, or a methodical collection of the chief\narticles of our religion, adapted to the capacity of those who need to\nbe taught the first principles of the oracles of God: and if they are\ndesigned to give the world a specimen of that form of sound words, which\nthe church thinks itself obliged to hold fast, and stedfastly to adhere\nto, then we call it a confession of faith; or, if digested into\nquestions and answers, we call it a catechism. And though systems of\ndivinity, confessions of faith, and catechisms, are treated with\ncontempt, instead of better arguments, by many who are no friends to the\ndoctrines which they contain, and who appear to be partial in their\nresentment, in as much as they do not dislike those treatises which are\nagreeable to their own sentiments, by whatever name they are called; yet\nwe are bound to conclude that the labours of those who have been happy\nin the sense they have given of scripture, and the method in which they\nhave explained the doctrines thereof, in what form soever they have\nbeen, are a great blessing to us; though we are far from concluding that\nthey are of equal authority with scripture, or that every word which\nthey use is infallible; nor do we regard them any farther than as they\nare agreeable to, or sufficiently proved from scripture._\n_IV. Confessions of faith and catechisms are not to be reckoned a novel\ninvention, or not consonant to the scripture rule, since they are\nnothing else but a peculiar way of preaching or instructing us in divine\ntruths. Therefore, since scripture lays down no certain invariable rule\nconcerning this matter, the same command that warrants preaching the\nword in any method, includes the explaining of it, as occasion serves,\nin a catechetical one._\n_V. As there are many excellent bodies of divinity printed in our own\nand foreign languages, and collections of sermons on the principal heads\nthereof; so there are various catechisms, or methodical summaries of\ndivine truths, which, when consonant to scripture, are of great\nadvantage to all Christians, whether elder or younger._\n_VI. The catechisms composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster,\nare esteemed as not inferior to any that are extant, either in our own\nor foreign languages, the doctrines therein contained being of the\nhighest importance, and consonant to scripture; and the method in which\nthey are laid down is so agreeable, that it may serve as a directory for\nthe ranging our ideas of the common heads of divinity in such an order,\nthat what occurs under each of them may be reduced to its proper place.\nIt is the_ larger _of them that we have attempted to explain and\nregulate our method by; because it contains several heads of divinity\nnot touched on in the_ shorter. _And if, in any particular instance, we\nare obliged to recede from the common mode of speaking, (though it is to\nbe hoped not from the common faith, once delivered to the saints) we\nsubmit our reasoning to the judgment of those who are disposed to pardon\nless mistakes, and improve what comes with sufficient evidence to the\nbest purposes._\n_The work indeed is large, but the vast variety of subjects will render\nit more tolerable; the form in which it appears is somewhat differing\nfrom that in which it was first delivered, in a public audience, though\nthat may probably be no disadvantage to it, especially since it is\nrather designed to be read in families than committed to memory, and\nrepeated by different persons, as it has been. The plainness of the\nstyle may contribute to its usefulness; and its being less embarrassed\nwith scholastic terms than some controversial writings are, may render\nit more intelligible to private Christians, whose instruction and\nadvantage is designed thereby. It would be too great a vanity to expect\nthat it should pass through the world without that censure which is\ncommon to all attempts of the like nature, since men\u2019s sentiments in\ndivinity differ as much as their faces; and some are not disposed to\nweigh those arguments that are brought to support any scheme of\ndoctrine, which differs from what they have before received. However,\nthe work comes forth with this advantage, that it has already conflicted\nwith some of the difficulties it is like to meet with, as well as been\nfavoured with some success, and therefore the event hereof is left in\nhis hand whose cause and truth is endeavoured to be maintained._\nFootnote 3:\n  \u201cCHRISTIANITY,\u201d it hath been said, \u201cis not founded in argument.\u201d If it\n  were only meant by these words, that the religion of Jesus could not,\n  by the single aid of reasoning, produce its full effect upon the\n  heart; every true Christian would cheerfully subscribe to them. No\n  arguments unaccompanied by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can\n  convert the soul from sin to God; though even to such conversion,\n  arguments are, by the agency of the Spirit, rendered subservient.\n  Again, if we were to understand by this aphorism, that the principles\n  of our religion could never have been discovered, by the natural and\n  unassisted faculties of man; this position, I presume would be as\n  little disputed as the former. But if, on the contrary, under the\n  cover of an ambiguous expression, it is intended to insinuate, that\n  those principles, from their very nature, can admit no rational\n  evidence of their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning\n  which can avail our antagonists) the gospel, as well as common sense,\n  loudly reclaims against it.\n  \u201cThe Lord JESUS CHRIST, the author of our religion, often argued, both\n  with his disciples and with his adversaries, as with reasonable men,\n  on the principles of reason, without this faculty, he well knew, they\n  could not be susceptible either of religion or of law. He argued from\n  prophecy, and the conformity of the event to the prediction. Luke\n  xxiv. 25, &c. John v. 39, & 46. He argued from the testimony of John\n  the Baptist, who was generally acknowledged to be a prophet. John v.\n  32, & 33. He argued from the miracles which he himself performed, John\n  v. 36. x. 25, 37, 38. xiv. 10, 11. as uncontrovertible evidences, that\n  GOD Almighty operated by him, and had sent him. He expostulates with\n  his enemies, that they did not use their reason on this subject.\n  _Why_, says he, _even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?_ Luke\n  xii. 57. In like manner we are called upon by the apostles of our\n  Lord, to act the part of _wise men_ and _judge_ impartially of _what_\n  they _say_. 1 Cor. x. 15. Those who do so, are highly commended, for\n  the candour and prudence they discover, in an affair of so great\n  consequence. Acts xvii. 11. We are even commanded, to be _always ready\n  to give an answer to every man that asketh_ us _a reason of our hope_;\n  1 Pet. iii. 15. _in meekness to instruct them that oppose themselves_;\n  2 Tim. ii. 25. _and earnestly_ to _contend for the faith which was\n  once delivered to the saints_. Jude 3. God has neither in natural nor\n  revealed religion, _left himself without a witness_; but has in both\n  given moral and external evidence, sufficient to convince the\n  impartial, to silence the gainsayer, and to render inexcusable the\n  atheist and the unbeliever. This evidence it is our duty to attend to,\n  and candidly to examine. We must _prove all things_, as we are\n  expressly enjoined in holy writ, if we would ever hope to _hold fast\n  that which is_ good. 1 Thess. v. 21.\u201d\n  CAMPBELL.\n    QUEST. I. _What is the chief and highest end of man?_\n    ANSW. Man\u2019s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to\n    enjoy him for ever.\n1. It is supposed, in this answer, that every intelligent creature,\nacting as such, designs some end, which excites endeavours to attain it.\n2. The ends for which we act, if warrantable, may be considered as to\ntheir degree of excellency, and, in proportion to it, are to be pursued\nby proper means conducing thereto.\n3. There is one that may be termed the chief and highest end, as having\nan excellency and tendency to make us blessed above all others: this\nconsists, as it is observed in this answer, in the glorifying and\neternal enjoyment of God, the fountain of blessedness.\nIf it be enquired with what propriety these may both be called chief and\nhighest, the answer is obvious and easy, _viz._ That the former is\nabsolutely so, beyond which nothing more excellent or desirable can be\nconceived; the latter is the highest or best in its kind, which,\nnotwithstanding, is referred, as a means leading to the other; and both\nthese ends, which, with this distinction, we call chief and highest, are\nto be particularly considered by us, together with the connexion that\nthere is between them.[4]\nI. We are to consider what it is to glorify God. In order to our\nunderstanding of this, let it be premised,\n1. That there is a great difference between God\u2019s glorifying himself and\nour glorifying him; he glorifies himself when he demonstrates or shews\nforth his glory; we glorify him by ascribing to him the glory that is\nhis due: even as the sun discovers its brightness by its rays, and the\neye beholds it. God glorifies himself, by furnishing us with matter for\npraise; we glorify him when we offer praise, or give unto him the glory\ndue to his name.\n2. Creatures are said to glorify God various ways: some things do it\nonly objectively, as by them, angels and men are led to glorify him;\nthus _the heavens declare his glory_, Psal. xix. 1. The same might be\nsaid of all other inanimate creatures which glorify God, by answering\nthe end of their creation, though they know it not: but intelligent\ncreatures, and particularly men, are said to glorify God actively; and\nthis they do by admiring and adoring his divine perfections: these, as\nincomprehensible, are the object of admiration; and accordingly the\napostle admires the divine wisdom, Rom. xi. 33. _O the depth of the\nriches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are\nhis judgments, and his ways past finding out!_ and as they are divine,\nso they are the object of adoration: God is to be admired in all the\ndisplays of his relative or manifestative glory; and _his work which men\nbehold_, is to be _magnified_, Job xxxvi. 24. But he is to be adored\nmore especially for his essential perfections.\nWe are to glorify God, by recommending, proclaiming, and setting forth\nhis excellency to others. What we have the highest value for, we desire\nthat others may have the same regard to it with ourselves: thus it is\nobserved by the evangelist, that when the disciples received their first\nconviction that Jesus was the Messiah, they imparted this to others; as\nAndrew to Peter, and Philip to Nathanael, John i. 41, 45. so the woman\nof Samaria being convinced hereof, endeavoured to persuade all her\nneighbours to believe in him, as she did, John iv. 28, 29. Thus we\nglorify God by making mention of his name with reverence, proclaiming\nhis goodness with thankfulness, and inviting others, as the Psalmist\ndoes, Psal. xxxiv. 8. to _taste and see that he is good_.\nBut since this is a very comprehensive duty including in it the whole of\npractical religion, it may be considered under the following\nparticulars.\n1. We glorify God by confessing and taking shame to ourselves for all\nthe sins we have committed, which is interpretatively to acknowledge the\nholiness of his nature, and of his law, which the apostle asserts to be\n_holy, just, and good_, Rom. vii. 12. This Joshua advises Achan to do;\n_to give glory to God, by making confession to him_, Josh. vii. 19. And\nthus the penitent thief, who was crucified with our Saviour, glorified\nGod, by confessing that he received the _due reward of his deeds_, Luke\nxxiii. 40, 41. So did the Levites, in their prayer recorded by Nehemiah,\nwhen they said to God, _Thou art just in all that is brought upon us,\nfor thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly_, Neh. ix. 33.\n2. By loving and delighting in him above all things, which is to act as\nthose who own the transcendent amiableness of his perfections, as the\nobject of their highest esteem. Thus the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxiii.\n25. _Whom have I in heaven but thee; and there is none_, or nothing,\n_upon earth, that I desire besides thee_.\n3. By believing and trusting in him, committing all our concerns, both\nin life and death, for time and eternity, into his hands: thus Abraham\nis said _to be strong in faith, giving glory to God_, Rom. iv. 20. And\nthe apostle Paul, 2 Tim. i. 12. to have _committed his all to him_.\n4. By a fervent zeal for his honour; and that either for the honour of\nhis truth and gospel, when denied, disbelieved, or perverted; or for the\nhonour of his holiness, or any of his other perfections, when they are\nreflected on, or reproached, either by the tongues or actions of those\nwho set themselves against him.\n5. By improving our talents, and bringing forth fruit in proportion to\nthe means we enjoy; _herein_, says our Saviour, _is my Father glorified,\nthat ye bear much fruit_, John xv. 8.\n6. By walking humbly, thankfully, and chearfully before God. Humility\nacknowledges that infinite distance which is between him and us; retains\na due sense of our own unworthiness of all we have or hope for; and owns\nevery thing we receive to be the gift of grace; _By the grace of God_,\nsays the apostle, _I am what I am_, 1 Cor. xv. 10. Thankfulness gives\nhim the glory, as the author of every mercy; and accordingly sets a due\nvalue on it, in that respect. And to walk chearfully before him, is to\nrecommend his service as most agreeable, whereby we discover that we do\nnot repent that we were engaged therein; which is what the Psalmist\nintends, when he says, Psal. c. 2. _Serve the Lord with gladness_.\n7. By heavenly-mindedness; when we desire to be with him to behold his\nglory. To which we must add, that all this is to be done in the name of\nChrist, our great Mediator, and by strength derived from him.\n8. As we are to glorify God, by yielding obedience to his commanding\nwill, as in the aforesaid instances, so we are to do it by an entire\nsubmission to his disposing will; particularly, when under afflictive\ndispensations of providence, we must own his sovereignty and right to\n_do what he will with us as his own_, Matth. xx. 15. and that these\nafflictions are infinitely _less than our iniquities deserve_, Ezra ix.\n13. And we must adore his wisdom and goodness in trying our graces\nhereby, and dealing with us in such a way as is _needful_, and that only\n_for a season_, 1 Pet. i. 6. And we are to own his goodness in suiting\nour strength to our burdens, and over-ruling all this for our spiritual\nadvantage. It also consists in an easy, patient, and contented frame of\nspirit, without the least murmuring or repining thought; concluding,\nthat whatever he does is _well done_, Psal. cxix. 65. And, which is\nsomething more, in rejoicing that we are counted worthy to suffer the\nloss of all things, yea, even of life itself, if called to it, for his\nsake; of which we have various instances in scripture, Acts v. 41. Heb.\nMoreover, we ought to glorify God in all the natural, civil, and\nreligious actions of life, which are to be consecrated or devoted to\nhim. We enjoy the blessings of life to no purpose if we do not live to\nthe Lord, and thankfully acknowledge that we receive them all from his\nhand; and whatever the calling be, wherewith we are called, we must\ntherein abide with him, and see that we have his warrant to engage in\nit, and expect success from his blessing attending it, or else it will\nbe to no purpose. Thus says Moses, _It is the Lord thy God that giveth\nthee power to get wealth_, Deut. viii. 18. And, in all our dealings with\nmen, we are to consider ourselves as under the inspection of the\nall-seeing eye of God, to whom we are accountable for all we do, and\nshould be induced hereby, to exercise ourselves always to keep\nconsciences void of offence towards God and man.\nAs for religious duties, wherein we have more immediately to do with\nGod, we are to glorify him, by taking up a profession of religion in\ngeneral, as being influenced by his authority, encouraged by his\npromised assistance, and approving ourselves to him, as the searcher of\nhearts: and we must take heed that we do not rest in an outward form or\nshew of godliness, without the power thereof; or in having a name to\nlive without a principal of spiritual life, by which we may be enabled\nto put forth living and spiritual actions agreeable thereunto: and all\nthese religious duties must be performed by faith, whereby we depend on\nChrist, our great Mediator, both for assistance and acceptance; by which\nmeans we glorify him, as the fountain of all grace, in whom alone both\nour persons and services are accepted in the sight of God, and redound\nto his glory. And this is to be done at all times; so that when our\nthoughts are not directly conversant about any of the divine\nperfections, as it often happens, when we are engaged in some of the\nmore minute, or indifferent actions of life; yet we are to glorify him\nhabitually, as having our hearts right with him; so that whatever we do\nmay refer ultimately to his glory. As every step the traveller takes is\ntoward his journey\u2019s end, though it may not be every moment in his\nthoughts; so the less important actions of life should be subservient to\nthose that are of greater consequence, in which the honour of God and\nreligion is more immediately concerned; in which sense we maybe said to\nglorify him therein.\nThus having considered, that it is our indispensable duty to make the\nglory of God our highest end in all our actions, we might farther add,\nas a motive to enforce it, that God is the first cause of all things,\nand his own glory was the end he designed in all his works, whether of\ncreation or providence: and it is certain, that this is the most\nexcellent end we can propose to ourselves; therefore the most valuable\nactions of life ought to be referred to it, and our hearts most set upon\nit; otherwise we act below the dignity of our nature; and, while other\ncreatures, designed only to glorify him objectively, answer the end for\nwhich they were made, we, by denying him that tribute of praise which is\ndue from us, abuse our superior faculties, and live in vain.\nII. The next thing to be considered is what it is to enjoy God.\n1. This supposes a propriety in, or claim to him, as our God. We cannot\nbe said to enjoy that which we have no right or claim to, as one man\ncannot be said to enjoy an estate which belongs to another; so God must\nbe our God in covenant, or we cannot enjoy him; and that he is so, with\nrespect to all that fear him, is evident, inasmuch as he gives them\nleave to say, Psal. xlviii. 14, _This God is our God_; and, Psal. lxvii,\n6. _God, even our God, shall bless us_.\n2. To enjoy God, is to have a special gracious communion with him, to\nconverse or walk with him, and to delight in him; as when we can say, 1\nJohn i. 3. _Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son\nJesus Christ_. This enjoyment of God, or communion with him, is,\n(1.) That which we are blessed with in this world, which is but\nimperfect, as we know and love him but in part, and our communion with\nhim is often interrupted and weakened, through the prevalency of\nindwelling sin: and that joy and delight which arises from thence is\noften clouded and sullied; and, at best, we enjoy him here but in a\nmediate way, in and under his ordinances, as agreeable to this present\nstate.\n(2.) Believers shall enjoy him perfectly and immediately in heaven,\nwithout intermission or abatement, and that for ever; this is called,\n_Seeing him as he is_, 1 John iii. 2. and being _with him where he is,\nto behold his glory_, John xvii. 24. And in order hereto, their souls\nshall be made capable or receptive hereof, by the removal not only of\nall sinful but natural imperfections, and shall be more enlarged, as\nwell as have brighter discoveries of the divine glory: and this shall be\nattended with a perfect freedom from all the consequences of sin; such\nas sorrow, divine desertion, and the many evils that attend us in this\npresent life; as well as from all temptations to it. So that their\nhappiness shall be confirmed and secured to them, and that with this\nadvantage, that it shall be impossible for them to be dispossessed of\nit. This is certainly the most desirable end, next to the glory of God,\nthat can be intended or pursued by us.[5]\nIII. This leads us to consider the connexion that there is between our\nglorifying God and enjoyment of him. God has joined these two together,\nso that one shall not be attained without the other. It is the highest\npresumption to expect to be made happy with him for ever, without living\nto his glory here. For in as much as heaven is a state of perfect\nblessedness, they, who shall hereafter be possessed of it, must be\ntrained up, or made meet for it; which is the grand design of all the\nmeans of grace. How preposterous would it be to suppose, that they, who\nhave no regard to the honour of God here, shall be crowned with glory,\nhonour, immortality, and eternal life, in his presence hereafter!\nTherefore a life of holiness is absolutely necessary to the heavenly\nblessedness; and since these two are so connected together, they who\nexperience the one, shall not fail of the other; for this is secured to\nthem by the faithfulness of God, who has promised to give _grace and\nglory_, Psal. lxxxiv. 11. Therefore, _he who begins a good work in them,\nwill perform it_, Phil. i. 6. and give them _the end of their faith,\neven the salvation of their souls_, 1 Pet. i. 8.\nFrom the connexion that there is between our glorifying and enjoying\nGod, we may infer,\n1. That it is a very preposterous thing for any one to assign this as a\nmark of grace, that persons must be content to perish eternally, that\nGod may be glorified. It is true, it is alleged in favour of this\nsupposition, that Moses, and the apostle Paul, seem to give countenance\nto it; one by saying, Exod. xxxii. 32. _If thou wilt forgive their sin;\nand, if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast\nwritten_; the other, Rom. ix. 3. _I could wish that myself were accursed\nfrom Christ, for my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh_.\nBut to this it may be answered, that Moses, in desiring to be blotted\nout of the book which God had written, must not be supposed to be\nwilling to perish eternally for Israel\u2019s sake; but he is content to be\nblotted out of the book of the living, or to have his name no more\nremembered on earth; and seems to decline the honour which God had\noffered him, when he said, Exod. xxxii. 10. _Let me alone, that I may\nconsume them; and I will make of thee a great nation_; he desires not\nthe advancement of his own family, if Israel must cease to be a people,\nto whom God had promised to be a God.\nAs for the apostle Paul\u2019s wish, it is either, as some suppose, a rash\nand inconsiderate flight of zeal for God, and so not warrantable, though\nin some respects proceeding from a good principle; or rather, as I\nhumbly conceive the meaning is, he could wish himself accursed from\nChrist, so far as is consistent with his love; or he is content to be\nunder the external marks of God\u2019s displeasure; or deprived of the\ncomfortable sensation of his love, or many of those fruits and effects\nthereof, which the believer enjoys in this life: for I cannot, in the\nleast, think he desires to be deprived of a real interest in it, or to\nbe eternally separated from Christ, on any condition whatsoever.[6]\n2. Since the eternal enjoyment of God is one great end which we ought to\nhave in view, it is no sign of a mercenary spirit to have an eye to the\nheavenly glory, to quicken us to duty; seeing this is promised by God to\nthose who are faithful, thus, Psal. lxxxiii. 24. _Thou shalt guide me\nwith thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory_. The like promises\nwe have in many other scriptures, which are designed to excite our\ndesire and hope of this blessedness; therefore the exercise of these\ngraces, from such motives, is far from being unlawful: yea, it is\ncommended in the saints, who are said, Heb. xi. 16. to _desire a better\ncountry, that is, an heavenly_. And Moses is commended for having the\n_recompence of reward_ in view, when he preferred the _reproach of\nChrist_ before the _treasures of Egypt_, ver. 26.\nNevertheless, when this respect to future blessedness is warrantable, it\nmust be considered as an expedient for our glorifying God, while we\nbehold his glory; and when we consider it as a reward, we must not look\nupon it as what is merited by our service, or conferred in a way of\ndebt, but as a reward of grace, given freely to us, though founded on\nthe merits of Christ.\nFootnote 4:\n  He who glorifies God intentionally, thereby promotes his own\n  happiness. Our enjoying God is glorifying him. The two objects\n  coalesce. Vide note on page 19.\nFootnote 5:\n  The answer connected with this question makes the glorifying and\n  enjoyment but _one_ end; and thus the enjoyment is supposed to consist\n  in the glorifying God.\nFootnote 6:\n  It is not probable that the idea of a _book of life_, which is not to\n  be understood literally, was at all in use in the days of Moses. The\n  term \u03b7\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd used by Paul is not hypothetical, but affirmative, and in\n  the past tense, _I did wish_, or rather _I was wishing_ to be\n  separated from Christ. The truth of this assertion no one, who is\n  acquainted with his history, can doubt; for he had been a persecutor.\n  Such a wish, made after he was a subject of saving grace, would have\n  been unnatural, irrelevant, impious and impossible. It has been\n  nevertheless, zealously contended by some learned and pious modern\n  divines that, \u201cthe benevolent person is disposed, and willing to give\n  up, and relinquish his own interest and happiness, when inconsistent\n  with the public good, or the greatest good of the whole.\u201d[7] By\n  _benevolence_ they mean love to being in general, without regard to\n  any excellency in that being, \u201cunless mere existence\u201d[8] be such. In\n  this they place all virtue, and all religion. And that they may the\n  more clearly distinguish this species of love from that of\n  _complacency_ and _gratitude_, in which the party ever has his eye\n  upon his own advantage, they usually adopt the phrase _disinterested\n  benevolence_, yet not wholly discarding the idea of the party\u2019s own\n  interest, but viewing it only on the general scale with that of all\n  other beings.\n  True holiness consists in a disposition, and suitable expressions of\n  it, in conformity to the _revealed will_ of God; so far as this\n  accords with the good of the whole, such benevolence will run parallel\n  with holiness; but every attempt to substitute any other rule of\n  action or ground of obligation than the authoritatively expressed will\n  of God, approaches the crime of idolatry. It is certainly a very high\n  stand we assume, when we profess to pass by all the amiableness, and\n  excellency of the divine character; and all his goodness, and mercy to\n  us; and to love his _being_ only together with created existences,\n  with the same independent, and dignified love of benevolence, which he\n  exercises towards his helpless creatures. All the displays of his\n  perfections and compassions seem designed rather to elicit the\n  affections of _complacency_ and _gratitude_. That the advantages of\n  religion in this world, and the next may be sought from selfish, and\n  mercenary views is a lamentable truth; but because carnal minds may\n  find their own destruction in aiming at the blessings which the\n  spiritual only can enjoy, this is no reason wherefore the saints\n  should not find their ultimate interest to accompany their duty in\n  every instance. Accordingly, for their encouragement, the blessings of\n  peace, and spiritual consolations here, and of eternal happiness, are\n  exhibited to their view in glowing colours. But this would not have\n  been done if it were essential to the character of their love, that\n  they should be willing to be _separated from Christ_. That we have by\n  nature a fearful propensity to earthly good, which is vain, illusory,\n  disgusting and debasing, must be acknowledged; and that we are\n  therefore required to _deny our_ natural _selves_ is known unto every\n  Christian. But it by no means results, that because we must turn away\n  from the temptations of _temporal things_, we may not aspire to those\n  blessings which are _spiritual and eternal_. God himself is eternally\n  happy in his _own self complacency_, and has encouraged us to expect\n  everlasting happiness from the same source. Jesus Christ, whose\n  benevolence towards us is an eternal appeal to our _gratitude_, which\n  supposes a regard to our own interest; in suffering death had respect\n  also to the joy which was set before him, and shall see of the travail\n  of his soul and shall be satisfied. Love is essential to duty, without\n  which it is forced, and cannot be deemed obedience in the view of him\n  who searches the heart. This has been noticed by the Saviour, but he\n  has omitted those distinctions, which are accounted so important in\n  modern times; yet his doctrines are _not less_ spiritual, than ours\n  after we have sublimated the gospel to the highest pitch of\n  refinement.\nFootnote 7:\n  Dr. HOPKINS.\nFootnote 8:\n  President EDWARDS.\n    QUEST. II. _How doth it appear that there is a God?_\n    ANSW. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare\n    that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only, do sufficiently\n    and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.\nBefore we enter on the proof of this important doctrine, let it be\npremised, that we ought to be able to prove by arguments, or give a\nreason of our belief that there is a God.\n1. Because it is the foundation of all natural and revealed religion;\nand therefore it must not be received merely by tradition, as though\nthere were no other reason why we believe it, but because others do so,\nor because we have been instructed herein from our childhood; for that\nis unbecoming the dignity and importance of the subject, and would be an\ninstance of great stupidity, especially seeing we have so full and\ndemonstrative an evidence thereof, taken from the whole frame of nature;\nin which there is nothing but what affords an argument to confirm our\nbelief that there is a God.\n2. There is a great deal of atheism in our hearts, by reason whereof we\nare prone sometimes to call in question the being, perfections, and\nprovidence of God. To which we may also add, that the Devil frequently\ninjects atheistical thoughts into our minds; which is a great affliction\nto us, and renders it necessary that we should use all possible means\nfor our establishment in this great truth.\n3. The abounding of atheism in the world, and the boldness of many in\narguing against this truth, renders it necessary that we should be able\nto defend it, that we may stop the mouths of blasphemers, and so plead\nthe cause of God, and assert his being and perfections against those\nthat deny them; as Psal. xiv. 1. _The fool, who saith in his heart there\nis no God._\n4. This will greatly tend to establish our faith in those comfortable\ntruths that arise from our interest in him, and give us a more solid\nfoundation for our hope, as excited by his promises, which receive all\ntheir force and virtue from those perfections which are implied in the\nidea of a God.\n5. This will make us set a due value on his works, by which we are led\nto conclude his eternal power and Godhead, and so to admire him in them,\nJob xxxvi. 24. _Remember that thou magnify his work, which men behold._\nWe shall now consider those arguments mentioned in this answer, by which\nthe being of a God may be evinced; as,\nI. From the light of nature in man, by which we understand that reason\nwhich he is endowed with, whereby he is distinguished from, and rendered\nsuperior to, all other creatures in this lower world, whereby he is able\nto observe the connexion of things, and their dependence on one another,\nand infer those consequences which may be deduced from thence. These\nreasoning powers, indeed, are very much sullied, depraved, and weakened,\nby our apostacy from God, but not wholly obliterated; so that there are\nsome remains thereof, which are common to all nations, whereby, without\nthe help of special revelation it may be known that there is a God.\nBut this either respects the principle of reasoning, which we were born\nwith, upon the account whereof infants are called intelligent creatures;\nor the exercise thereof in a discursive way, in the adult, who only are\ncapable to discern this truth, which they do more or less, in proportion\nto their natural capacity, as they make advances in the knowledge of\nother things. Now for the proof of the being of a God from the light of\nnature, let the following propositions be considered in their respective\norder.\n1. There hath been, for many ages past, a succession of creatures in the\nworld.[9]\n2. These creatures could not make themselves, for that which is nothing\ncannot act; if it makes itself, it acts before it exists; it acts as a\ncreator before it exists as a creature; and it must be, in the same\nrespect, both a cause and an effect, or it must be, and not be, at the\nsame time, than which nothing can be more absurd; therefore creatures\nwere made by another, upon which account we call them creatures.\n3. These creatures could not make one another; for to create something\nout of nothing, or out of matter altogether unfit to be made what is\nproduced out of it, is to act above the natural powers of the creature,\nand contrary to the fixed laws of nature; and therefore is too great a\nwork for a creature, who can do nothing but in a natural way, even as an\nartificer, though he can build an house with fit materials, yet he\ncannot produce the matter out of which he builds it; nor can he build it\nof matter unfit for his purpose, as water, fire, air, &c. All creatures\nact within their own sphere, that is, in a natural way: but creation is\na supernatural work, and too great for a creature to perform; therefore\ncreatures cannot be supposed to have made one another.\n4. If it was supposed possible for one creature to make another, then\nsuperiors must have made inferiors; and so man, or some other\nintelligent creature, must have made the world: but where is the\ncreature that ever pretended to this power or wisdom, so as to be called\n_the Creator of the ends of the earth_.\n5. If any creature could make itself, or other creatures of the same\nspecies, why did he not preserve himself; for he that can give being to\nhimself, can certainly continue himself in being? or why did he not make\nhimself more perfect? Why did he make himself, and other creatures of\nthe same species, in such a condition, that they are always indigent, or\nstand in need of support from other creatures.\nOr farther, supposing the creature made himself, and all other things,\nhow comes it to pass that no one knows much of himself comparatively, or\nother things? Does not he that makes things understand them? therefore\nman could not make himself, or other creatures.\n6. It follows therefore from hence, that there must be a God, who is the\nfirst cause of all things, necessarily existing, and not depending on\nthe will of another, and by whose power all things exist; _Of him, and\nthrough him, and to him are all things_, Rom. xi. 36. _In him we live,\nand move, and have our being_, Acts xvii. 28.\nThus much concerning the more general method of reasoning, whereby the\nlight of nature evinces the being of a God; we proceed,\nII. To consider more particularly how the being of God may be evinced\nfrom his works. The cause is known by its effects; since therefore, as\nwas but now observed, creatures could not produce themselves, they must\nbe created by one who is not a creature.\nNow, if there be no medium between God and the creature, or between\ninfinite and finite, between a self-existent or underived, and a derived\nbeing; and if all creatures exist, as has been shewn, by the will and\npower of their Creator, and so are finite and dependent; then it\nfollows, that there is one from whom they derived their being, and on\nwhom they depend for all things; that is, God. This is usually\nillustrated by this similitude. Suppose we were cast on an unknown\nisland, and there saw houses built, but no men to inhabit them, should\nwe not conclude there had been some there that built them? Could the\nstones and timber put themselves into that form in which they are? Or\ncould the beasts of the field build them, that are without\nunderstanding? Or when we see a curious piece of workmanship, as a\nwatch, or a clock, perform all its motions in a regular way, can we\nthink the wheels came together by chance?[10] should we not conclude\nthat it was made by one of sufficient skill to frame and put them\ntogether in that order, and give motion to them? _Shall the clay say to\nhim that fashioned it, What makest thou, or thy work, He hath no hands?_\nIsa. xlv. 9.\nThis leads us to consider the wisdom of God in his works, which\ndemonstrates his being. This the Psalmist mentions with admiration,\nPsal. civ. 24. _O Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast thou\nmade them all!_ When we see letters put together, which make words or\nsentences, and these a book, containing the greatest sense, and the\nideas joined together in the most beautiful order, should we not\nconclude that some man, equal to this work, had put them together? Even\nso the wisdom that shines forth in all the parts of the creation, proves\nthat there is a God. This appears,\nIn the exact harmony and subserviency of one part of the creation to\nanother, Hos. ii. 21, 22. _I will hear, saith the Lord; I will hear the\nheavens, and they shall hear the earth. And the earth shall hear the\ncorn, and the wine, and the oil, and they shall hear Jezreel._ One part\nof this frame of nature ministers to another. Thus the sun, and other\nheavenly bodies, give light to the world, which would be no better than\na cave or dungeon without them; and afford life and influence to plants\nand trees; and maintain the life of all living creatures. The clouds\nsend down rain that moistens the earth, and makes it fruitful; and this\nis not poured forth by whole oceans together, but by small drops, Job\nxxxvi. 27. _He maketh small the drops of water; they pour down rain\naccording to the vapour thereof_; and these are not perpetual, for that\nwould tend to its destruction. The moist places of the earth, and the\nsea supply the clouds with water, that they may have a sufficient store\nto return again to it. The air fans and refreshes the earth, and is\nnecessary for the growth of all things, and the maintaining the life and\nhealth of those that dwell therein. This subserviency of one thing to\nanother is without their own design or contrivance; for they are not\nendowed with understanding or will; neither doth this depend on the will\nof the creature. The sun doth not enlighten or give warmth to the world,\nor the clouds or air refresh the earth at our pleasure; and therefore\nall this is subject to the order and direction of one who is the God of\nnature, who commands the sun, and it shineth, and the clouds to give\nrain at his pleasure. It is he that gave the regular motion to the\nheavenly bodies, and, by his wisdom, fixed and continues the various\nseasons of the year, summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, day and\nnight, and every thing that tends to the beauty and harmony of nature;\ntherefore these curious, and never-enough to be admired, works, plainly\ndeclare that there is a God. This is described with unparalleled\nelegancy of style, Job xxxvii. 9, &c. _Out of the south cometh the\nwhirlwind; and cold out of the north. By the breath of God, frost is\ngiven; and the breadth of the waters is straitened. Also by watering he\nwearieth the thick cloud; he scattereth his bright cloud. Dost thou know\nthe balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect\nin knowledge? How thy garments are warm when he quieteth the earth by\nthe south-wind?_[11]\nBut that we may farther evince this truth, we shall lay down the\nfollowing arguments to prove the being of a God, which appears,\nI. From those creatures that are endowed with a lower kind of life than\nman.\n1. No creature can produce a fly or the least insect, but according to\nthe fixed laws of nature; and that which we call life, or the principle\nof their respective motion and actions, none but a God can give; so that\nhis being is plainly proved, from all living creatures below man, which\nare subservient, many of them, to one another, and all to man, and that\nnot by our ordering; therefore this is done by the hand of him who is\nthe God of nature.\n2. The natural instinct of living creatures, every one acting according\nto its kind; and some of the smallest creatures producing things that no\nhuman art can imitate, plainly proves a God. Thus the bird in building\nits nest; the spider in framing its web; the bee in providing\nstore-houses for its honey; and the ant in those provisions which it\nlays up in summer against winter; the silk-worm in providing cloathing\nfor man, and in being transformed into various shapes, and many others\nof smaller sort of creatures, that act in a wonderful way, without the\nexercise of reason or design, these all prove the being of God.\n3. The greater, fiercer, or more formidable sort of living creatures, as\nthe lion, tiger, and other beasts of prey, are so ordered, that they fly\nfrom man, whom they could easily devour, and avoid those cities and\nplaces where men inhabit, that so we may dwell safely. They are not\nchased into the woods by us; but these are allotted, as the places of\ntheir residence by the God of nature.\n4. Those living creatures that are most useful to men, and so subject to\nthem, _viz._ the horse, camel, and many others, these know not their own\nstrength, or power, to resist or rebel against them; which is ordered by\ninfinite wisdom: and there are many other instances of the like nature,\nall which are very strong arguments to prove that there is a God, whose\nglory shines forth in all his works.\nII. From the structure of human bodies, in which respect we are said to\nbe fearfully and wonderfully made; this, if it be abstractedly\nconsidered without regard to the fixed course and laws of nature,\nexceeds the power and skill of all creatures, and can be no other than\nthe workmanship of a God, and therefore is a demonstration of his being\nand perfections. No man ever pretended to give a specimen of his skill\ntherein. The finest statuaries or limners, who have imitated or given a\npicture, or representation of human bodies, have not pretended to give\nlife or motion to them; herein their skill is baffled. The wisest men in\nthe world have confessed their ignorance of the way and manner of the\nformation of human bodies; how they are framed in their first rudiments,\npreserved and grow to perfection in the womb, and how they are\nincreased, nourished, and continued in their health, strength, and\nvigour for many years. This has made the inquiries of the most\nthoughtful men issue in admiration: herein we plainly see the power and\nwisdom of God, to which alone it is owing.\nHere it may be observed, that there are several things very wonderful in\nthe structure of human bodies, which farther evince this truth. As,\n1. The organs of sense and speech.\n2. The circulation of the blood, and the natural heat which is preserved\nfor many years together, of which there is no instance but in living\ncreatures. Even fire will consume and waste itself by degrees, and all\nthings, which have only acquired heat, will soon grow cold; but the\nnatural heat of the body of man is preserved in it as long as life is\ncontinued.\n3. The continual supply of animal spirits, and their subserviency to\nsense and motion.[13]\n4. The nerves, which, though small as threads, remain unbroken, though\nevery one of these small fibres performs its office, and tends to convey\nstrength and motion to the body.\n5. The situation of the parts in their most proper place: the internal\nparts, which would be ruined and destroyed if exposed to the injuries\nthat the external ones are: these are secured in proper inclosures, and\nso preserved, Job x. 11. _Thou hast cloathed me with skin and flesh, and\nhast fenced me with bones and sinews._\n6. All the parts of the body are so disposed, that they are fitted for\ntheir respective uses, as being situate in those places which render\nthem most fit to perform their proper actions.\n7. The differing features of different bodies, so that we scarce see\npersons in all respects alike, is wonderful, and the result of divine\nwisdom: for even this is necessary for society, and our performing the\nduties we owe to one another.\n8. The union of this body with the soul, which is a spirit of a very\ndifferent nature, can never be sufficiently admired or accounted for;\nbut gives us occasion herein to own a superior, infinitely wise being.\nWhich leads us,\nIII. To consider how the being of God may be evinced from the nature of\nthe soul of man. He is said, Zech. xii. 1. _To have formed the spirit of\nman within him._ And hereby his power and wisdom, and consequently his\nbeing, is declared. For,\n1. The nature of a spiritual substance is much less known than that of\nbodies; and therefore that which we cannot fully understand, we must\nadmire.\nIf the wisdom and power of God is visible in the structure of our\nbodies, it is much more so in the formation of our souls; and since we\ncannot fully describe what they are, and know little of them but by\ntheir effects, certainly we could not form them; and therefore there is\na God, who is the _Father of spirits_.\n2. The powers and capacities of the soul are various, and very\nextensive.\n(1.) It can frame ideas of things superior to its own nature, and can\nemploy itself in contemplating and beholding the order, beauty, and\nconnexion of all those things in the world, which are, as it were, a\nbook, in which we may read the divine perfections, and improve them to\nthe best purposes.\n(2.) It takes in the vast compass of things past, which it can reflect\non and remember, with satisfaction, or regret: and it can look forward\nto things to come, which it can expect, and accordingly conceive\npleasure or uneasiness in the forethoughts thereof.\n(3.) It can chuse or embrace what is good, or fly from and reject what\nis evil and hurtful to it.\n(4.) It is capable of moral government, of conducting itself according\nto the principles of reason, and certain rules enjoined it for the\nattaining the highest end.\n(5.) It is capable of religion, and so can argue that there is a God,\nand give him the glory that is due to his name, and be happy in the\nenjoyment of him.\n(6.) It is immortal, and therefore cannot be destroyed by any creature;\nfor none but God has an absolute sovereignty over the spirits of men;\n_No man hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he\npower in the day of death_, Eccles. viii. 8.\nIV. From the nature and office of conscience, which is that whereby the\nsoul takes a view of itself, and its own actions, as good or evil; and\nconsiders itself as under a law to a superior being, from whom it\nexpects rewards or punishments; and this evidently proves a God. For,\n1. Conscience is oftentimes distressed or comforted by its reflection on\nthose actions, which no man on earth can know: and therefore when it\nfears punishment for those crimes, which come not under the cognizance\nof human laws, the uneasiness that it finds in itself, and its dread of\npunishment, plainly discovers that it is apprehensive of a divine being,\nwho has been offended, whose wrath and resentment it fears. All the\nendeavours that men can use to bribe, blind, or stupify their\nconsciences, will not prevent these fears; but the sad apprehension of\ndeserved punishment, from one whom they conceive to know all things,\neven the most secret crimes committed, this makes persons uneasy,\nwhether they will or no. Whithersoever they fly, or what amusement\nsoever they betake themselves to, conscience will still follow them with\nits accusations and dread of divine wrath: _The wicked are like the\ntroubled sea, when it cannot rest_, Isa. lvii. 20. _A dreadful sound is\nin his ears; in prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him_, Job xv.\n21. _Terrors take hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in\nthe night. The east-wind carrieth him away, and he departeth; and as a\nstorm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not\nspare; he would fain flee out of his hand_, Job xxvii. 20, 21, 22. _The\nwicked flee when no man pursueth_, Prov. xxviii. 1.\nAnd this is universal, there are none but are, some time or other,\nliable to these fears, arising from self-reflection, and the dictates of\nconscience; the most advanced circumstances in the world will not\nfortify against, or deliver from them, Acts xxiv. 25. _As Paul reasoned\nof righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled._\nEven Pharaoh himself, the most hard-hearted sinner in the world, who\nwould fain have forced a belief upon himself that there is no God, and\nboldly said, _Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?_ yet he could not\nward off the conviction that there is a God, which his own conscience\nsuggested. Therefore he was forced to say, Exod. ix. 27. _I have sinned\nthis time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked._ And\nindeed all the pleasures that any can take in the world, who give\nthemselves up to the most luxurious way of living, cannot prevent their\ntrembling, when conscience suggests some things terrible to them for\ntheir sins. Thus Belshazzar, when in the midst of his jollity and\ndrinking wine, having made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,\nwhen he saw the finger of a man\u2019s hand upon the wall, it is said, Dan.\nv. 6. _The king\u2019s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled\nhim; so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote\none against another._\nThus concerning those dictates of conscience, which make men very\nuneasy, whereby wicked men are forced to own that there is a God,\nwhether they will or no; we now proceed to consider good men, as having\nfrequently such serenity of mind and peace of conscience, as affords\nthem farther matter of conviction concerning this truth. It is, indeed,\na privilege that they enjoy, who have the light of scripture revelation,\nand so it might have been considered under a following head; but since\nit is opposed to what was but now brought, as a proof of the being of a\nGod, we may here observe, that some have that composure of mind, in\nbelieving and walking closely with God, as tends to confirm them yet\nmore in this truth. For,\n(1.) This composure of mind abides under all the troubles and\ndisappointments they meet with in the world: those things which tend to\ndisturb the peace of other men, do not so much affect them; _He shall\nnot be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the\nLord_, Psal. cxii. 7. And as this peace abides under all the troubles of\nlife, so it does not leave them, but is sometimes more abundant, when\nthey draw nigh to death.\n(2.) It is a regular and orderly peace that they have, accompanied with\ngrace, so that conscience is most quiet when the soul is most holy;\nwhich shews that there is a hand of God in working or speaking this\npeace, as designing thereby to encourage and own that grace which he has\nwrought in them: Rom. x. 13. _thus the God of hope_ is said _to fill us\nwith all joy and peace in believing_.\n(3.) Let them labour never so much after it, they can never attain this\npeace, without a divine intimation, or God\u2019s speaking peace to their\nsouls; therefore when he is pleased, for wise ends, to withdraw from\nthem, they are destitute of it; so that God is hereby known by his\nworks, or by those influences of his grace, whereby he gives peace to\nconscience.\nV. The being of a God appears from those vast and boundless desires,\nwhich are implanted in the soul; so that it can take up its rest, and\nmeet with full satisfaction, in nothing short of a being of infinite\nperfection: therefore there is such an one, which is God. This will\nfarther appear if we consider,\n1. We find, by experience, that though the soul, at present, be\nentertained, and meets with some satisfaction in creature-enjoyments,\nyet it still craves and desires more, of what kind soever they be; and\nthe reason is, because they are not commensurate to its desires; _The\neye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing_, Eccles. i.\n8. _That which is wanting cannot be numbered_, ver. 15.\n2. We cannot rationally suppose that such boundless desires should be\nimplanted in the soul, and yet that there should be nothing sufficient\nto satisfy them; for then the most excellent creature in this lower\nworld would be, in some respects, more miserable than other creatures of\na lower order, which obtain their ultimate desire. Thus the Psalmist,\nspeaking of the brute creatures, says, Psal. civ. 28. _They are filled\nwith good_; that is, they have all that they crave. Therefore,\n3. There must be one that is infinitely good, who can satisfy these\ndesires, considered in their utmost extent; and that is God, the\nfountain of all blessedness.\nVI. The being of a God may be farther evinced, from the consent of all\nnations to this truth. Now that which all mankind agrees in, must be\nfounded in the nature of man, and that which is so, is evident from the\nlight of nature. It is true, there are many who have thus _known God,\nwho have not worshipped and glorified him as God; but have been vain in\ntheir imaginations, and have changed the truth of God into a lie, and\nworshipped and served the creature more than the Creator_, as the\napostle says, Rom. i. 21, 25. But it doth not follow from hence, that\nthe heathen, who were guilty of idolatry, had no notion of a God in\ngeneral, but rather the contrary; that there is something in the nature\nof man, which suggests, that they ought to worship some divine being,\nwhom they could not, by the light of nature, sufficiently know, and\ntherefore they did service to those who were by nature no gods; however,\nthis proves that they were not wholly destitute of some ideas of a God,\nwhich therefore are common to all mankind. Now that all nations have had\nsome discerning that there is a God, appears,\n1. From the credit that is to be given to all ancient history; which\nsufficiently discovers that men, in all ages, have owned and worshipped\nsomething that they called a God, though they knew not the true God.\n2. The heathen themselves, as may easily be understood from their own\nwritings, reckoned atheism a detestable crime, for this reason, because\ncontrary to the light of nature; and therefore some of them have\nasserted, that there is no nation in the world so barbarous, and void of\nreason, as to have no notion of a God.\n3. We may consider also, that no changes in the world, or in the\ncircumstances of men, have wholly erased this principle: whatever\nchanges there have been in the external modes of worship, or in those\nthings which have been received by tradition, still this principle has\nremained unalterable, that there is a God. Therefore the being of a God\nmay be proved by the consent of all nations.\n_Object._ 1. But it is objected to this, that there have been some\nspeculative atheists in the world. History gives us an account of this;\nand we are informed, that there are some whole countries in Africa and\nAmerica, where there is no worship, and, as to what appears to us, no\nnotion of a God. Therefore the being of a God cannot be proved by the\nconsent of all nations.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the first branch of this objection, that there have\nbeen some speculative atheists in the world; it is true, history\nfurnishes us with instances of persons who have been deemed so, yet\ntheir number has been very inconsiderable; so that it will not follow\nfrom hence, that the idea of a God is not some way or other, impressed\nupon the heart of man. Might it not as well be said, that, because some\nfew are born idiots, therefore reason is not natural to man, or\nuniversal? And it may be farther observed, that they who are branded\nwith the character of atheists in ancient history, or such as appear to\nbe atheists in our day by their conversation, are rather practical\natheists than speculative. We do not deny, that many in all ages have,\nand now do, assert, and pretend to prove, that there is no God; but it\nis plain that they discover, at some times, such fear and distress of\nconscience, as is sufficient to disprove what they pretend to defend by\narguments.\n2. As to the second branch of the objection, that there are some parts\nof the world, where the people seem to be so stupid, as not to own or\nworship a God; this is hard to be proved; neither have any, that have\nasserted it, had that familiarity with them, as to be able to determine\nwhat their sentiments are about this matter.\nBut suppose it were true in fact, that some nations have no notion of a\nGod or religion, nothing could be argued from it, but that such nations\nare barbarous and brutish, and though they have the principle of reason,\ndo not act like reasonable creatures; and it is sufficient to our\npurpose to assert, that all men, acting like reasonable creatures, or\nwho argue from those principles of reason, that they are born with, may\nfrom thence conclude that there is a God.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected by atheists against the being of\nGod, and indeed against all religion, which is founded thereon, that\nboth one and the other took its rise from human policy, that hereby the\nworld, being amused with such-like speculations, might be restrained\nfrom those irregularities, which were inconsistent with the well-being\nof civil government; and that this was readily received, and propagated\nby tradition, and so by an implicit faith transmitted from one\ngeneration to another, among those who enquired not into the reason of\nwhat they believed; and that all this was supported by fear, which fixed\ntheir belief in this matter: so that human policy invented, tradition\npropagated, and fear rooted in the minds of men, what we call the\nnatural ideas of God and religion.\n_Answ._ This is a vile insinuation, but much in the mouths of atheists,\nwithout any shadow of reason, or attempt to prove it; and indeed it may\nbe easily disproved. Therefore,\n1. It appears that the notices we have of the being of a God, are not in\nthe least founded in state policy, as a trick of men, to keep up some\nreligion in the world, as necessary for the support of civil government.\nFor,\nIf the notion of a God, and religion consequential hereon, were a\ncontrivance of human policy, it would follow,\n(1.) That it must be either the invention of one single man, or else it\nwas the result of the contrivance of many convened together in a joint\nassembly of men, in confederacy, to impose on the world.\nIf it was the invention of one man, who was he? when and where did he\nlive? What history gives the least account of him? or when was the world\nwithout all knowledge of a deity, and some religion, that we may know,\nat least, in what age this notion first sprang up, or was contrived? Or\ncould the contrivance of one man be so universally complied with, and\nyet none pretend to know who he was, or when he lived? And if it was the\ncontrivance of a number of men convened together, how was this possible,\nand yet the thing not be discovered? or how could the princes of the\nearth, who were at the head of this contrivance, have mutual\nintelligence, or be convened together? By whose authority did they meet?\nor what was the occasion thereof?\n(2.) It is morally impossible, that such a piece of state policy should\nbe made use of to deceive the world, and universally take place, and yet\nnone in any age ever discover the imposture. The world could never be so\nimposed on, and yet not know by whom; the plot would certainly have been\nconfessed by some who were in the secret.\n(3.) If human policy had first invented this notion, certainly the\nprinces and great men of the world, who had a hand in it, would have\nexempted themselves from any obligation to own a God, or any form of\nworship, whereby they acknowledge him their superior; for impostors\ngenerally design to beguile others, but to exempt themselves from what\nthey bind them to. If any of the princes, or great men of the world, had\ninvented this opinion, that there is a God, and that he is to be\nworshipped, their pride would have led them to persuade the world that\nthey were gods themselves, and ought to be worshipped; they would never\nhave included themselves in the obligation to own a subjection to God,\nif the notion of a God had, for political ends, been invented by them.\n(4.) If the belief of a God was invented by human policy, how came it to\nbe universally received by the world? It is certain, that it was not\npropagated by persecution; for though there has been persecution to\ninforce particular modes of worship, yet there never was any such method\nused to inforce the belief of a God, for that took place without any\nneed thereof, it being instamped on the nature of man.\nIf therefore it was not propagated by force, neither was the belief of a\nGod spread through the world by fraud, what are those arts which are\npretended to have been used to propagate it? It took its rise, say they,\nfrom human policy; but the politicians not known, nor the arts they used\nto persuade the world that there is a God found out. How unreasonable\ntherefore is this objection, or rather cavil, against a deity, when the\natheists pretend that it was the result of human policy!\n2. It appears that the belief of a God was not propagated in the world\nmerely by tradition, and so received by implicit faith. For,\n(1.) Those notions that have been received with implicit faith by\ntradition, from generation to generation, are not pretended to be proved\nby reason; but the belief of a God is founded on the highest reason; so\nthat if no one in the world believed it besides myself, I am bound to\nbelieve it, or else must no longer lay claim to that reason which is\nnatural to mankind, and should rather shew myself a brute than a man.\n(2.) No schemes of religion, that were propagated merely by tradition,\nhave been universally received; for tradition respects particular\nnations, or a particular set of men, who have propagated them. But as\nhas been before considered the belief of a God has universally\nprevailed. Moreover, if the belief of a God was thus spread by tradition\nthrough the world, why was not the mode of worship settled, that so\nthere might be but one religion in the world? The reason is, because\ntheir respective modes of worship were received, by the heathen, by\ntradition: whereas the belief of a God was not so, but is rooted in the\nnature of man.\n(3.) Whatever has been received only by tradition, has not continued in\nthe world in all the turns, changes, and overthrow of particular\nnations, that received it; but the belief of a God has continued in the\nworld throughout all the ages and changes thereof: therefore it is not\nfounded in tradition, but by the light of nature.\n3. It appears, moreover, that the belief of a God could not take its\nfirst rise merely from fear of punishment, which men expected would be\ninflicted by him, though that be a strong argument to establish us in\nthe belief thereof. For,\n(1.) A liableness to punishment for crimes committed, supposes that\nthere is a God, who is offended by sin, and from whom punishment is\nexpected. Therefore as the effect cannot give being to the cause, so\nfear could not be the first ground and reason of the belief of a God.\nBut,\n(2.) The principal idea which mankind has of God, and that which is most\nnatural to us, is, that of an infinitely amiable object, and so we\nconceive of him, as a being of infinite goodness, 1 John iv. 8. _God is\nlove._ Thus we conceive of him, as the spring of all we enjoy and hope\nfor; and as for fear, that is only what arises in the breasts of wicked\nmen, and is founded in the secondary ideas we have of him; to wit, as\ntaking vengeance, supposing he is offended. But they who do not offend\nhim are not afraid of his vengeance; and the sentiments of the worst of\nmen are not to be our rule in judging concerning the being of a God. If\nthese believe that there is a God, only because they fear him, others\nbelieve him to be the fountain of all blessedness, and as such they love\nhim: therefore the ideas that men have of the being of a God, did not\narise from fear.\nVII. The being of a God, may be proved from the works of providence,\nwhereby the world is governed, as well as preserved from returning to\nits first nothing. It is that which supplies all creatures with those\nthings that their respective natures or necessities require: creatures\ncould no more provide for themselves than they could make themselves;\ntherefore he that provides all things for them is God. All finite beings\nhave their respective wants, whether they are sensible thereof or no;\nand he must be all-sufficient that can fill or supply the necessities of\nall things, and such an one is God.\nThus the Psalmist speaks of this God, as supplying the necessities of\n_beasts and creeping things_; who are said, _to wait upon him, that he\nmay give them their meat in due season_, Psal. civ. 25, 27. Psal. cxlv.\nIn considering the providence of God, whereby his being is evinced, we\nmay observe,\n1. The extraordinary dispensations thereof, when things happen contrary\nto the common course, and fixed laws of nature, as when miracles have\nbeen wrought. These are undeniable proofs of the being of a God; for\nherein a check or stop is put to the course of nature, the fixed order\nor laws thereof controuled or inverted; and this none can do but he who\nis the God and author thereof. To deny that miracles have been wrought,\nis little better than scepticism; since it hath been proved, by the most\nunquestionable testimony, contained not only in scripture, but in other\nwritings, and is confessed, even by those who deny the principal things\ndesigned to be confirmed thereby. It is true, they were never wrought\nwith an immediate design to prove that there is a God, since that is\nsufficiently demonstrated without them; but in as much as they have been\nwrought with other views, the being of a God, whose immediate power has\nbeen exerted therein, appears beyond all contradiction.\n2. This may be proved from the common dispensations of providence, which\nwe daily behold and experience in the world.\nThese we call common, because they contain nothing miraculous, or\ncontrary to the laws of nature: they are indeed wonderful, and have in\nthem the traces and footsteps of infinite wisdom and sovereignty, and\ntherefore prove that there is a God. For,\n(1.) It cannot otherwise be accounted for, that so many things should\nbefal us, or others in the world, that are altogether unlooked for. Thus\none is cast down, and a blast thrown on all his endeavours, and another\nraised beyond his expectation, Psal. lxxv. 6, 7. _Promotion cometh\nneither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is\nthe judge; he putteth down one, and setteth up another._\n(2.) The wisest and best concerted schemes of men are often baffled, and\nbrought to nought, by some unexpected occurrence of providence, which\nargues a divine controul, as God says, 1 Cor. i. 19. _I will destroy the\nwisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the\nprudent._ And who is it that can turn the counsels of men into\nfoolishness; but an infinitely wise God?\nVIII. The being of a God may be proved by the foretelling future events,\nwhich have come to pass accordingly. For,\n1. No creature can, by his own wisdom or sagacity, foretel future\ncontingent events with a certain peremptory and infallible knowledge,\nand not by mere conjecture, Isa. xli. 24. _Shew the things that are to\ncome hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods._ And the reason is\nplain, because our knowledge reaches no farther than to see effects, and\njudge of them in and by their causes. Thus we may easily foretel that\nnecessary causes will produce those effects that are agreeable to their\nnature: but when the effect is not necessary, but contingent, or purely\narbitrary, then we have nothing to judge by, and therefore cannot come\nto the knowledge of things future, without an intimation given us\nthereof, by him who orders and disposes of all things, and that is God:\nand therefore to foretel things to come in this sense, is an evident\nproof of the being of God.\n2. That there have been such predictions, and that the things foretold\nhave come to pass accordingly, is very obvious from scripture: and if it\nbe highly reasonable to believe that which is so well attested, as\nscripture is, we are bound from hence to conclude that there is a God.\nBut since we are arguing, at present, with those who deny a God, and\nconsequently all scripture-revelation, we will only suppose that they\nwhom we contend with will allow that some contingent events have been\nforetold; and then it will follow, that this could be done no other way,\nbut by some intimation from one that is omniscient, and that is God.\nIX. The being of a God appears from his providing for the necessities of\nall living. Here let us consider,\n1. That there is a natural instinct in all creatures, to take care of\nand provide for their young, before they are capable of providing for\nthemselves. This is not only observable in mankind, as the prophet says,\nIsa. xlix. 15. _Can a woman forget her sucking child?_ but also in the\nlower sort of creatures; and among them in those who are naturally most\nfierce and savage, even they provide for their young with extraordinary\ndiligence, and sometimes neglect, and almost starve, themselves to\nprovide for them, and sometimes endanger their own lives to defend them.\n2. They bring forth their young at the most convenient season of the\nyear, when the grass begins to spring to supply them with food, and when\nthe fowls of the air may get a livelihood by picking up the seed that is\nsown, and not covered by the earth, and when the trees begin to put\nforth their fruits to supply and feed them.\n3. When they bring forth their young, there is a providence that\nprovides the breast, the paps, the udder replenished with, milk to feed\nthem; and there is a natural instinct in their young, without\ninstruction, to desire to receive their nourishment that way.\n4. Providence has furnished many of the beasts of the fields with\nweapons for their defence, and has given others a natural swiftness to\nfly from danger, and has provided holes and caverns in the earth to\nsecure them from those that pursue them. And this cannot be the effect\nof mere chance, but it is an evident proof of the being of a God.\n5. Providence is, in a peculiar manner, concerned for the supply of man,\nthe noblest of all creatures in the world; _He giveth food to all\nflesh_, Psal. cxxxvi. 25. _Thou preservest man and beast_, Psal. xxxvi.\n6. The earth is stored with variety of food; and whereas the poor, which\nis the greater part of mankind, cannot purchase those far-fetched, or\ncostly dainties, which are the support of luxury, these may, by their\nindustry, provide that food which is most common, and with which the\nearth is plentifully stored, whereby their lives and health are as well\nmaintained, as the rich, who fare deliciously every day; and if their\nfamilies increase, and a greater number is to be provided for, they\ngenerally have a supply in proportion to their increasing number.\n6. Providence has stored the earth with various medicines, and given\nskill to men to use them as a relief against the many sicknesses that we\nare exposed to. All these things, and innumerable other instances that\nmight be given, argue the care and bounty, and consequently prove the\nbeing of God, whose tender mercies are over all his works.\nHere let us consider how the providence of God provides for the safety\nof man against those things that threaten his ruin.\nThe contrariety and opposition of things one to another would bring with\nthem inevitable destruction, did not providence prevent it. As,\n(1.) Those things, which are the greatest blessings of nature, would be\ndestructive, were there not a providence: as the sun that enlightens and\ncherishes the world by its heat and influence, would be of no advantage,\nwere it situate at too great a distance, and would burn it up if it were\ntoo near. So the sea would swallow up, and bring a deluge on the earth,\nif God had not, by his decree, fixed it within certain bounds, and made\nthe shore an inclosure to it, and said hitherto shalt thou go and no\nfarther.\n(2.) The elements are advantageous to us, by their due temperature and\nmixture; but, were it otherwise, they would be destructive. So the\nvarious humours and jarring principles in our bodies would tend to\ndestroy us, but that they are so mixed, as the God of nature, has\ntempered and disposed them, for the preservation of life and health.\n(3.) The wild beasts would destroy us, had not God put the fear and\ndread of man into them, or, at least, caused them not to desire to be\nwhere men live; the forests and desert places, remote from cities, being\nallotted for them; and some creatures would be destructive to men, by\nthe increase of their number, did they not devour one another. And\ninsects would destroy the fruits of the earth, did not one season of the\nyear help forward their destruction, as another tends to breed them.\n(4.) Men by reason of their contrary tempers and interests, and that\nmalice and envy, which is the consequence of our first apostacy, would\ndestroy one another, if there were not a providence that restrains them,\nand gives a check to that wickedness that is natural to them, whereby\nthe world is kept in a greater measure of peace than otherwise it would\nbe; hence, the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxvi. 10. _Surely the wrath of man\nshall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain._\n_Object._ It is objected, by atheists, against the being of a God, that\nthe wicked are observed to prosper, in the world, and the righteous are\noppressed. This temptation the Psalmist was almost overcome by; as he\nsays, _my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipt. For I was\nenvious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked_, Psal.\nlxxiii. 2, 3.\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered,\n1. That the idea of infinite sovereignty is included in that of a God;\nand this distribution of good and evil, if made at any time, without\nregard to the deserts of men, argues the sovereignty of providence; and\ntherefore proves that there is a God, who gives no account of his\nmatters, but has an absolute right to do what he will with his own.\n2. There is a display of infinite wisdom in these dispensations of\nprovidence, in that the good man is made better by affliction, as hereby\nthe kindness and care of providence appears; and the wicked man is\nforced to own, by his daily experience, that all the outward blessings\nhe enjoys in this world, cannot make him easy or happy, or be a\nsufficient portion for him.\n3. Outward prosperity doth not prevent or remove inward remorse, or\nterror of conscience, which embitters the joys of the wicked; _A\ndreadful sound is in his ears; in prosperity the destroyer shall come\nupon him_, Job xv. 21. _Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the\nend of that mirth is heaviness_, Prov. xiv. 13. And, on the other hand,\noutward trouble in the godly is not inconsistent with spiritual joy and\ninward peace, which is more than a balance for all the distresses they\nlabour under; it is said, _The heart knoweth his own bitterness, and a\nstranger doth not intermeddle with his joy_, Prov. xiv. 10. _He shall be\nsatisfied from himself_, ver. 14.\n4. We are not to judge of things according to their present appearance,\nwhen we determine a person happy or miserable, but are to consider the\nend thereof, since every thing is well that ends well. Thus the\nPsalmist, who, as was before observed, was staggered at the prosperity\nof the wicked, had his faith established, by considering the different\nevents of things. Concerning the wicked he says Psal. lxxiii. 18, 19,\n20. _Thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down to\ndestruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they\nare utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh: so, O\nLord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image_; which is a\nvery beautiful expression, representing all their happiness as\nimaginary, a vain dream, and such as is worthy to be contemned: but as\nfor the righteous, he represents them as under the special protection\nand guidance of God here, and at last received to glory, and there\nenjoying him as their everlasting portion.\nHaving considered how the light of nature, and the works of God prove\nhis being, we shall proceed to shew how this appears from scripture, as\nit is observed in this answer, that the word and Spirit only do\nsufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.\nThe arguments hitherto laid down are directed more especially to those\nwho are not convinced that there is a God, and consequently deny the\ndivine original of scripture: but this argument supposes a conviction of\nboth; but yet it must not be supposed unnecessary, in as much as we are\noftentimes exposed to many temptations, which tend to stagger our faith;\nso that though we may not peremptorily deny that there is a God, yet we\nmay desire some additional evidence of his being and perfections, beyond\nwhat the light of nature affords; and this we have in scripture. Herein\nthe glory of God shines forth with the greatest lustre, and we have an\naccount of works more glorious than those of nature, included in the way\nof salvation by a Mediator. The light of nature, indeed, proves that\nthere is a God; but the word of God discovers him to us as a reconciled\nGod and Father to all who believe, and is also attended with those\ninternal convictions and evidences of this truth, which are the peculiar\ngifts and graces of the Holy Spirit; and therefore it is well observed,\nthat this knowledge only is sufficient and effectual to salvation; which\nleads us to consider the insufficiency of the light of nature to answer\nthis end. The knowledge of God, that may be attained thereby, is\nsufficient, indeed, in some measure, to restrain our corrupt passions,\nand it is conducive to the peace and welfare of civil societies: it\naffords some conviction of sin, and, in some respects, leaves men\nwithout excuse, and renders their condemnation less aggravated than that\nof those who sin against gospel light; but yet it is insufficient to\nsalvation, since it is a truth of universal extent, that _there is\nsalvation in no other, but in Christ_, Acts iv. 12. and that it is _life\neternal to know_ not only _the true God, but Jesus Christ, whom he hath\nsent_, John xvii. 3. and this cannot be known by the light of nature,\nbut by divine revelation; which leads us to consider in what respect the\nknowledge of God, as it is contained in and derived from scripture, is\nsufficient to salvation.\nHere we do not assert the sufficiency thereof, exclusive of the aids of\ndivine grace, so as to oppose the word to the Spirit: therefore it is\nsaid, in this answer, that the word and Spirit of God alone can reveal\nhim to men sufficiently to their salvation. The word is a sufficient\nrule, so that we need no other to be a standard of our faith, and to\ndirect us in the way to eternal life; but it is the Spirit that enables\nus to regard, understand, and apply this rule, and to walk according to\nit: these two are not to be separated; the Spirit doth not save any\nwithout the word,[14] and the word is not effectual to salvation, unless\nmade so by the Spirit.\nThat nothing short of scripture-revelation is sufficient to salvation,\nwill appear, if we compare it with the natural knowledge we have of God.\nFor,\n1. Though the light of nature shews us that there is a God, it doth not\nfully display his perfections, so as they are manifested in scripture,\nwherein God is beheld in the face of Christ.\n2. Neither doth it discover any thing of the doctrine of a Trinity of\npersons in the divine essence, who are equally the object of faith: nor\ndoth it give us any intimation of Christ, as the Lord our righteousness,\nin whom we obtain forgiveness of sins: this is known only by\nscripture-revelation; therefore, since this is necessary to salvation,\nwe are bound to conclude that the scripture alone is sufficient to lead\nto it.\n3. The light of nature suggests, it is true, that God is to be\nworshipped; but there is an instituted way of worshipping him, which\ndepends wholly on divine revelation; and since this is necessary, it\nproves the necessity of scripture.\n4. There is no salvation without communion with God; or he that does not\nenjoy him here, shall not enjoy him for ever hereafter. Now the\nenjoyment of God is what we attain by faith, which is founded on\nscripture. Thus the apostle says, 1 John i. 3. _That which we have seen\nand heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with\nus; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus\nChrist._\nBut since it is one thing to say, that the knowledge of God, which is\nderived from scripture, is sufficient to salvation in an objective way;\nthat is, that it is a sufficient rule to lead us to salvation, and\nanother thing to say, that it is made effectual thereunto: we are now to\ninquire when it is made so. In answer to which, let us consider, that\nthe doctrines contained in scripture are made effectual to salvation;\nnot by all the skill or wisdom of men representing them in their truest\nlight, nor by all the power of reasoning, which we are capable of,\nwithout the aids of divine grace, but they are made effectual by the\nSpirit; and this he does,\n(1.) By the internal illumination of the mind, giving a spiritual\ndiscerning of divine truth, which the natural man receiveth not, as the\napostle says, 1 Cor. ii. 14. and it is called, 2 Cor. iv. 6. _a shining\ninto our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God,\nin the face of Jesus Christ_.\n(2.) By subduing the obstinate will of man, and so enabling it to yield\nto a ready, chearful, and universal obedience to the divine commands\ncontained in scripture; and, in particular, inclining it to own Christ\u2019s\nauthority, as king of saints; and to say, as converted Paul did, _Lord,\nwhat wilt thou have me to do?_ Acts ix. 6.\n(3.) He works upon our affections, exciting in us holy desires after God\nand Christ, and a very high esteem and value for divine truth, and\nremoves all those prejudices which are in our minds against it, opens\nand enlarges our hearts to receive the word, and comply with all the\ncommands thereof, thus, Acts xvi. 14. _The Lord opened the heart of\nLydia, that she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul._ So\nDavid prays, Psal. cxix. 18. compared with v. 5. _Open thou mine eyes,\nthat I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. O that my ways were\ndirected to keep thy statutes!_\nFootnote 9:\n  \u201cAs for _our own existence_, we perceive it so plainly, and so\n  certainly, that it neither needs, nor is capable of any proof. For\n  nothing can be more evident to us than our own existence; _I think, I\n  reason, I feel pleasure and pain_: can any of these be more evident to\n  me, than my own existence? If I doubt of all other things, that very\n  doubt makes me perceive my own _existence_, and will not suffer me to\n  doubt of that. For if I know _I feel pain_, it is evident I have as\n  certain perception of my own existence, as of the existence of the\n  pain I feel: or, if I know _I doubt_, I have as certain perception of\n  the existence of the thing doubting, as of that thought which I call\n  _doubt_. Experience then convinces us, that _we have an intuitive\n  knowledge of our own existence_, and an internal infallible perception\n  that we are. In every act of sensation, reasoning or thinking, we are\n  conscious to ourselves of our own being, and, in this matter, come not\n  short of the highest degree of _certainty_.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n  \u201cIn the next place, man knows by an intuitive certainty, that bare\n  _nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to\n  two right angles_. If a man knows not that non-entity, or the absence\n  of all being, cannot be equal to two right angles, it is impossible he\n  should know any demonstration in Euclid. If, therefore, we know there\n  is some real being, and that non-entity cannot produce any real being,\n  it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been\n  something; since what was not from eternity, had a beginning, and what\n  had a beginning, must be produced by something else.\n  \u201cNext, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from\n  another, must also have all that which is in, and belongs to its being\n  from another too. All the powers it has must be owing to, and received\n  from the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being, must\n  also be the source and original of all power; and so _this eternal\n  Being must be also the most powerful_.\n  \u201cAgain, a man finds in himself _perception_ and _knowledge_. We have\n  then got one step farther; and we are certain now, that there is not\n  only some being, but some knowing intelligent being in the world.\n  \u201cThere was a time, then, when there was no knowing being, and when\n  knowledge began to be; or else there has been also _a knowing being\n  from eternity_. If it be said, there was a time when no being had any\n  knowledge, when that eternal Being was void of all understanding: I\n  reply, that then it was impossible there should ever have been any\n  knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of\n  knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should\n  produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should\n  make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as\n  repugnant to the _idea_ of senseless matter, that it should put into\n  itself sense, perception and knowledge, as it is repugnant to the\n  _idea_ of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater angles\n  than two right ones.\n  \u201cThus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly\n  find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of\n  this certain and evident truth, that _there is an eternal, most\n  powerful, and most knowing being_; which whether any one will please\n  to call _God_, it matters not. The thing is evident, and from this\n  _idea_ duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other\n  attributes, which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. If,\n  nevertheless, any one should be found so senselessly arrogant, as to\n  suppose man alone knowing and wise, but yet the product of mere\n  ignorance and chance; and that all the rest of the universe acted only\n  by that blind hap-hazard: I shall leave with him that very rational\n  and emphatical rebuke of _Tully, l. 2. de leg._ to be considered at\n  his leisure.\n  \u201cWhat can be more sillily arrogant and misbecoming than for a man to\n  think that he has a mind and understanding in him, but yet in all the\n  universe beside there is no such thing? Or that those things, which\n  with the utmost stretch of his reason he can scarce comprehend, should\n  be moved and managed without any reason at all?\u201d _Quid est enim\n  verius, quam neminem esse oportere tam stulte arrogantem, ut in se\n  mentem et rationem putet inesse, in c\u0153lo mundoque non putet? Aut ea\n  qu\u00e6 vix summa ingenii ratione comprehendat, nulla ratione moveri\n  putet?_\n  \u201cFrom what has been said, it is plain to me, we have a more certain\n  knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have\n  not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say, that we\n  more certainly know that there is a God than that there is any thing\n  else without us. When I say we _know_, I mean there is such a\n  knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply\n  our minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries.\u201d\n  LOCKE.\nFootnote 10:\n  \u201cIn crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a _stone_, and\n  were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer,\n  that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for\n  ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to shew the absurdity of\n  this answer. But suppose I had found a _watch_ upon the ground, and it\n  should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I\n  should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for\n  any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet, why\n  should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone?\n  Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For\n  this reason, and for no other, _viz._ that, when we come to inspect\n  the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that\n  its several parts are framed, and put together for a purpose, _e. g._\n  that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that\n  motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the\n  several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a\n  different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner,\n  or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no\n  motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which\n  would have answered the use, that is now served by it. To reckon up a\n  few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending\n  to one result: We see a cylindrical box, containing a coiled elastic\n  spring, which, by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box.\n  We next observe a flexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of\n  flexure) communicating the action of the spring from the box to the\n  fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in,\n  and apply to, each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the\n  balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by\n  the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion, as to\n  terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression,\n  to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the\n  wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs\n  of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the\n  watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of\n  the work, but, in the room of which, if there had been any other than\n  a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening\n  the case. This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an\n  examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of\n  the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have\n  said, observed and understood,) the inference, we think, is\n  inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have\n  existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer, or\n  artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to\n  answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.\n  \u201cI. Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion that we had never\n  seen a watch made; that we had never known an artist capable of making\n  one; that we were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of\n  workmanship ourselves, or of understanding in what manner it was\n  performed: all this being no more than what is true of some exquisite\n  remains of some ancient art, of some lost arts, and, to the generality\n  of mankind, of the more curious productions of modern manufacture.\n  Does one man in a million know how oval frames are turned? Ignorance\n  of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown artist\u2019s\n  skill, if he be unseen and unknown, but raises no doubts in our minds\n  of the existence and agency of such an artist, at some former time,\n  and in some place or other. Nor can I perceive that it varies at all,\n  the inference, whether the question arise concerning a human agent, or\n  concerning an agent of a different species, or an agent possessing, in\n  some respects, a different nature.\n  \u201cII. Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the\n  watch sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The\n  purpose of the machinery, the design, and the designer, might be\n  evident, and in the case supposed would be evident, in whatever way we\n  accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could\n  account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine be perfect,\n  in order to shew with what design it was made: still less necessary,\n  where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at\n  all.\n  \u201cIII. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument,\n  if there were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not\n  discover, or had not yet discovered, in what manner they conduced to\n  the general effect; or even some parts, concerning which we could not\n  ascertain, whether they conduced to that effect in any manner\n  whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case; if, by the loss, or\n  disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the movement of the watch\n  were found in fact to be stopped, or disturbed or retarded, no doubt\n  would remain in our minds as to the utility or intention of these\n  parts, although we should be unable to investigate the manner\n  according to which, or the connection by which, the ultimate effect\n  depended upon their action or assistance: and the more complex is the\n  machine, the more likely is this obscurity to arise. Then, as to the\n  second thing supposed, namely, that there were parts which might be\n  spared without prejudice to the movement of the watch, and that we had\n  proved this by experiment; these superfluous parts, even if we were\n  completely assured that they were such, would not vacate the reasoning\n  which we had instituted concerning other parts. The indication of\n  contrivance remained, with respect to them, nearly as it was before.\n  \u201cIV. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of\n  the watch, with its various machinery, accounted for, by being told\n  that it was one out of possible combinations of material forms; that\n  whatever he had found in the place where he found the watch, must have\n  contained some internal configuration or other; and that this\n  configuration might be the structure now exhibited, _viz._ of the\n  works of a watch, as well as of a different structure.\n  \u201cV. Nor, fifthly, would it yield his enquiry more satisfaction to be\n  answered, that there existed in things a principle of order, which had\n  disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation.\n  He never knew a watch made by the principle of order; nor can he even\n  form to himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order,\n  distinct from the intelligence of the watch-maker.\n  \u201cVI. Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear, that the mechanism of the\n  watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to\n  think so.\n  \u201cVII. And not less surprised to be informed, that the watch in his\n  hand was nothing more than the result of the laws of _metallic_\n  nature. It is a perversion of language to assign any law, as the\n  efficient, operative, cause of any thing. A law presupposes an agent;\n  for it is only the mode, according to which an agent proceeds: it\n  implies a power; for it is the order, according to which that power\n  acts. Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct\n  from itself, the law does nothing; is nothing. The expression, \u2018the\n  law of metallic nature,\u2019 may sound strange and harsh to a philosophic\n  ear; but it seems quite as justifiable as some others which are more\n  familiar to him, such as \u2018the law of vegetable nature,\u2019 \u2018the law of\n  animal nature,\u2019 or indeed as \u2018the law of nature\u2019, in general, when\n  assigned as the cause of ph\u00e6nomena, in exclusion of agency and power;\n  or when it is substituted into the place of these.\n  \u201cVIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his\n  conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he\n  knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his\n  argument. He knows the utility of the end: he knows the subserviency\n  and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his\n  ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect\n  not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing\n  little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n  \u201cSuppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch,\n  should, after some time, discover, that, in addition to all the\n  properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the\n  unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement,\n  another watch like itself; (the thing is conceivable;) that it\n  contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for\n  instance, or a complex adjustment of laths, files, and other tools,\n  evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us enquire,\n  what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion!\n  \u201cI. The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the\n  contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the\n  contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the\n  distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible,\n  mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in this new\n  observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had\n  already done; for referring the construction of the watch to design,\n  and to supreme art. If that construction _without_ this property, or,\n  which is the same thing, before this property had been noticed, proved\n  intention and art to have been employed about it; still more strong\n  would the proof appear, when he came to the knowledge of this further\n  property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.\n  \u201cII. He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, _in some\n  sense_, the maker of the watch, which was fabricated in the course of\n  its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that, in\n  which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair; the author\n  of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their\n  use. With respect to these, the first watch was no cause at all to the\n  second: in no such sense as this was it the author of the constitution\n  and order, either of the parts which the new watch contained, or of\n  the parts by the aid and instrumentality of which it was produced. We\n  might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a\n  stream of water ground corn: but no latitude of expression would allow\n  us to say, no stretch of conjecture could lead us to think, that the\n  stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to\n  know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair,\n  is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an\n  unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged\n  independently of it, and arranged by intelligence, an effect is\n  produced, _viz._ the corn is ground. But the effect results from the\n  arrangement. The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or\n  author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and\n  plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary, for any\n  share which the water has in grinding the corn: yet is this share the\n  same, as that which the watch would have contributed to the production\n  of the new watch, upon the supposition assumed in the last section.\n  Therefore,\n  \u201cIII. Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch\n  which our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an\n  artificer, yet doth not this alteration in any wise affect the\n  inference that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned\n  in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks\n  of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they\n  were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different\n  properties. We may ask for the cause of the colour of a body, of its\n  hardness, of its heat; and these causes may be all different. We are\n  now asking for the cause of that subserviency to an use, that relation\n  to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is\n  given to this question by telling us that a preceding watch produced\n  it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a\n  contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing\n  capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without\n  that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and\n  executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever\n  having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it.\n  Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end,\n  relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence\n  and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe, that the\n  insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued,\n  was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it; could\n  be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts,\n  assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual\n  dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that\n  also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these\n  properties therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before.\n  \u201cIV. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty further back,\n  _i. e._ by supposing the watch before us to have been produced by\n  another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going\n  back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of\n  satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for.\n  We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by\n  this supposition, nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were\n  diminished the further we went back, by going back indefinitely we\n  might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of\n  reasoning applies. Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the\n  number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, _there_, by\n  supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may\n  conceive the limit to be attained: but where there is no such tendency\n  or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series. There is\n  no difference as to the point in question, (whatever there may be as\n  to many points) between one series and another; between a series which\n  is finite, and a series which is infinite. A chain composed of an\n  infinite number of links, can no more support itself, than a chain\n  composed of a finite number of links. And of this we are assured,\n  (though we never _can_ have tried the experiment) because, by\n  increasing the number of links, from ten for instance to a hundred,\n  from a hundred to a thousand, &c. we make not the smallest approach,\n  we observe not the smallest tendency, towards self-support. There is\n  no difference in this respect (yet there may be a great difference in\n  several respects) between a chain of a greater or less length, between\n  one chain and another, between one that is finite and one that is\n  indefinite. This very much resembles the case before us. The machine,\n  which we are inspecting, demonstrates, by its construction,\n  contrivance and design. Contrivance must have had a contriver; design,\n  a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded from another\n  machine, or not. That circumstance alters not the case. That other\n  machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor\n  does that alter the case: contrivance must have had a contriver. That\n  former one from one preceding it: no alteration still: a contriver is\n  still necessary. No tendency is perceived, no approach towards a\n  diminution of this necessity. It is the same with any and every\n  succession of these machines; a succession of ten, of a hundred, of a\n  thousand; with one series as with another; a series which is finite,\n  as with a series which is infinite. In whatever other respects they\n  may differ, in this they do not. In all equally, contrivance and\n  design are unaccounted for.\n  \u201cThe question is not simply, How came the first watch into existence?\n  which question, it may be pretended, is done away by supposing the\n  series of watches thus produced from one another to have been\n  infinite, and consequently to have had no such _first_, for which it\n  was necessary to provide a cause. This, perhaps, would have been\n  nearly the state of the question, if nothing had been before us but an\n  unorganized unmechanised substance, without mark or indication of\n  contrivance. It might be difficult to shew that such substance could\n  not have existed from eternity, either in succession (if it were\n  possible, which I think it is not, for unorganized bodies to spring\n  from one another,) or by individual perpetuity. But that is not the\n  question now. To suppose it to be so, is to suppose that it made no\n  difference whether we had found a watch or a stone. As it is, the\n  metaphysics of that question have no place; for, in the watch which we\n  are examining, are seen contrivance, design; an end, a purpose; means\n  for the end, adaptation to the purpose. And the question, which\n  irresistibly presses upon our thoughts, is, whence this contrivance\n  and design? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapting\n  hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question,\n  this demand, is not shaken off, by increasing a number or succession\n  of substances, destitute of these properties; nor the more, by\n  increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that, upon the\n  supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of\n  that other\u2019s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we\n  have a cause for the watch in my hand, _viz._ the watch from which it\n  proceeded, I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the\n  suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to an\n  use (all which we discover in the watch,) we have any cause whatever.\n  It is in vain, therefore to assign a series of such causes, or to\n  allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not\n  admit that we have yet any cause at all of the ph\u00e6nomena, still less\n  any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance,\n  but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer.\n  \u201cV. Our observer would further also reflect, that the maker of the\n  watch before him, was, in truth and reality, the maker of every watch\n  produced from it; there being no difference (except that the latter\n  manifests a more exquisite skill) between the making of another watch\n  with his own hands by the mediation of files, laths, chisels, &c. and\n  the disposing, fixing, and inserting, of these instruments, or of\n  others equivalent to them, in the body of the watch already made, in\n  such a manner, as to form a new watch in the course of the movements\n  which he had given to the old one. It is only working by one set of\n  tools, instead of another.\n  \u201cThe conclusion which the _first_ examination of the watch, of its\n  works, construction, and movement suggested, was, that it must have\n  had, for the cause and author of that construction, an artificer, who\n  understood its mechanism, and designed its use. This conclusion is\n  invincible. A _second_ examination presents us with a new discovery.\n  The watch is found in the course of its movement to produce another\n  watch similar to itself: and not only so, but we perceive in it a\n  system of organization, separately calculated for that purpose. What\n  effect would this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon our former\n  inference? What, as hath already been said, but to increase, beyond\n  measure, our admiration of the skill, which had been employed in the\n  formation of such a machine? Or shall it, instead of this, all at once\n  turn us round to an opposite conclusion, _viz._ that no art or skill\n  whatever has been concerned in the business, although all other\n  evidences of art and skill remain as they were, and this last and\n  supreme piece of art be now added to the rest? Can this be maintained\n  without absurdity? Yet this is atheism.\u201d\n  PALEY.\nFootnote 11:\n  \u201cThe works of nature want only to be contemplated. When contemplated,\n  they have every thing in them which can astonish by their greatness;\n  for, of the vast scale of operation, through which our discoveries\n  carry us, at one end we see an intelligent Power arranging planetary\n  systems, fixing, for instance, the trajectory of _Saturn_, or\n  constructing a ring of a hundred thousand miles diameter, to surround\n  his body, and be suspended like a magnificent arch over the heads of\n  his inhabitants; and, at the other, bending a hooked tooth, concerting\n  and providing an appropriate mechanism, for the clasping and\n  reclasping of the filaments of the feather of a humming-bird. We have\n  proof, not only of both these works proceeding from an intelligent\n  agent, but of their proceeding from the same agent: for, in the first\n  place, we can trace an identity of plan, a connexion of system, from\n  Saturn to our own globe; and when arrived upon our own globe, we can,\n  in the second place, pursue the connexion through all the organized,\n  especially the animated, bodies, which it supports. We can observe\n  marks of a common relation, as well to one another, as to the elements\n  of which their habitation is composed. Therefore one mind hath\n  planned, or at least hath prescribed a general plan for, all these\n  productions. One being has been concerned in all.\n  \u201cUnder this stupendous Being we live. Our happiness, our existence, is\n  in his hands. All we expect must come from him. Nor ought we to feel\n  our situation insecure. In every nature, and in every portion of\n  nature, which we can descry, we find attention bestowed upon even the\n  minutest parts. The hinges in the wings of an _earwig_, and the joints\n  of its antenn\u00e6, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had had\n  nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by\n  multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We\n  have no reason to fear therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked,\n  or neglected.\n  \u201cThe existence and character of the Deity, is, in every view, the most\n  interesting of all human speculations. In none, however, is it more\n  so, than as it facilitates the belief of the fundamental articles of\n  _Revelation_. It is a step to have it proved, that there must be\n  something in the world more than what we see. It is a further step to\n  know, that, amongst the invisible things of nature, there must be an\n  intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support.\n  These points being assured to us by Natural Theology, we may well\n  leave to Revelation the disclosure of many particulars, which our\n  researches cannot reach, respecting either the nature of this Being as\n  the original cause of all things, or his character and designs as a\n  moral governor; and not only so, but the more full confirmation of\n  other particulars, of which, though they do not lie altogether beyond\n  our reasonings and our probabilities, the certainty is by no means\n  equal to the importance. The true Theist will be the first to listen\n  to _any_ credible communication of divine knowledge. Nothing which he\n  has learnt from Natural Theology, will diminish his desire of further\n  instruction, or his disposition to receive it with humility and\n  thankfulness. He wishes for light: he rejoices in light. His inward\n  veneration of this great Being, will incline him to attend with the\n  utmost seriousness, not only to all that can be discovered concerning\n  him by researches into nature, but to all that is taught by a\n  revelation, which gives reasonable proof of having proceeded from him.\n  \u201cBut, above every other article of revealed religion, does the\n  anterior belief of a Deity, bear with the strongest force, upon that\n  grand point, which gives indeed interest and importance to all the\n  rest\u2014the resurrection of the human dead. The thing might appear\n  hopeless, did we not see a power under the guidance of an intelligent\n  will, and a power penetrating the inmost recesses of all substance. I\n  am far from justifying the opinion of those, who \u2018thought it a thing\n  incredible that God should raise the dead;\u2019 but I admit that it is\n  first necessary to be persuaded, that there _is_ a God to do so. This\n  being thoroughly settled in our minds, there seems to be nothing in\n  this process (concealed and mysterious as we confess it to be,) which\n  need to shock our belief. They who have taken up the opinion, that the\n  acts of the human mind depend upon _organization_, that the mind\n  itself indeed consists in organization, are supposed to find a greater\n  difficulty than others do, in admitting a transition by death to a new\n  state of sentient existence, because the old organization is\n  apparently dissolved. But I do not see that any impracticability need\n  be apprehended even by these; or that the change, even upon their\n  hypothesis, is far removed from the analogy of some other operations,\n  which we know with certainty that the deity is carrying on. In the\n  ordinary derivation of plants and animals from one another, a\n  particle, in many cases, minuter than all assignable, all conceivable\n  dimension; an aura, an effluvium, an infinitesimal; determines the\n  organization of a future body: does no less than fix, whether that\n  which is about to be produced, shall be a vegetable, a merely\n  sentient, or a rational being; an oak, a frog, or a philosopher; makes\n  all these differences; gives to the future body its qualities, and\n  nature, and species. And this particle, from which springs, and by\n  which is determined a whole future nature, itself proceeds from, and\n  owes its constitution to, a prior body: nevertheless, which is seen in\n  plants most decisively, the incepted organization, though formed\n  within, and through, and by a preceding organization, is not corrupted\n  by its corruption, or destroyed by its dissolution; but, on the\n  contrary, is sometimes extricated and developed by those very causes;\n  survives and comes into action, when the purpose, for which it was\n  prepared, requires its use.\u2014Now an \u0153conomy which nature has adopted,\n  when the purpose was to transfer an organization from one individual\n  to another, may have something analogous to it, when the purpose is to\n  transmit an organization from one state of being to another state: and\n  they who found thought in organization, may see something in this\n  analogy applicable to their difficulties; for, whatever can transmit a\n  similarity of organization will answer their purpose, because,\n  according even to their own theory, it may be the vehicle of\n  consciousness, and because consciousness, without doubt, carries\n  identity and individuality along with it through all changes of form\n  or of visible qualities. In the most general case, that, as we have\n  said, of the derivation of plants and animals from one another, the\n  latent organization is either itself similar to the old organization,\n  or has the power of communicating to new matter the old organic form.\n  But it is not restricted to this rule. There are other cases,\n  especially in the progress of insect life, in which the dormant\n  organization does not much resemble that which incloses it, and still\n  less suits with the situation in which the inclosing body is placed,\n  but suits with a different situation to which it is destined. In the\n  larva of the libellula, which lives constantly, and has still long to\n  live, under water, are descried the wings of a fly, which two years\n  afterwards is to mount into the air. Is there nothing in this analogy?\n  It serves at least to shew, that, even in the observable course of\n  nature, organizations are formed one beneath another; and, amongst a\n  thousand other instances, it shews completely, that the Deity can\n  mould and fashion the parts of material nature, so as to fulfil any\n  purpose whatever which he is pleased to appoint.\n  \u201cThey who refer the operations of mind to a substance totally and\n  essentially different from matter, as, most certainly, these\n  operations, though affected by material causes, hold very little\n  affinity to any properties of matter with which we are acquainted,\n  adopt, perhaps, a juster reasoning and a better philosophy; and by\n  these the considerations above suggested are not wanted, at least in\n  the same degree. But to such as find, which some persons do find, an\n  insuperable difficulty in shaking off an adherence to those analogies,\n  which the corporeal world is continually suggesting to their thoughts;\n  to such, I say, every consideration will be a relief, which manifests\n  the extent of that intelligent power which is acting in nature, the\n  fruitfulness of its resources, the variety, and aptness, and success\n  of its means; most especially every consideration, which tends to\n  shew, that, in the translation of a conscious existence, there is not,\n  even in their own way of regarding it, any thing greatly beyond, or\n  totally unlike, what takes place in such parts (probably small parts)\n  of the order of nature, as are accessible to our observation.\n  \u201cAgain; if there be those who think, that the contractedness and\n  debility of the human faculties in our present state, seem ill to\n  accord with the high destinies which the expectations of religion\n  point out to us, I would only ask them, whether any one, who saw a\n  child two hours after its birth, could suppose that it would ever come\n  to understand _fluxions_;[12] or who then shall say, what further\n  amplification of intellectual powers, what accession of knowledge,\n  what advance and improvement, the rational faculty, be its\n  constitution what it will, may not admit of, when placed amidst new\n  objects, and endowed with a sensorium, adapted, as it undoubtedly will\n  be, and as our present senses are, to the perception of those\n  substances, and of those properties of things, with which our concern\n  may lie.\n  \u201cUpon the whole; in every thing which respects this awful, but, as we\n  trust, glorious change, we have a wise and powerful Being, (the\n  author, in nature, of infinitely various expedients for infinitely\n  various ends,) upon whom to rely for the choice and appointment of\n  means, adequate to the execution of any plan which his goodness or his\n  justice may have formed, for the moral and accountable part of his\n  terrestrial creation. That great office rests with him: be it ours to\n  hope and prepare; under a firm and settled persuasion, that, living\n  and dying, we are his; that life is passed in his constant presence,\n  that death resigns us to his merciful disposal.\u201d\n  PALEY.\nFootnote 12:\n  See Search\u2019s Light of Nature, passim.\nFootnote 13:\n  The theory of a nervous fluid, or animal spirits, is generally\n  abandoned.\nFootnote 14:\n  See this doubtful doctrine discussed post Quest. 60.\n    QUEST. III. _What is the Word of God?_\n    ANSW. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word\n    of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.\nIn speaking to this answer, we shall consider the several names by which\nthe scripture is set forth with the import thereof, and more\nparticularly that by which it is most known; to wit, the Old and New\nTestament, and then speak of it as a rule of faith and obedience.\nI. There are several names given to the word of God, in Psalm cxix. one\nof which is found in almost every verse thereof.\nIt is sometimes called his law, statutes, precepts, commandments, or\nordinances,[15] to signify his authority and power to demand obedience\nof his creatures which he does therein, and shews us in what particular\ninstances, and how we are to yield obedience to it.\nIt is also called his judgments, implying that he is the great Judge of\nthe world, and that he will deal with men in a judicial way, according\nto their works, as agreeable or disagreeable to this law of his,\ncontained in his word; and, for this reason, it is also called his\nrighteousness, because all that he commands in his word is holy and\njust, and his service highly reasonable.\nIt is also called God\u2019s testimonies, as containing the witness,\nevidence, or record, that he has given to his own perfections, whereby\nhe has demonstrated them to the world. Thus we are said, 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n_To behold, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord._\nIt is also called his way, as containing a declaration of the glorious\nworks that he has done, both of nature and grace; the various methods of\nhis dealing with men, or the way that they should walk in, which leads\nto eternal life.\nMoreover, it is called, Rom. iii. 2. _The oracles of God_, to denote\nthat many things contained in it could not have been known by us till he\nwas pleased to reveal them therein. Agreeably hereto, the apostle speaks\nof the great things contained in the gospel, as being hid in God; hid\nfrom ages and generations past, but now made manifest to the saints,\nEph. iii. 9, Col. i. 26.\nAgain it is sometimes called the gospel, especially those parts of\nscripture which contain the glad tidings of salvation by Christ, or the\nmethod which God ordained for the taking away the guilt, and subduing\nthe power of sin; and particularly the apostle calls it, _The glorious\ngospel of the blessed God_; 1 Tim. i. 11. and _the gospel of our\nsalvation_. Eph. i. 13.\nAnd, in this answer, it is called the Old and New Testament; that part\nof it which was written before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, which contains\na relation of God\u2019s dealings with his church, from the beginning of the\nworld to that time, or a prediction of what should be fulfilled in\nfollowing ages, is called the Old Testament. The other which contains an\naccount of God\u2019s dispensation of grace, from Christ\u2019s first to his\nsecond coming is called the New.\nA testament is the declared or written will of a person, in which some\nthings are given to those who are concerned or described therein. Thus\nthe scripture is God\u2019s written will or testament, containing an account\nof what he has freely given in his covenant of grace to fallen man; and\nthis is the principal subject matter of scripture, as a testament;\ntherefore it contains an account,\n1. Of many valuable legacies given to the heirs of salvation; the\nblessings of both worlds, all the privileges contained in those great\nand precious promises, with which the scripture so abounds. Thus it is\nsaid, _Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to\nglory_; Psal. lxiii. 24. and _the Lord will give grace and glory_, Psal.\nlxxxiv. 11.\n2. It describes the testator Christ, who gives eternal life to his\npeople, and confirms all the promises which are made in him; as they are\nsaid, 2 Cor. i. 20. _To be in him yea and amen, to the glory of God_;\nand more especially he ratified this testament by his death as the same\napostle observes, which is a known maxim of the civil law, that _where a\ntestament is, there must of necessity be the death of the testator_,[16]\nHeb. ix. 16, 17. upon which the force or validity thereof depends. And\nthe word of God gives us a large account how all the blessings, which\nGod bestowed upon his people, receive their validity from the death of\nChrist.\n3. It also discovers to us who are the heirs, or legatees, to whom these\nblessings are given, who are described therein, as repenting, believing,\nreturning sinners, who may lay claim to the blessings of the covenant of\ngrace.\n4. It has several seals annexed to it, _viz._ the sacraments under the\nOld and New Testament, of which we have a particular account in\nscripture.\nThis leads us to consider how the scripture is otherwise divided or\ndistinguished.\n(1.) As to the Old Testament, it is sometimes distinguished or divided\ninto _Moses and the prophets_, Luke xvi. 29. or _Moses, the prophets,\nand the psalms_, Luke xxiv. 44. And it may be considered also as\ncontaining historical and prophetic writings, and others that are more\nespecially doctrinal or poetical; and the prophets may be considered as\nto the time when they wrote, some before and others after the captivity.\nThey may also be distinguished as to the subject matter of them: some\ncontain a very clear and particular account of the person and kingdom of\nChrist, _e. g._ Isaiah who is, for this reason, by some, called the\nevangelical prophet. Others contain reproofs, and denounce and lament\napproaching judgments, as the prophet Jeremiah. Others encourage the\nbuilding of the temple, the setting up the worship of God, and the\nreformation of the people upon their return from captivity: thus\nZechariah and Haggai. As for the historical parts of scripture, these\neither contain an account of God\u2019s dealings with his people before the\ncaptivity; as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, &c. or after it, as Ezra\nand Nehemiah.\n(2.) The books of the New Testament maybe thus divided. Some of them are\nhistorical, _viz._ such as contain the life and death of our Saviour, as\nthe four gospels, or the ministry of the apostles, and the first\nplanting and spreading of the gospel, as the Acts of the Apostles.\nOthers are more especially doctrinal, and are wrote in the form of an\nepistle by the apostle Paul, and some other of the apostles.\nOne book is prophetical, as the Revelations, wherein is foretold the\ndifferent state and condition of the church, the persecutions it should\nmeet with from its Anti-christian enemies, its final victory over them,\nand its triumphs, as reigning with Christ in his kingdom.\nThis leads us to consider, when God first revealed his will to man in\nscripture, and how this revelation was gradually enlarged, and\ntransmitted down to the church in succeeding ages. There was no written\nword, from the beginning of the world, till Moses\u2019s time, which was\nbetween two and three thousand years; and it was almost a thousand years\nlonger before the canon of the Old Testament was completed by Malachi\nthe last prophet, and some hundred years after that before the canon of\nthe New Testament was given; so that God revealed his will, as the\napostle says, in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews, at _sundry\ntimes_, as well as in _divers manners_, and by divers inspired writers.\nNotwithstanding the church, before it had a written word, was not\ndestitute of a rule of faith and obedience, neither were they\nunacquainted with the way of salvation; for to suppose this, would be\ngreatly to detract from the glory of the divine government, and reflect\non God\u2019s goodness; therefore he took other ways to supply the want of a\nwritten word, and hereby shewed his sovereignty, in that he can make\nknown his will what way he pleases, and his wisdom and goodness, in\ngiving his written word at such a time when the necessities of men most\nrequired it. This will appear, if we consider,\n1. That when there was no written word, the Son of God frequently\ncondescended to appear himself, and converse with man, and so revealed\nhis mind and will to him.\n2. There was the ministry of angels subservient to this end, in which\nrespect the word was often spoken by angels, sent to instruct men in the\nmind and will of God.\n3. The church had among them all this while, more or less, the spirit of\nprophecy, whereby many were instructed in the mind of God; and though\nthey were not commanded to commit what they received by inspiration to\nwriting, yet they were hereby furnished to instruct others in the way of\nsalvation. Thus Enoch is said to have prophesied in his day; Jude ver.\n14, 15. and Noah is called, _a preacher of righteousness_, 2 Pet. ii. 5.\nHeb. xi. 7.\n4. Great part of this time the lives of men were very long, (_viz._)\neight or nine hundred years, and so the same persons might transmit the\nword of God by their own living testimony.\n5. Afterwards in the latter part of this interval of time, when there\nwas no written word, the world apostatised from God, and almost all\nflesh corrupted their way; not for want of a sufficient rule of\nobedience, but through the perverseness and depravity of their nature;\nand afterwards the world was almost wholly sunk into idolatry, and so\nwere judicially excluded from God\u2019s special care; and since Abraham\u2019s\nfamily was the only church that remained in the world, God continued to\ncommunicate to them the knowledge of his will in those extraordinary\nways, as he had done to the faithful in former ages.\n6. When man\u2019s life was shortened, and reduced to the same standard, as\nnow it is, of threescore and ten years, and the church was very\nnumerous, increased to a great nation, and God had promised that he\nwould increase them yet more, then they stood in greater need of a\nwritten word to prevent the inconveniences that might have arisen from\ntheir continuing any longer without one, and God thought fit, as a great\ninstance of favour to man, to command Moses to write his law, as a\nstanding rule of faith and obedience to his church.\nThis leads us to consider a very important question, _viz._ whether the\nchurch, under the Old Testament dispensation, understood this written\nword, or the spiritual meaning of those laws that are contained therein?\nSome, indeed, have thought that the state of the church, before Christ\ncame in the flesh, was attended with so much darkness, that they did not\nknow the way of salvation, though they had, in whole or in part, the\nscriptures of the Old Testament. The Papists generally assert, that they\ndid not; and therefore they fancy, that all who lived before Christ\u2019s\ntime, were shut up in a prison, where they remained till he went from\nthe cross to reveal himself to them, and so, as their leader, to conduct\nthem in triumph to heaven. And some Protestants think the state of all\nwho lived in those times, to have been attended with so much darkness,\nthat they knew but little of Christ and his gospel, though shadowed\nforth, or typified by the ceremonial law; which they found on suchlike\nplaces of scripture as that, where Moses is said to have _put a vail\nover his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to\nthe end of that which is abolished; and that this vail is done away in\nChrist_, 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. and those scriptures that speak of the\nJewish dispensation, as _a night of darkness_, compared with that of the\ngospel, which is represented as _a perfect day_, or the _rising of the\nsun_, Isa. xxi. 11. Cant. ii. 17. Malachi iv. 2. And as these extend the\ndarkness of that dispensation farther than, as I humbly conceive, they\nought to do, so they speak more of the wrath, bondage, and terror that\nattend it, than they have ground to do, especially when they make it\nuniversal; since there are several reasons, which may induce us to\nbelieve that the church, at that time, understood a great deal more of\nthe gospel, shadowed forth in the ceremonial law, and had more communion\nwith God, and less wrath, terror, or bondage, than these suppose they\nhad; for which I would offer the following reasons,\n1. Some of the Old Testament saints have expressed a great degree of\nfaith in Christ, and love to him, whom they expected to come in our\nnature; and many of the prophets, in their inspired writings, have\ndiscovered that they were not strangers to the way of redemption and\nreconciliation to God by him, as the Lord our righteousness. A multitude\nof scriptures might be cited, that speak of Christ, and salvation by him\nin the Old Testament, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. Zech. xiii. 7. Psal. xxxiii. 1,\n2. compared with Rom. iv. 6. Thus Abraham is described, as _rejoicing to\nsee his day_, John viii. 56. and the prophet Isaiah is so very\nparticular and express in the account he gives of his person and\noffices, that I cannot see how any one can reasonably conclude him to\nhave been wholly a stranger to the gospel himself, Isa. xxii. 25. ch.\nlii. 13, 14, 15. Can any one think this, who reads his 53d chapter,\nwhere he treats of his life, death, sufferings, and offices, and of the\nway of salvation by him?\n_Object._ It is objected hereunto that the prophets who delivered these\nevangelical truths, understood but little of them themselves, because of\nthe darkness of the dispensation they were under. Thus it is said, 1\nPet. i. 10, 11, 12. that _the prophets_, indeed, _searched_ into the\nmeaning of their own predictions, but to no purpose; for _it was\nrevealed to them, that not unto themselves, but unto us, they\nministered_; that is, the account they gave of our Saviour was not\ndesigned to be understood by them, but us in this present\ngospel-dispensation.\n_Answ._ The answer that may be given to this objection is, that though\nthe prophets are represented as enquiring into the meaning of their own\nprophecies, yet it doth not follow from thence that they had but little\nor no understanding of them: all that can be gathered from it is, that\nthey studied them, as their own salvation was concerned therein; but we\nmust not suppose that they did this to no purpose, as what they were not\nable to understand; and when it is farther said in this scripture, that\n_not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things that are\nnow reported_; the meaning is, not that they did not understand those\nthings, or had not much concern in them, but that the glory of the\ngospel state, that was foretold in their prophecies, was what we should\nbehold with our eyes, and not they themselves, in which sense they are\nsaid _not to minister to themselves, but to us_; so that this objection\nhath no force in it to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; we\ntherefore proceed to consider,\n2. That it is certain, that the whole ceremonial law had a spiritual\nmeaning annexed to it; for it is said, _That the law was a shadow of\ngood things to come_, Heb. x. 1. and that all those things _happened to\nthem for ensamples_, [or types] _and they are written for our\nadmonition_, 1 Cor. x. 11.\n3. It is unreasonable to suppose that the spiritual meaning of the\nceremonial law should not be known by those to whom it was principally\ngiven; or that the gospel, wrapt up therein, should not be seen through\nthis shadow till the dispensation was abolished, the ceremonial law\nabrogated, and the nation cast off to whom it was given.\n4. If the knowledge of the gospel, or faith in Christ, which is founded\nupon it, be necessary for our salvation, it was necessary for the\nsalvation of those who lived in former ages; for it was as much a truth\nthen as it is now, that there is salvation in no other; therefore the\nchurch of old were obliged to believe in him to come, as much as we are\nto believe in him as already come; but it is inconsistent with the\ndivine goodness to require this knowledge, and not to give them any\nexpedient to attain it; therefore we must either suppose this knowledge\nattainable by them, and consequently that he was revealed to them, or\nelse they must be excluded from a possibility of salvation, when, at the\nsame time, they were obliged to believe in Christ, which they could not\ndo, because they did not understand the meaning of that law, which was\nthe only means of revealing him to them; or if Christ was revealed in\nthe ceremonial law, and they had no way to understand it, it is all one\nas though he had not been revealed therein.\n5. They had sufficient helps for the understanding the spiritual meaning\nthereof, _viz._ not only some hints of explication, given in the Old\nTestament, but, besides these, there was,\n(1.) Extraordinary revelation and inspiration, with which the Jewish\nchurch more or less, was favoured, almost throughout all the ages\nthereof; and hereby it is more than probable that, together with the\ncanon of the Old Testament, they received the spiritual sense and\nmeaning of those things which were contained therein.\n(2.) There was one whole tribe, _viz._ that of Levi, that was almost\nwholly employed in studying and explaining the law of God; therefore it\nis said, _They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law_,\nDeut. xxxiii. 10. and that _the priest\u2019s lips should keep knowledge, and\nthey should seek the law at his mouth_; Mal. ii. 7. that is, the priests\nshould, by all proper methods, understand the meaning of the law, that\nthey might be able to teach the people, when coming to be instructed by\nthem.\n(3.) There were among them several schools of the prophets (in some ages\nat least of the Jewish church) in which some had extraordinary\nrevelations; and they that had them not, made the scriptures their\nstudy, that they might be able to instruct others; so that, from all\nthis, it appears that they had a great deal of knowledge of divine\ntruths, and the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament; though yet we\nwill not deny that the gospel dispensation hath a clearer light, and\nexcels in glory.[17]\nWe shall now proceed to consider, how far the Old Testament is a rule of\nfaith and obedience to us, though that dispensation be abolished; for we\nare not to reckon it an useless part of scripture, or that it does not\nat all concern us. Since,\n(1.) The greatest part of the doctrines contained therein are of\nperpetual obligation to the church, in all the dispensations or changes\nthereof.\n(2.) As for the ceremonial law, which is abolished, with some other\nforensick, or political laws, by which the Jews, in particular, were\ngoverned, these, indeed, are not so far a rule of obedience to us, as\nthat we should think ourselves obliged to observe them, as the Jews were\nof old: notwithstanding,\n(3.) Even these are of use to us, as herein we see what was then the\nrule of faith and obedience to the church, and how far it agrees as to\nthe substance thereof, or things signified thereby, with the present\ndispensation; so that it is of use to us, as herein we see the wisdom,\nsovereignty, and grace of God to his church in former ages, and how what\nwas then typified or prophesied, is fulfilled to us. Thus it is said,\nthat _whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our\nlearning, that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures might\nhave hope_, Rom. xv. 4.\nThe scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation of the\nwhole mind and will of God, and therefore are very justly styled a\nperfect rule of faith and obedience. Nevertheless,\nWe do not hereby intend that they contain an account of every thing that\nGod hath done, or will do, in his works of providence and grace, from\nthe beginning to the end of time; for such a large knowledge of things\nis not necessary for us to attain. Thus it is said, John xx. 30. that\nChrist did many _other signs_, that are not written in the gospel; but\nthose things that are contained therein, are _written that we might\nbelieve_; therefore we have a sufficient account thereof to support our\nfaith; and that _there were many other things which Jesus did, which, if\nthey should be written every one, the world would not contain the books\nthat should be written_, John xxi. 25.[18]\nNor do we understand hereby, that God has given us an account of all his\nsecret counsels and purposes relating to the event of things, or the\nfinal estate of particular persons, abstracted from those marks on which\nour hope of salvation is founded, or their outward condition, or the\ngood or bad success that shall attend their undertakings in the world,\nor the time of their living therein: these, and many more events of the\nlike nature, are secrets which we are not to enquire into, God having\nnot thought fit to reveal them in his word, for wise ends best known to\nhimself, which shews his sovereignty, with respect to the matter of\nrevelation; _Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those\nthings which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children_, Deut.\nxxix. 29. When Peter was over-curious in enquiring concerning the future\nestate or condition of John, our Saviour gives him this tacit reproof,\n_What is that to thee?_ John xxi. 21, 22.\nNor are we to suppose that the divine perfections, which are infinite,\nare fully and adequately revealed to man, since it is impossible that\nthey should, from the nature of the thing; for that which is in itself\nincomprehensible, cannot be so revealed that we should be able fully to\ncomprehend it, though that which is possible, or at least necessary, to\nbe known of God, is clearly revealed to us.\nAgain, we do not suppose that every doctrine, that is to be assented to\nas an article of faith, is revealed in express words in scripture, since\nmany truths are to be deduced from it by just and necessary\nconsequences, which thereby become a rule of faith.\nNor are we to suppose that every part of scripture fully and clearly\ndiscovers all those things which are contained in the whole of it, since\nthere was farther light given to the church, by degrees, in succeeding\nages, as it grew up, from its infant-state, to a state of perfect\nmanhood; therefore there is a clearer and fuller revelation of the\nglorious mysteries of the gospel, under the New Testament-dispensation,\nthan there was before it. The apostle uses the same metaphorical way of\nspeaking, when he compares the state of the church, under the ceremonial\nlaw, to that of an heir under age, or of children under the direction of\ntutors and governors, whose instruction and advances in knowledge are\nproportioned to their age; so God revealed his word at _sundry times_,\nas well as in _divers manners_, Gal. iv. 1, 3. Heb. i. 1.\nThe word of God, accompanied with those additional helps before\nmentioned, for the churches understanding the sense thereof, was always,\nindeed, sufficient to lead men into the knowledge of divine truth; but\nthe canon being compleated, it is so now in an eminent degree; and it is\nagreeable to the divine perfections that such a rule should be given;\nfor since salvation could not be attained, nor God glorified, without a\ndiscovery of those means, which are conducive thereto, it is not\nconsistent with his wisdom and goodness that we should be left at the\nutmost uncertainty as to this matter, and, at the same time, rendered\nincapable of the highest privileges which attend instituted worship. Can\nwe suppose that, when all other things necessary to salvation are\nadjusted, and many insuperable difficulties surmounted, and an\ninvitation given to come and partake of it, that God should lay such a\nbar in our way, that it should be impossible for us to attain it, as\nbeing without a sufficient rule?\nAnd since none but God can give us such an one, it is inconsistent with\nhis sovereignty to leave it to men, to prescribe what is acceptable in\nhis sight. They may, indeed, give laws, and thereby oblige their\nsubjects to obedience; but these must be such as are within their own\nsphere; their power does not extend itself to religious matters, so that\nour faith and duty to God should depend upon their will; for this would\nbe a bold presumption, and extending their authority and influence\nbeyond due bounds; therefore since a rule of faith is necessary, we must\nconclude that God has given us such an one; and it must certainly be\nworthy of himself, and therefore perfect, and every way sufficient to\nanswer the end thereof.\nThat it is so, farther appears from the event, or from the happy\nconsequences of our obedience to it; from that peace, joy, and holiness,\nwhich believers are made partakers of, while steadfastly adhering to\nthis rule: thus it is said, that _through comfort of the scriptures they\nhave hope_, Rom. xv. 4. and that hereby _the man of God is made wise to\nsalvation, and perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works_, 2\nTim. iii. 15, 17. The perfection of the law is demonstrated, by the\nPsalmist, by its effects, in that it _converts the soul, makes wise the\nsimple, rejoices the heart, enlightens the eyes_, Psal. xix. 7, 8.\nWe might farther argue, that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith,\nfrom those threatnings which are denounced against them, who pretend to\nadd to, or take from it; this was strictly forbidden, even when there\nwas but a part of scripture committed to writing. Thus says God; _Ye\nshall not add to the word which I command you; neither shall ye diminish\nought from it_, Deut. iv. 2. And the apostle denounces an anathema\nagainst any one who should pretend to preach any other gospel, than that\nwhich he had received from God, Gal. i. 8, 9. And, in the close of the\nscripture, our Saviour testifies, to every man, that _if any should add\nto these things, God would add to him the plagues written in this book.\nAnd if any should take away from this book, God would take away his part\nout of the book of life_, Rev. xxii. 18, 19.\nThus having considered the scripture as a rule of faith, we proceed to\nshew what are the properties which belong to it as such.\n1. A rule, when it is designed for general use, must have the sanction\nof public authority: thus human laws, by which a nation is to be\ngoverned, which are a rule to determine the goodness or badness of men\u2019s\nactions, and their desert of rewards or punishments accordingly, must be\nestablished by public authority. Even so the scripture is a rule of\nfaith, as it contains the divine laws, by which the actions of men are\nto be tried, together with the ground which some have to expect future\nblessedness, and others to fear punishments threatened to those who walk\nnot according to this rule.\n2. A rule by which we are to judge of the nature, truth, excellency,\nperfection, or imperfection of any thing, must be infallible, or else it\nis of no use; and, as such, nothing must be added to, or taken from it,\nfor then it would cease to be a perfect rule: thus it must be a certain\nand impartial standard, by which things are to be tried: Such a rule as\nthis is scripture, as was but now observed. And it is an impartial rule,\nto which, as a standard, all truth and goodness is to be reduced and\nmeasured by it; _To the law, and to the testimony; if they speak not\naccording to this word, it is because there is no light in them_, Isa.\nviii. 20.\n3. All appeals are to be made to a rule, and controversies to be tried\nand determined by it. Thus the scripture, as it is a rule of faith, is a\njudge of controversies; so that whatever different sentiments men have\nabout religion, all must be reduced to, and the warrantableness thereof\ntried hereby, and a stop put to growing errors by an appeal to this\nrule, rather than to coercive power, or the carnal weapons of violence\nand persecution.\nMoreover, the judgment we pass on ourselves, as being sincere or\nhypocrites, accepted or rejected of God, is to be formed by comparing\nour conduct with scripture, as the rule by which we are to try the\ngoodness or badness of our state, and of our actions.\n4. A rule must have nothing of a different nature set up in competition\nwith, or opposition to it; for that would be to render it useless, and\nunfit to be the standard of truth: thus scripture is the only rule of\nfaith, and therefore no human traditions are to be set up as standards\nof faith in competition with it, for that would be to suppose it not to\nbe a perfect rule. This the Papists do, and therefore may be charged, as\nthe Pharisees were of old by our Saviour, with _transgressing and making\nthe commandment of none effect by their tradition_, Mat. xv. 3, 6.\nconcerning whom he also says, that _in vain they worship him, teaching\nfor doctrines the commandments of men_, ver. 9. What is this but to\nreflect on the wisdom, and affront the authority and sovereignty of God,\nby casting this contempt on that rule of faith which he hath given?\nHaving considered scripture as a rule of faith and obedience, it is\nfarther observed, that it is the only rule thereof, in opposition to the\nPopish doctrine of human traditions, as pretended to be of equal\nauthority with it; by which means the law of God is made void at this\nday, as it was by the Jews in our Saviour\u2019s time, and the scripture\nsupposed to be an imperfect rule; the defect whereof they take this\nmethod to supply; and to give countenance thereto,\n1. They refer to those Scriptures, in which, it is said, our Saviour\n_did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not\nwritten_, John xx. 30. and his own words, wherein he tells them, that he\nhad _many things to say unto them, which they could not then bear_, John\nxvi. 12. as also to the words of the apostle Paul, Acts xx. 35. in which\nhe puts the church in mind of a saying of our Saviour, received by\ntradition, because not contained in any of the evangels, _viz._ _it is\nmore blessed to give than to receive_.\nTo which it may be replied,\n_Answ._ (1.) That though it is true there were many things done, and\nwords spoken by our Saviour, which are not recorded in Scripture, and\ntherefore we must be content not to know them, being satisfied with\nthis, that nothing is omitted therein which is necessary to salvation,\nyet to pretend to recover, or transmit them to us by tradition, is to\nassert and not to prove, what they impose on us as matters of faith.\n(2.) Those things which our Saviour had to say, which he did not then\nimpart to his disciples, because they were not able to bear them,\nrespected, as is more than probable, what he designed to discover to\nthem after his resurrection, during his forty days abode here on earth,\nor by his Spirit, after his ascension into heaven, concerning the change\nof the Sabbath, from the seventh, to the first day of the week, the\nabolition of the ceremonial law, the Spirituality of his kingdom, which\nthey were at that time less able to bear than they were afterwards, and\nother things relating to the success of their ministry, the gathering\nand governing of those churches, which should be planted by them; these\nseem to be intended by that expression, and not those doctrines which\nthe Papists transmit by oral traditions; such as the use of oil and\nspittle, together with water in baptism, and the sign of the cross\ntherein; the baptism of bells, the lighting up of candles in churches at\nnoon-day: nor that of purgatory, or praying for the dead, or giving\ndivine adoration to images or relics, which are altogether unscriptural,\nand such as he would not have, at any time, communicated unto them.\n(3.) Those words of our Saviour, _It is more blessed to give than to\nreceive_, though they are not contained in one distinct proposition, or\nin express words in the gospels, yet he therein exhorts his people _to\ngive to him that asketh_; and speaks of the blessing that attends this\nduty, _that they might be_, that is, approve themselves to be _the\nchildren of their Father_, Mat. v. 42. compared with 45. and exhorts\nthem to hospitality to the poor, and adds a blessing to it, Luke xiv.\n12, 13, 14. Or, suppose the apostle refers to a saying frequently used\nby our Saviour, which might then be remembered by some who had conversed\nwith him; this is no sufficient warrant for any one to advance doctrines\ncontrary to those our Saviour delivered, under a pretence of having\nreceived them by unwritten tradition.\n2. This doctrine is farther defended from the words of the apostle, in 1\nTim. vi. 20. where he advises Timothy to _keep that which was committed\nto his trust_, _viz._ those traditions which he was to remember and\ncommunicate to others: and also the advice which he gives to the church,\n_To hold the traditions which they had been taught, either by word or by\nhis epistle_, 2 Thess. ii. 15. the former respects, say they, unwritten\ntraditions, the latter is inspired writings.\n_Answ._ That which was committed to Timothy to keep, was either _the\nform of sound words_, or the gospel, which he was to _hold fast_, 2 Tim.\ni. 13. or the ministry which he had received of the Lord, or those gifts\nand graces which were communicated to him, to fit him for public\nservice. And as for those traditions which he speaks of in the other\nscripture, the meaning is only this: that they should remember not only\nthe doctrines they had received from him, which were contained in his\ninspired epistles, but those which were agreeable to scripture, that he\nhad imparted in the exercise of his public ministry; the former were to\nbe depended upon as an infallible rule of faith, the latter to be\nretained and improved as agreeable thereunto, and\n3. They farther add, that it was by this means that God instructed his\nchurch for above two thousand years before the scripture was committed\nto writing.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that God communicated his mind and\nwill to them, during that interval, in an extraordinary manner, as has\nbeen before observed, page 52, 53, which cannot be said of any of those\ntraditions which are pleaded for by them.\n4. It is farther argued, that the book of the law was formerly lost in\nJosiah\u2019s time; for it is said, that when it was found, and a part of it\nread to him, he rent his clothes, and was astonished, as though he had\nnever read it before, 2 Kings xxii. 8. to 11, yet he being a good man,\nwas well instructed in the doctrines of religion; therefore this must\nhave been by tradition.\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that the book, which was then found,\nwas doubtless, an original manuscript of Scripture, either of all the\nbooks of Moses or Deuteronomy in particular, but it is not to be\nsupposed that he had never read it before; for a person may be affected\nat one time in reading that portion of scripture, which he has often\nread without its having the like effect upon him; and doubtless, there\nwere many copies of scripture transcribed, by which he was made\nacquainted with the doctrines of religion, without learning them from\nuncertain traditions.\n5. They farther allege, that some books of scripture are lost, and\ntherefore it is necessary that they should be supplied this way; the\ninstances they give of this are some books referred to in scripture,\n_viz._ _the book of the wars of the Lord_, Numb. xxi. 14. and another\ngoing under the name of Jasher, 2 Sam. i. 18. compared with Josh. x. 13.\nand another called _the book of the acts of Solomon_, 1 Kings xi. 41.\nand also his Songs and Proverbs, and the account he gives of _trees,\nplants, beasts, fowls, creeping things, and fishes_, 1 Kings, iv. 32,\n33. There are also other books said to be written by Samuel, Nathan, and\nGad, 1 Chron. xxix. 29. the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and _the\nvisions of Iddo the seer_, 2 Chron. ix. 29. and Jeremiah\u2019s lamentation\nfor Josiah, is said to be written _in the books of the Lamentations_, 2\nChron. xxxv. 25. whereas there is no mention of Josiah in the book of\nscripture, which goes under that name; therefore they suppose that there\nwas some other book so called which was written by that prophet, but is\nnow lost.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the argument in general, that some books of scripture\nare lost, suppose we should take it for granted that they are so, must\nthis loss be supplied by traditions, pretended to be divine, though\nwithout sufficient proof: however, I am not willing to make this\nconcession, though, indeed, some Protestant divines have done it, as\nthinking it equally supposable, that some books, written by divine\ninspiration, might be lost, as well as many words spoke by the same\ninspiration: but even these constantly maintain that whatever inspired\nwritings may have been lost, yet there is no doctrine necessary to the\nedification of the church, in what immediately relates to salvation, but\nwhat is contained in those writings, which are preserved, by the care\nand goodness of providence, to this day; but, without giving into this\nconcession, I would rather adhere to the more commonly received opinion,\nthat no book designed to be a part of the canon of scripture is lost,\nthough many uninspired writings have perished; and therefore as to those\nbooks but now mentioned, they refer to some books of scripture, in which\nwe have no mention of the inspired writers thereof, which, as is more\nthan probable, were wrote by some noted prophet that flourished in the\nchurch at that time, which their respective histories refer to;\ntherefore some suppose that the books of Nathan and Gad, or Iddo, refer\nto those of Kings or Chronicles, which are not lost. But since this is\nonly a probable conjecture, we pass it over, and add, that it is not\nunreasonable to suppose that the books said to be written by them, as\nalso those of Solomon, that are not contained in scripture, were not\nwritten by divine inspiration, which is not only a safe but sufficient\nanswer to the objection. As for Jeremiah\u2019s lamentation for Josiah, it is\nprobable that the book of scripture, which goes under that name, was\nwritten on the occasion of Josiah\u2019s death, in which, though he doth not\nmention the name of that good king, yet he laments the desolating\njudgments which were to follow soon after it.\nMoreover, the Papists pretend, that some part of the New Testament is\nlost; particularly the epistle from Laodicea, mentioned in Col. iv. 16.\nand one written to the Corinthians, _not to company with fornicators_, 1\nCor. v. 9. and another mentioned, 2 Cor. vii. 8. _by which he made them\nsorry_.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the epistle from Laodicea that was probably one of his\ninspired epistles, written by him when at Laodicea, and not directed, as\nis pretended, to the Laodiceans.\n2. As to that epistle, which he is supposed to have written to the\nCorinthians, it is not expressly said that it was another epistle he had\nwrote to them; but it is plainly intimated, ver. 12. that he refers to\nthe epistle, which he was then writing to them; a part of which related\nto that subject, as this chapter, in particular does,\n3. As to the letter, which he wrote to them, _which made them sorry_, it\nis not necessary to suppose that it was written by divine inspiration;\nfor as every thing he delivered by word of mouth, was not by the\nextraordinary _afflatus_ of the Holy Ghost, why may we not suppose that\nthere were several epistles written by him to the churches, some to\ncomfort, others to admonish, reprove, or make them sorry, besides those\nthat he was inspired to write?\nHaving considered the arguments brought to prove that some books of\nscripture are lost, we shall now prove, on the other hand, that we have\nthe canon thereof compleat and entire. Some think this is sufficiently\nevident from what our Saviour says, _Till heaven and earth pass away,\none jot, or tittle shall not pass from the law_, Mat. v. 18. and _it is\neasier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to\nfail_, Luke xvi. 17. If God will take care of every jot and tittle of\nscripture, will he not take care that no whole book, designed to be a\npart of the rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected,\nindeed, to this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the\ndoctrines or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter\nthereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it shall\nbe preserved entire.\nBut this will more evidently appear, if we consider that the books of\nthe Old Testament were compleat in our Saviour\u2019s time; for it is said,\n_That beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded to them in\nall the scriptures, the things concerning himself_, Luke xxiv. 27. and\nthis may also be proved from what the apostle says, _Whatsoever things\nwere written aforetime, were written for our learning_, Rom. xv. 4. now\nit is impossible that they should be written for our learning if they\nare lost.\nTo this it may be added, that the goodness of God, and the care of his\nprovidence, with respect to this church, farther evinces this truth; for\nif he gave them ground to conclude that _he would be with them always,\neven to the end of the world_, Matth. xxviii. 20. surely this argues,\nthat he would preserve the rule he had given them to walk by, from all\nthe injuries of time, so that it should not be lost to the end of the\nworld.\nAgain, the Jews were the keepers of the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2. now\nthey are not reproved by our Saviour, or the apostle Paul, for any\nunfaithfulness in not preserving them entire; and certainly our Saviour,\nwhen he reproves them for making void the law by their traditions, and\nthreatens those that should add to or take from it, if he had found them\nfaulty, in not having faithfully preserved all the scriptures committed\nto them, he would have severely reproved them for this great breach of\ntrust.\n_Object._ It is objected against the scriptures being a perfect rule of\nfaith, that they are in several places corrupted, _viz._ that the Old\nTestament was so by the Jews, out of malice against our Saviour, and the\nChristian religion, that they might conceal, or pervert to another\nsense, some prophecies relating to the Messiah, and the gospel-state.\nAnd as for the New Testament, they pretend that it was corrupted by some\nheretics, in defence of their perverse doctrines.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the Old Testament, it is very improbable and\nunreasonable to suppose that it was corrupted by the Jews. For,\n(1.) Before our Saviour\u2019s time, no valuable end could be answered\nthereby; for then they expected the Messiah to come, according to what\nwas foretold by the prophets, and understood their predictions in a true\nsense.\n(2.) After he was come, and Christianity took place in the world, though\nmalice might have prompted them to it, yet they would not do it, because\nthey had always been trained up in this notion, that it was the vilest\ncrime to add to, take from, or alter it: so that one of their own\nwriters[19] says concerning them, that they would rather die an hundred\ndeaths, than suffer the law to be changed in any instance; yea, they\nhave such a veneration for the law, that if, by any accident, part of it\nshould fall to the ground, they would proclaim a fast as fearing lest,\nfor this, God would destroy the whole world, and reduce it to its first\nchaos: and can any one think, that, under any pretence whatever, they\nwould designedly corrupt the Old Testament? Yea, they were so far from\ndoing it, that they took the greatest care, even to superstition, to\nprevent its being corrupted, through inadvertency, and accordingly\nnumbered not only the books and sections, but even the words and\nletters, that not a single letter might be added to, or taken from it.\n(3.) If they had any inclination to do this, out of malice against\nChristianity, it would have been to no purpose, after our Saviour\u2019s\ntime; for it was then translated into Greek, and this translation was in\nthe hands of almost all Christians; so that the fallacy would soon have\nbeen detected. And if they had corrupted some copies of the Hebrew\nBible, they could not have corrupted or altered them all; therefore to\nattempt any thing of this kind, would have been to expose themselves to\nno purpose.\n(4.) It would not have been for their own advantage to pervert it; for,\nin altering the texts that make for Christianity, they would (especially\nif the fraud should have been detected) have weakened their own cause so\nfar, that the reputation of scripture being hereby lost, they could not\nhave made use of it to that advantage, to prove their own religion from\nit.\nBut, notwithstanding all this out-cry of the scriptures being perverted,\nthey pretend to give no proof hereof, except in two or three words,\nwhich do not much affect the cause of Christianity; whereas, if the Jews\nhad designed to pervert it, why did they not alter the fifty-third of\nIsaiah, and many other scriptures, which so plainly speak of the person\nand offices of the Messiah?\n2. As to the other part of the objection, that the New Testament hath\nbeen corrupted by heretics since our Saviour\u2019s time, whatever charge\nhath been brought against the Arians, and some others, of having out\nsome words, or verses, which tend to overthrow their scheme, they have\nnot been able, even when the empire was most favourable to their cause,\nto alter all the copies; so that their fallacy has been detected, and\nthe corruption amended.\nAs for those various readings that there are of the same text, these\nconsist principally in literal alterations, which do not much tend to\npervert the sense thereof. It was next to impossible for so many copies\nof scripture to be transcribed without some mistakes, since they who\nwere employed in this work were not under the infallible direction of\nthe Spirit of God, as the first penmen were; yet the providence of God\nhath not suffered them to make notorious mistakes; and whatever mistakes\nthere may be in one copy, they may be corrected by another; so that the\nscripture is not, for this reason, chargeable with the reproach cast\nupon it, as though it were not a perfect rule of faith.\nFootnote 15:\n  He who has created all things, with all their relations, and who is\n  the universal Sovereign, has a right to the allegiance of his rational\n  creatures, and they are under obligation to obey his laws, because it\n  is his will that they should do so. He has connected our _interest_\n  with our duty, as a motive to obedience, and because he is good; but\n  if we should substitute utility for his authority, and conform to his\n  laws, merely because they are advantageous, we rebel against our\n  Sovereign, and renounce his authority, that we may pursue our own\n  advantage. Virtue is amiable for its intrinsic rectitude. If we choose\n  to practice it merely because _beautiful_, we please ourselves; and\n  though the excellency of virtue is intended as a motive, and it is\n  well for the man who is charmed by it, yet, if this be the only\n  inducement, he has lost sight of the Divine authority, and his virtue\n  is no obedience to the laws of God. If the obligation of virtue be\n  founded solely on its utility, or beauty, we are at liberty to forego\n  our advantage, or pleasure without guilt, and remorse of conscience\n  will be unaccountable. It is also _fit and proper_, that we should\n  practice virtue, but this is no more to be substituted for the Divine\n  authority, than the other motives of advantage or pleasure. If it be\n  objected, that the fitness of moral good is eternal, and a rule even\n  to Deity, and so may be deemed a foundation of the obligation of human\n  virtue. It is conceded that the fitness of virtue is eternal, for God\n  is eternal, and has been always holy, and just; in the same manner\n  also the beauty of virtue is eternal; but to suppose these to have\n  existed anterior to thought and action, and to be independent of an\n  eternally and immutably holy God is to indulge the mind in\n  speculations, which, to say the least of them, are groundless. We may\n  as well assign a cause to eternal existence, as to eternal holiness.\n  When the Creator formed the Universe of intelligent creatures, he gave\n  them, with their existence, the various relations and circumstances\n  which sprang up with them: and their obligations with respect to him\n  and his works originated at the same time, and from the same source;\n  which could be no other than the Divine pleasure; and the positive\n  express appointments, which have been since super-added, rest upon the\n  same basis, the will of God.\n  That we might discern his will and conform to it, he has set before us\n  his own character, which in all things is good. He has given us\n  reason, or active intellectual powers capable of pursuing the truth,\n  and discovering his character, as a rule of our conduct. And because\n  reason is matured by slow degrees, and the advantages for its\n  improvement are unequal, he has given us a sense susceptible of the\n  impressions of good and evil, by which we can distinguish between\n  moral good and evil almost as easily, as by our natural senses we\n  discern the differences between light and darkness, sweetness and\n  bitterness; and thus has he rendered the judgment upon our own actions\n  almost always unavoidable. The light of nature has been confirmed by\n  express revelation; and because the law of nature identifies itself\n  with the written law of God, the obligation of both rests upon the\n  same foundation, the Sovereign will.\nFootnote 16:\n  Where a covenant is, there should be the death of the devoted\n  _victim_.\nFootnote 17:\n  PROPHETS BEFORE THE CAPTIVITY.\n  _With the order and times of their Prophecies._\n   Years\n  before\n Christ.\n     812 Amaziah king of Judah,         Jonah sent with a message. 2\n         Jeroboam II. king of Israel    Kings xiii. 20. xiv. 25.\n     800 Uzziah king of Judah. Jeroboam Joel i. ii. iii.\n     800 Jeroboam II. king of Israel.   Amos i.\u2014\u2014ix.\n         Uzziah king of Judah\n     800 Jeroboam II. Uzziah            Hosea i. ii. iii.\n     759 Uzziah 52. Pekah 1.            Isaiah vi. ii. iii. iv. v.\n         In the same year               Isaiah viii. ix. x.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xvii.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxviii.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xv. xvi.\n     725 Hezekiah 3. Hoshea 6.          Hosea vii.-xiv. Micah iii. iv.\n     715 Hezekiah 13.                   Isaiah xxiii.-xxvii.\n     714 Hezekiah 14.                   Isaiah xxxviii. xxxix.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxii. ver. 1-15.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxi.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xviii. xix.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xxxvi. xxxvii.\n         In the same year               Isaiah xl.-xliii. &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxvi.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxv.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlvi.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvi. ver. 1-9.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlv.\n         In the same year               Daniel i.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxiii\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xiii. ver. 13, &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxiv.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlix. ver. 34, &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxx. xxxi.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxvii.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah l. li.\n     595 Zedekiah 5. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel i.-vii.\n     594 Zedekiah 6. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel viii.-xi.\n     593 Zedekiah 7. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Ezekiel xii.-xix.\n         In the same year, fifth month  Ezekiel xx.-xxiii.\n     591 Zedekiah 9. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt. Jeremiah xxi. xxxiv ver. 1-8.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlvii.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xlviii. xlix. ver.\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxiv. xxv.\n     590 Zedekiah 10. Jehoiachin\u2019s      Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 1-11.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxiv. ver. 8, &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 11-16\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxii. xxiii.\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxix. ver. 1-17. xxx.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxvii. ver. 17, &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 1-14.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 15, &c.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xxxviii. ver. 14, &c.\n     589 Zedekiah 11. Jehoiachin\u2019s capt Ezekiel xxxvi. xxxvii.\n         In the same year, third month  Ezekiel xxxi.\n         In the same year, fourth month Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 1-11.\n         In the same year, fifth or     Jeremiah xxxix. ver. 11-15.\n         In the same year               Jeremiah xl. ver. 7. xli.\n  PROPHETS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, DURING THE CAPTIVITY.\n     588 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 12.     Ezekiel xxxiii.\n         tenth month\n         In the same year, twelfth      Ezekiel xxxii.\n         Between the 12 and 25          Ezekiel xxxiv. xxxvi. xxxvii.\n         In the same year               Obadiah\n         In the same year               Ezekiel xxxv.\n         In this year Nebuchadnezzar    Daniel iii.\n         set up his golden image\n     574 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 25.     Ezekiel xl. xli. &c.\n     569 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 30.     Ezekiel xxxi. ver. 17, &c.\n         In the same year               Daniel iv.\n     562 Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity 37.     Jeremiah lii. ver. 31, &c.\n     538 Darius the Mede 1.             Daniel vi.\n         In the same year               Daniel ix.\n  PROPHETS AFTER THE CAPTIVITY UNDER THE SECOND TEMPLE.\n         In the third year of Cyrus,    Daniel x. xi. xii\n         and third after the captivity\n     520 Darius Hystaspis 2. sixth      Haggai i. ver. 1-12.\n         In the same year and month     Haggai i. ver. 12, &c. Ezra v.\n         In the same year, seventh      Haggai ii. ver. 1-10.\n         In the same year, eighth month Zechariah i. ver. 1-7.\n         In the same year, ninth month  Haggai ii. ver. 10, &c.\n         In the same year, eleventh     Zechariah i. ver. 7, &c.\n         In the same year, ninth month  Zech. vii. viii.\n         Subsequent to the fourth year  Zechariah ix.-xiv.\n         of Darius Hystaspes\n     296 Ptolemy Soter 9.               The Canon of the Old Testament\n  DR. TAYLOR.\nFootnote 18:\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is the _unregenerate world_, John vii. 7. and \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, is to\n  _receive kindly_, 2 Cor. vii. 2.\nFootnote 19:\n  _Vid. Philo. Jud. de Vit. Mosis; & eund. citat. ab Euseb. in Pr\u00e6p.\n  Evang. l. viii. c. 6. & Joseph, contr. App. l. ii._\n    QUEST. IV. _How doth it appear that the scriptures are the word of\n    _Answ._ The scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God by\n    their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the\n    scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their\n    light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and\n    build up believers to salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing\n    witness by and with the scriptures in the heart of man, is alone\n    able fully to persuade it, that they are the word of God.\nBefore we proceed to consider the arguments here brought to prove the\nscriptures to be the word of God, some things may be premised.[20]\n1. When we speak of the scriptures as divine, we do not only mean that\nthey treat of God and divine things; to wit, his nature and works, as\nreferring principally to the subject matter thereof; for this may be\nsaid of many human uninspired writings, which, in proportion to the\nwisdom of their authors, tend to set forth the divine perfections. And\nwhen, as the consequence hereof, we assert that every thing contained\ntherein is infallibly true, we do not deny but that there are many\nthings, which we receive from human testimony, of which it would be\nscepticism to entertain the least doubt of the truth; notwithstanding,\nwhen we receive a truth from human testimony, we judge of the certainty\nthereof, by the credibility of the evidence, and, in proportion\nthereunto, there is a degree of certainty arising from it: but when we\nsuppose a truth to be divine, we have the highest degree of certainty\nequally applicable to every thing that is so, and that for this reason,\nbecause it is the word of him that cannot lie. Thus we consider the holy\nscriptures, as being of a divine original, or given by the inspiration\nof God, or as his revealed will, designed to bind the consciences of\nmen; and that the penmen were not the inventers of them, but only the\ninstruments made use of to convey these divine oracles to us, as the\napostle says, 2 Pet. i. 21. _Prophecy came not in old time by the will\nof man; but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy\nGhost_: and the apostle Paul says, Gal. i. 11, 12. _I certify unto you,\nthat the gospel, which was preached of me, is not after man; neither\nreceived I it of man; neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of\nJesus Christ_: the former asserts this concerning scripture in general,\nand the latter concerning that part thereof which was transmitted to us\nby him: this is what we mean when we say the scripture is the word of\nGod.\n2. It is necessary for us to know and believe the scriptures to be the\nword of God, because they are to be received by us as a rule of faith\nand obedience, in whatever respects divine things, otherwise we are\ndestitute of a rule, and consequently our religion would be a matter of\nthe greatest uncertainty; and as this faith and obedience is divine, it\nis a branch of religious worship, and as such, contains an entire\nsubjection to God, a firm and unshaken assent to whatever he reveals as\ntrue, and a readiness to obey whatever he commands, as being influenced\nby his authority; which is inconsistent with any hesitation or doubt\nconcerning this matter. Moreover, it is only therein that we have an\naccount of the way in which sinners may have access to God; the terms of\ntheir finding acceptance in his sight, and all the promises of eternal\nblessedness, on which their hope is founded, are contained therein; if\ntherefore we are not certain that the scriptures are the word of God,\nour faith and hope are vain; it is herein that _life and immortality is\nbrought to light_, and, by _searching them, we think that we have\neternal life_.\n3. As divine revelation is necessary, so it is not impossible, contrary\nto reason or the divine perfections, for God to impart his mind and will\nto men in such a way as we call inspiration: these things must be made\nappear, otherwise it is a vain thing to attempt to give arguments to\nprove the scriptures to be the word of God; and, in order hereto, let it\nbe considered,\n(1.) That divine revelation is necessary; this appears because as\nreligion is necessary, so there are some things contained in it which\ncannot be known by the light of nature, to wit, all those divine laws\nand institutions, which are the result of God\u2019s expressed will; and\nthese could not be known by the light of nature, or in a way of\nreasoning derived from it, therefore they must be known by special\nrevelation. Positive laws, as opposed to those that are moral, depend\nupon a different foundation; the glory of God\u2019s sovereignty eminently\nappears in the one, as that of his holiness doth in the other: now his\nsovereign pleasure relating thereto could never have been known without\ndivine revelation, and then all that revenue of glory, which is brought\nto him thereby, would have been entirely lost, and there would have been\nno instituted worship in the world; and the gospel, which is called the\n_unsearchable riches of Christ_, Eph. iii. 8. must have been for ever a\nhidden thing, and the condition of those who bear the Christian name\nwould have been no better than that of the heathen, concerning whose\ndevotion, the apostle Paul, though speaking of the wisest and best of\nthem says, Acts xvii. 23. that they _ignorantly worshipped an unknown\nGod_: and elsewhere, 1 Cor. i. 24. that _the world by wisdom knew not\nGod_; and the reason is, because they were destitute of divine\nrevelation.\n(2.) It is not impossible, contrary to reason or the divine perfections,\nthat God should reveal his mind and will to man, which may be argued\nfrom hence; it contains no impossibility, for if it be possible for one\ncreature to impart his mind and will to another, then certainly God can\ndo this, for there is no excellency or perfection in the creature but\nwhat is eminently in him; and if it be not unworthy of the divine\nmajesty to be omnipresent, and uphold all things by the word of his\npower, it is not unbecoming his perfections to manifest himself to\nintelligent creatures, who, as such, are fit to receive the discoveries\nof his mind and will; and his endowing them with faculties capable of\nreceiving these manifestations, argues, that he designed that they\nshould be favoured with them; and therefore whatever displays there may\nbe of infinite condescension therein, yet it is not unbecoming his\nperfections so to do.\n(3.) As God cannot be at a loss for an expedient how to discover his\nmind and will to man, and is not confined to one certain way, so he may,\nif he pleases, make it known by inspiration; it is not impossible,\nneither is there any thing in the subjects that should hinder him from\nimpressing whatever ideas he designs to impart, on the minds of men.\nThis a finite spirit may do; and that there is such a thing as this,\nwill hardly be denied by any, but those who, with the Sadducees, deny\nthe nature and power of spirits: it hence follows, that God can much\nmore impress the souls of men, or immediately communicate his mind to\nthem in such a way, as we call inspiration; and to deny that there is\nsuch a thing as inspiration, is not only to deny the credibility of\nscripture history, as well as its divine authority, but it is to deny\nthat which the heathen, by the light of nature, have universally\nbelieved to be consonant to reason, and therefore they often represent\ntheir gods as conversing with men; and they appear, in many of their\nwritings, not to have the least doubt whether there has been such a\nthing as inspiration in the world.\nThese things being premised, we are now more particularly to consider\nthose arguments which are brought to prove the scriptures to be the word\nof God, or that they were given by divine inspiration: these are taken\neither from the internal evidence we have hereof, _viz._ the subject\nmatter of scripture, from the majesty of the style, the purity of the\ndoctrines, the harmony or consent of all its parts, and the scope or\ntendency of the whole to give all glory to God; or else external, taken\nfrom the testimony which God himself gave to it, at first by miracles,\nwhereby the mission of the prophets, and consequently what they were\nsent to deliver, was confirmed, and afterwards, in succeeding ages, by\nthe use which he hath made of it in convincing and converting sinners,\nand building up believers to salvation. These are the arguments\nmentioned in this answer, which will be distinctly considered, and some\nothers added, as a farther proof of this matter, to wit, those taken\nfrom the character of the inspired writers, particularly as they were\nholy men, and so they would not impose on the world, or pretend\nthemselves to have been inspired, if they were not; and also, as they\nwere plain and honest men, void of all craft and subtilty, and so could\nnot impose on the world; and, had they attempted to do so, they had a\ngreat many subtle and malicious enemies, who would soon have detected\nthe fallacy. To this we shall also add an argument taken from the\nsublimity of the doctrine, in which respect it is too great, and has too\nmuch wisdom in it for men to have invented; and others taken from the\nantiquity thereof, together with its wonderful preservation,\nnotwithstanding all the endeavours of its enemies to root it out of the\nworld; and then we shall consider how far the testimony of the church is\nto be regarded, not as though it contained the principal foundation of\nour faith, as the Papists suppose; but yet this may be, if duly\nconsidered, an additional evidence to those that have been before given;\nand then we shall speak something concerning the witness of the Spirit\nwith the scripture in the heart of man, which inclines him to be\npersuaded by, and rest in the other arguments brought to support this\ntruth: and if all these be taken together, they will, we hope, beget a\nfull conviction in the minds of men, that the scriptures are the word of\nGod; which leads us to consider the arguments in particular.\nI. From the majesty of the style in which it is written. This argument\ndoes not equally hold good with respect to all the parts of scripture;\nfor there is, in many places thereof, a great plainness of speech and\nfamiliarity of expression adapted to the meanest capacity, and sometimes\na bare relation of things, without that majesty of expression, which we\nfind in other places: thus in the historical books we do not observe\nsuch a loftiness of style, as there is in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and some\nother of the prophets; so that there are arguments of another nature to\nprove them to be of divine authority. However, we may observe such\nexpressions interspersed throughout almost the whole scripture, which\nset forth the sovereignty and greatness of God; as when he is\nrepresented speaking immediately himself in a majestic way, tending not\nonly to bespeak attention, but to strike those that hear or read with a\nreverential fear of his divine perfections; thus, when he gives a\nsummons to the whole creation to give ear to his words, _Hear, O\nheavens; and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken_, Isa. i. 2.\nor, swears by himself, that _unto him every knee shall bow, and every\ntongue shall swear_, chap. xlv. 23. or when it is said, _Thus saith the\nLord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool_, chap.\nlxvi. 1. and elsewhere, _The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice; let\nthe multitude of the isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are\nround about him; righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his\nthrone. A fire goeth before him; his lightnings enlightened the world.\nThe hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; at the presence\nof the Lord of the whole earth_, Psal. xcvii. 1-5. And when he is\nrepresented as casting contempt on all the great men of this world, thus\nhe is said _to cut off the spirit of princes, and to be terrible to the\nkings of the earth_, Psal. lxxvi. 12. and to _charge_ even _his angels\nwith folly_, Job iv. 18. or when the prophet speaks of him, as one who\nhad _measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted the\nheavens with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a\nmeasure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a\nbalance_; and that _the nations of the earth are as a drop of the\nbucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; yea, as\nnothing, less than nothing and vanity_, when compared with him, Isa. xl.\n12, 15, 17. It would be almost endless to refer to the many places of\nscripture, in which God speaks in such a style, as is inimitable by any\ncreature; of this we have several instances in the book of Job,\nespecially in those chapters where he is represented as answering Job\nout of the whirlwind, and speaking with such a loftiness of style, as,\nit may be, the like cannot be found in any human composure, Job, chap.\nxxxviii. to xli. where such expressions are used, which argue the style\nto be divine, great and magnificent; so that if it was not immediately\nfrom God, it would be the most bold presumption for any creature to\nspeak in such a way: therefore this argument, taken from the majestic\nstyle of scripture, is not without its proper weight; however, it may\nserve to prepare us to receive those other arguments, which, together\nwith this, evince its divine original.\nII. From the purity and holiness of its doctrines, and that either, if\nwe consider it absolutely, or compare it with all other writings,\nwhereby it will appear not only to have the preference to them, but to\nbe truly divine, and so is deservedly styled the _holy scripture_, Rom.\ni. 2. and the words thereof _pure as silver tried in a furnace, purified\nseven times_, Psal. xii. 6. and to speak of _right things, in which\nthere is nothing froward or perverse_, Prov. viii. 6, 7, 8. Thus every\none that duly weighs the subject matter thereof, may behold therein the\ndisplays of the glory of the holiness of God: here let us consider, that\nthe word of God appears to be divine from its purity and holiness,\n1. As considered absolutely, or in itself. For,\n(1.) It lays open the vile and detestable nature of sin, to render it\nabhorred by us. Thus the apostle says, Rom. vii. 7. _I had not known\nsin_; that is, I had not so fully understood the abominable nature\nthereof as I do, _but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the\nlaw had said, thou shalt not covet_; and hereupon he concludes, that\n_the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good_.\n(2.) It presents to our view the various instances of the divine\nvengeance, and shews us how the wrath of God is revealed against the\nunrighteousness of sinners to make them afraid of rebelling against him.\nThus it gives us an account how the angels hereby fell from and lost\ntheir first habitation, and are thrust down to hell, being _reserved in\nchains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day_, Jude 6. And\nalso how man hereby lost his primitive integrity and glory, and exposed\nhimself to the wrath and curse of God due to sin, and all the miseries\nof this life consequent thereon; and how it has destroyed flourishing\nnations, and rendered them desolate. Thus it gives us an account how the\nJews were first carried into Babylon for their idolatry, and other\nabominations, and afterwards cast off and made the sad monument of the\ndivine wrath, as at this day, for crucifying Christ, persecuting his\nfollowers, and opposing the Gospel. It also gives an account of the\ndistress and terror of conscience, which wilful and presumptuous sins\nhave exposed particular persons to; such as Cain, Judas and others; this\nis described in a very pathetic manner, when it is said of the wicked\nman, who has his portion of the good things of this life, that when he\ncomes to die, _Terrors take hold of him as waters, a tempest stealeth\nhim away in the night. The east wind carrieth him away, and he\ndeparteth, and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall\ncast upon him, and not spare; he would fain flee out of his hand_, Job\nMoreover, the purity of the Scripture farther appears, in that it warns\nsinners of that eternal ruin, which they expose themselves to in the\nother world; _Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from\nthe presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power_, 2 Thess. i.\n9. All these things discover the purity and holiness of the word of God.\n(3.) It never gives the least indulgence or dispensation to sin, nor in\nany of its doctrines, which are pure and holy, doth it lead to\nlicentiousness; it not only reproves sin in the lives and outward\nconversations of men, but also discovers its secret recesses in the\nheart, where its chief seat is; obviates and guards against its first\nmotions, tending thereby to regulate the secret thoughts of men, and the\nprinciple of all their actions, which it requires to be pure and holy.\nIn this the Scripture excels all other writings with respect to its\nholiness.\n(4.) All the blessings and benefits which it holds forth, or puts us in\nmind of, as the peculiar instances of divine favour and love to man, are\nurged and insisted on as motives to holiness; thus it is said, _The\ngoodness of God leadeth thee to repentance_, Rom. ii. 4. and when Moses\nhad been putting the Israelites in mind of God\u2019s increasing them, _as\nthe stars of heaven for multitude_, Deut. x. 22. compared with chap. xi.\n1. he adds, _therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his\ncharge and statutes, his judgments and commandments alway_. And when the\nloving kindness of God has been abused by men, it severely reproves them\nfor their vile ingratitude; as when it is said, Deut. xxxii. 6. _Do ye\nthus requite the Lord, oh foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy\nFather that bought thee? Hath not he made thee, and established thee?_\n(5.) All the examples proposed to our imitation therein, are such as\nsavour of, and lead to, holiness; and when it recommends the actions or\nconversation of men, it is more especially for that holiness which is\ndiscovered therein: and, on the other hand, when it gives us the\ncharacter of wicked men, together with the dreadful consequences\nthereof, it is that we may avoid and be deterred from committing the\nsame sins that will be their ruin in the end.\n(6.) The rules laid down relating to civil affairs in the Old Testament\ndispensation, and the behaviour of one man towards another, have a vein\nof holiness running through them all. Thus the government of the Jewish\nstate, as described in the books of Moses, and elsewhere, discovers it\nto be an holy commonwealth; and they are often called an holy nation, as\ngoverned by those laws which God gave them; so the government of the\nchurch in the Gospel-dispensation, is a holy government: visible\nholiness is a term of church-communion, and apostacy and revolt from God\nexcludes from it.\n(7.) All the promises contained in Scripture, are, or will be certainly\nfulfilled, and the blessings it gives us ground to expect, conferred;\nand therefore it is a faithful word, and consequently pure and holy.\n2. If we compare the Scripture with other writings, which are of a human\ncomposure, it plainly excels in holiness. For,\n(1.) If we compare it with the writings of heathen moralists, such as\nPlato, Seneca, and others, though they contain a great many good\ndirections for the ordering the conversations of men agreeably to the\ndictates of nature and right reason, yet most of them allow of, or plead\nfor some sins, which the Scripture mentions with abhorrence, such as\nrevenging injuries, and self-murder; several other instances of moral\nimpurity, were not only practised by those who laid down the best rules\nto inforce moral virtue, but either countenanced, or, at least, not\nsufficiently fenced against, by what is contained in their writings; and\neven their strongest motives to virtue or the government of the\npassions, or a generous contempt of the world, are taken principally\nfrom the tendency which such a course of life will have to free us from\nthose things that tend to debase and afflict the mind, and fill it with\nuneasiness, when we consider ourselves as acting contrary to the\ndictates of nature, which we have as intelligent creatures; whereas, on\nthe other hand, the Scripture leads us to the practice of Christian\nvirtues from better motives, and considers us not barely as men, but\nChristians, under the highest obligations to the blessed Jesus, and\nconstrained hereunto by his condescending love expressed in all that he\nhas done and suffered for our redemption and salvation; and it puts us\nupon desiring and hoping for communion with God, through him, in the\nperformance of those evangelical duties, which the light of nature knows\nnothing of, and so discovers a solid foundation for our hope of\nforgiveness of sin, through his blood, together with peace of conscience\nand joy resulting from it; it also directs us to look for that life and\nimmortality, which is brought to light through the Gospel; in which\nrespects, it far exceeds the writing of the best heathen moralists, and\nso contains in it the visible marks and characters of its divine\noriginal.\n(2.) If we compare the scriptures with other writings among Christians,\nwhich pretend not to inspiration, we shall find in these writings a\ngreat number of impure and false doctrines, derogatory to the glory of\nGod, in many of the pretended expositions of Scripture. If therefore\nmen, who have the Scripture in their hands, propagate unholy doctrines,\nthey would do so much more were there no Scripture to guide them: thus\nthe doctrine that grace is not necessary to what is spiritually good:\nthe merit of good works, human satisfactions, penances, indulgences, and\ndispensations for sin, are all impure doctrines, which are directly\ncontrary to Scripture; and, as contraries illustrate each other, so\nhereby the holiness and purity of Scripture, which maintains the\ncontrary doctrines, will appear to those who impartially study it and\nunderstand the sense thereof.\n(3.) If we compare the Scriptures with the imposture of Mahomet, in the\nbook called the Alcoran, which the Turks make use of as a rule of faith,\nand prefer it to Scripture, and reckon it truly divine, that contains a\nsystem not only of fabulous, but corrupt and impure notions,\naccommodated to men\u2019s sensual inclinations. Thus it allows of polygamy,\nand many impurities in this world, and promises to its votaries a\nsensual paradise in the next, all which is contrary to Scripture; so\nthat composures merely human, whether they pretend to divine inspiration\nor not, discover themselves not to be the word of God, by their\nunholiness; as the Scripture manifests itself to be divine, by the\npurity of its doctrine; and indeed, it cannot be otherwise, considering\nthe corruption of man\u2019s nature, as well as the darkness and blindness of\nhis mind, which, if it pretends to frame a rule of faith, it will be\nlike himself, impure and unholy; but that which has such marks of\nholiness, as the Scripture has, appears to be inspired by a holy God.\nHaving considered the holiness of Scripture doctrines, we proceed to\nshew the weight of this argument, or how far it may be insisted on to\nprove its divine authority. It is to be confessed, that a book\u2019s\ncontaining holy things or rules for a holy life, doth not of itself\nprove its divine original; for then other books might be called the word\nof God besides the Scripture, which is so called, not only as containing\nsome rules that promote holiness, but as being the fountain of all true\nreligion; and its being adapted above any book of human composure, to\nanswer this end, affords an argument of some weight to prove it to be of\nGod. For,\n1. Man, who is prone to sin, naturally blinded and prejudiced against\ndivine truth and holiness, could never compose a book that is so\nconsonant to the divine perfections, and contains such a display of\nGod\u2019s glory, and is so adapted to make us holy.\n2. If we suppose that man could invent a collection of doctrines, that\ntended to promote holiness, could he invent doctrines so glorious, and\nso much adapted to this end, as these are? If he could, he that does\nthis must either be a good or a bad man: if we suppose the former, he\nwould never pretend the Scripture to be of divine authority, when it was\nhis own composure; and if the latter, it is contrary to his character,\nas such, to endeavour to promote holiness; for then Satan\u2019s kingdom must\nbe divided against itself: but of this, more in its proper place, when\nwe come to consider the character of the penmen of Scripture, to give a\nfurther proof of its divine authority.\n3. It is plain, that the world without Scripture could not arrive to\nholiness; for the apostle says, 1 Cor. i. 21. _That the world by wisdom\nknew not God_; and certainly where there is no saving knowledge of God,\nthere is no holiness; and the same apostle, Rom. i. 29, 30, 31. gives an\naccount of the great abominations that were committed by the heathen;\nbeing destitute of Scripture light, they were _filled with all\nunrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness,\nfull of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity_, &c.\nIf therefore the doctrines contained in Scriptures are not only pure and\nholy themselves, but tend to promote holiness in us, this is not without\nits proper weight to prove their divine original.\nIII. The scriptures farther manifest themselves to be the word of God\nfrom the consent or harmony of all the parts thereof.[22] This argument\nwill appear more strong and conclusive, if we compare them with other\nwritings, in which there is but little harmony. Thus, if we consult the\nwritings of most men uninspired, we shall find that their sentiments\ncontained therein often times very widely differ; and if, as historians,\nthey pretend to report matters of fact, their evidence, or report, does\nnot, in all respects, agree together, which shews that they are\nfallible; but the exact and harmonious agreement of scripture proves it\ndivine. That other writings of human composure agree not among\nthemselves, is very evident; and it is less to be wondered at if we\nconsider,\n(1.) That men are naturally blind and unacquainted with the things of\nGod; and therefore their writings will hardly be consistent with\nthemselves, much less with one another, as they are oftentimes\ninconsistent with the standard of truth, by which they are to be tried;\nnothing is more common than for men to betray their weakness, and cast a\nblemish on their composures, by contradicting themselves, especially if\nthey are long, and consist of various subjects.\n(2.) Men are much more liable to contradict one another when any scheme\nof doctrine is pretended to be laid down by different persons; for when\nthey attempt to represent matters of fact, they often do it in a very\ndifferent light: this may be more especially observed in those accounts\nthat are given of doctrines that are new, or not well known by the\nworld, or in historical accounts, not only of general occurrences, but\nof particular circumstances attending them, where trusting to their\nmemory and judgment, they often impose on themselves and others.\n(3.) This disagreement of human writings will more evidently appear,\nwhen their authors were men of no great natural wisdom, especially if\nthey lived in different ages, or places remote from one another, and so\ncould have no opportunity to consult one another, or compare their\nwritings together; we shall scarce ever find a perfect harmony or\nagreement in such writings; neither should we in scripture, were it not\nwritten by divine inspiration.\nThis will appear, if we consider that the penmen thereof were in\nthemselves as liable to mistake as other men; and had they been left to\nthemselves herein, they would have betrayed as much weakness, confusion,\nand self-contradiction, as any other writers have done; and it may be\nmore, inasmuch as many of them had not the advantage of a liberal\neducation, nor were conversant in human learning, but were taken from\nmean employments, and made use of by God in this work, that so we may\nherein see more of the divinity of the writings they were employed to\ntransmit to us: besides, they lived in different ages and places, and so\ncould not consult together what to impart, and yet we find, as we shall\nendeavour to prove, that they all agree together: therefore the harmony\nof their writings is an evident proof that they were inspired by the\nsame spirit, and consequently that they are the word of God.\nWe might here consider the historical parts of scripture, and the\naccount which one inspired writer gives of matters of facts as agreeing\nwith what is related by another; and also the harmony of all the\ndoctrines contained therein, as not only agreeing in the general scope\nand design thereof, but in the way and manner in which they are laid\ndown or explained: but we shall more particularly consider the harmony\nof scripture, as what is foretold in one part thereof, is related as\naccomplished in another. And,\n1. There are various predictions relating to the providential dealings\nof God with his people, which had their accomplishment in an age or two\nafter. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, foretold the\ncaptivity and the number of years they should be detained in Babylon,\nand their deliverance by Cyrus, who is expressly mentioned by name.\nThese prophecies, and the accomplishment thereof are so obvious, that\nthere is no one who reads the Old Testament but will see an harmony\nbetween them; so that what in one place is represented as foretold, in\nanother place, is spoken of as accomplished in its proper time, Isa.\nxliv. 28. and Chap. xlv. 1, 4. compared with Ezra i. 2, 3.\nAnd the revolt and apostacy of Israel, their turning aside from God, to\nidolatry, which was the occasion of their desolation, was foretold by\nMoses, Deut. xxxi. 29. and by Joshua, Chap. xxiii. 15, 16. and Chap.\nxxiv. 19. And every one that reads the book of Judges, will see that\nthis was accomplished; for when Moses and Joshua were dead, and that\ngeneration who lived with them, they revolted to idolatry and were\npunished for the same in various instances, Judg. ii. 8, 10, 11, 14.\nAnd the prophecy of the great reformation which Josiah should make, and\nin particular, that he should _burn the bones_ of the idolatrous priests\n_on the altar at Bethel_, 1 Kings xiii. 2. was exactly accomplished\nabove three hundred years after, 2 Kings xxii. 15, 16.\n2. There are various predictions under the Old Testament relating to our\nSaviour, and the New Testament church, many of which have had their\naccomplishment, and others are daily accomplishing. It is said, Acts x.\n43. _To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name\nwhosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins_; and we\nshall find, that what is foretold concerning him in the Old Testament,\nis related as accomplished in the New; particularly,\n(1.) That he should come in the flesh, was foretold in the Old\nTestament, Hag. ii. 7. Mal. iii. 1. Isa. ix. 6. and is mentioned as\naccomplished in the New, John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4.\n(2.) That he should work miracles for the good of mankind, and to\nconfirm his mission, was foretold, Isa. xxxv. 5, 6. and accomplished,\nMatth. xi. 4, 5.\n(3.) That he should live in this world in a low and humbled state, was\nforetold, Isa. lii. 14. and chap. liii. 3. and the whole account of his\nlife in the gospels bears witness that those predictions were fully\naccomplished.\n(4.) That he should be cut off, and die a violent death, was typified by\nthe brazen serpent in the wilderness, _viz._ that he should be lifted up\nupon the cross, Numb. xxi. 9. compared with John iii. 14. and foretold\nin several other scriptures, Isa. liii. 7. and Dan. ix. 26. and this is\nlargely insisted on, as fulfilled in the New Testament.\n(5.) That after he had continued some time in a state of humiliation, he\nshould be exalted, was foretold, Isa. lii. 13. chap. liii. 11, 12. Psal.\nlxviii. 18. and fulfilled, Acts i. 9. Phil. ii. 9.\n(6.) That his glory should be proclaimed and published in the preaching\nof the gospel, was foretold, Isa. xi. 10. Psal. cx. 2. Isa. lx. 1, 2, 3.\nand fulfilled, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mark xvi. 15. as appears from many\nscriptures.\n(7.) That he should be the spring and fountain of all blessedness to his\npeople, was foretold, Gen. xxii. 18. Psal. lxxii. 17. Isa. xlix. 8, 9.\nand fulfilled, 2 Cor. vi. 2. Acts iii. 26. In these, and many other\ninstances, we may observe such a beautiful consent of all the parts of\nscripture, as proves it to be the very word of God.\nBut since it will not be sufficient, to support the divine authority of\nscripture, to assert that there is such a harmony, as we have observed,\nunless we can prove that it doth not contradict itself in any instances;\ntherefore the next thing we are to consider, is the reproach cast upon\nit by those who would bring all divine revelation into contempt, as\nthough it contradicted itself in several instances, and contained\nvarious absurdities; which, were they able to make appear, would\nenervate the force of the argument we are maintaining, to prove the\nscripture to be the word of God from the consent of the parts thereof:\ntherefore we shall consider some of those contradictions, which many,\nwho pretend to criticise on the words of scripture, charge it with, as\nso many objections against the harmonious consent, and consequently the\ndivine authority thereof, together with the answers, which may be given\nto each of them.\n_Object._ 1. If we compare our Saviour\u2019s genealogy, as related in the\nfirst of Matthew and the third of Luke, they allege that there is a very\ngreat inconsistency between them, for one mentions different persons, as\nhis progenitors, from what the other does; as, for instance, in Matth.\ni. he is said to be the son of Joseph, and Joseph the son of Jacob, and\nhe the son of Matthan; but the other evangelist, _viz._ Luke, says that\nhe was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son\nof Matthat: and so we find the names of each genealogy very differing,\ntill we come to David; therefore they suppose both those genealogies\ncannot be true, inasmuch as the one contradicts the other.\n_Answ._ It evidently appears, that there is no contradiction between\nthese two genealogies, since Matthew gives an account of Joseph\u2019s\nancestors, and Luke of Mary\u2019s, and so, both together, prove that he was\nthe son of David, by his reputed father\u2019s, as well as his mother\u2019s side.\nAnd if it be replied, that Luke, as well as Matthew, gives an account of\nJoseph\u2019s genealogy, and therefore this answer is not sufficient: we may\nobserve, that it is said, Luke iii, 23, 24. that _Jesus was, as it is\nsupposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, &c._ the meaning\nis, he was, indeed, the supposed son of Joseph, but he really descended\nfrom Heli, the father of the virgin Mary; and nothing is more common in\nscripture than for grandsons to be called sons; and if we observe the\nmeaning of the Greek words, which we render, _which was the son, &c._ it\nmay better be rendered, who descended from Heli, and then there is not\nthe least absurdity in it, supposing Heli to be his grandfather; and\ntherefore there is no appearance of contradiction between these two\nscriptures.\n_Object._ 2. It is pretended, that there is a plain contradiction\nbetween these two places, 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. and 1 Chron. xxi. 25. in the\nformer whereof it is said, that David bought the threshing-floor of\nAraunah the Jebusite, to build an altar on, and the oxen for\nburnt-offerings, that the plague might be stayed, _for fifty shekels of\nsilver_; but in the other, _viz._ in Chronicles, it is said, that _he\ngave him for the place six hundred shekels of gold_; therefore they\npretend that one of these places must be wrong, inasmuch as they plainly\ncontradict one another.\n_Answ._ The answer that may be given to this objection, is, that David\npaid Araunah (who is otherwise called Ornan) for his threshing-floor,\nwhere he built an altar, and for the oxen, which he bought for\nsacrifice, fifty shekels of silver, as it is expressed in Samuel. But,\nbeside this threshing-floor, he bought the whole place, as it is said in\nChronicles, _i. e._ the whole tract of ground, or mountain, on which it\nstood, whereon he designed that the temple should be built; and\ntherefore he saith concerning it, 1 Chron. xxii. 1. _This is the house\nof the Lord God_, _i. e._ this place, or tract of land, which I have\nbought round about the threshing-floor, is the place where the house of\nGod shall stand; _and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel_,\nwhich was to be built in that particular place, where the\nthreshing-floor was: now, though he gave for the threshing-floor but\nfifty shekels of silver, (which probably was as much as it was worth)\nyet the whole place, containing ground enough for the temple, with all\nits courts, and the places leading to it, was worth a great deal more;\nor, if there were any houses in the place, these were also purchased to\nbe pulled down, to make room for the building of the temple; and, for\nall this, he gave six hundred shekels of gold, and we can hardly suppose\nit to be worth less; so that there is no real contradiction between\nthese two places,\n_Object._ 3. It is pretended, that there is a contradiction between 2\nSam. xxiv. 13. and 1 Chron. xxi. 12. in the former of which Gad came to\nDavid, being sent to reprove him for his numbering the people, and said,\n_Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?_ But, in\nChronicles, he speaks of but _three years of famine_.\n_Answ._ To reconcile this seeming contradiction,\n1. Some think, that in some ancient copies, it is not seven, but\nthree,[37] years of famine, in Samuel, as it is in Chronicles; the\nreason of this conjecture is, because the LXX, or Greek translation,\nhave it so; and they think that these translators would hardly have made\nso bold with scripture, as to put three for seven, if they had not found\nit so in the copies that they made use of, when they compiled this\ntranslation: but probably this answer will not give satisfaction to the\nobjectors; therefore,\n2. The best way to account for this seeming contradiction, is this: in\nChronicles, Gad bids him chuse if he would have three years of famine,\n_viz._ from that time; but in Samuel he saith, shall seven years of\nfamine come unto thee, that is, as though he should say there hath been\nthree years of famine already, for Saul _and his bloody house, because\nhe slew the Gibeonites_, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. Now, that famine ceased but the\nyear before, and the ground being so chaped and hard for want of rain\nthis year, which was the fourth, it was little better than a year of\nfamine. Now, said Gad, wilt thou have this famine continued three years\nmore (which, in all, makes up seven years) unto thee in the land? And,\nif we take it in this sense, there is no contradiction between these two\nscriptures, though one speaks of three years, and the other of seven.\n_Object._ 4. They pretend to find an inconsistency, or absurdity, little\nbetter than a contradiction, by comparing 1 Sam. xvi. 21, 22. and chap.\nxvii. 55. In the former it is said, _David came to Saul, and stood\nbefore him, and he loved him greatly; and he sent to Jesse_, with the\nintent that he might give him leave _to stand before him, inasmuch as he\nhad found favour in his sight_. Now, say they, how can this be\nconsistent with the other scripture; where Saul seeing David going forth\nagainst Goliath the Philistine, asked Abner, _Whose son is this youth?_\nAnd Abner replied, _He could not tell_; and, in the next verse, he is\nordered to _enquire who he was_. Now how could this be, when he had been\nhis armour-bearer, stood before him, and found favour in his sight; and\nhe had sent to Jesse, to desire that he might live with him?\n_Answ._ I can see no appearance of absurdity, or defect of harmony,\nbetween these two scriptures; for supposing Saul\u2019s memory had failed\nhim, and he had forgot that David had stood before him as a servant,\nshall the scripture, that gives an account of this, be reflected on, as\ncontaining an inconsistency? It is true, David had stood before Saul, as\nhis armour-bearer; yet he had, for some time, been sent home and\ndismissed from his service, during which time he kept his father\u2019s\nsheep; and probably he lived not long in Saul\u2019s family; therefore it is\nno wonder if Saul had now forgot him. There is no master of a family but\nmay forget what servants have formerly lived with him, and much more a\nking, who hardly knows the names of the greatest part of the servants\nthat are about him: besides, at this time, David appeared in the habit\nof a shepherd, and therefore Saul might well say, _whose son is this\nyouth?_ This sufficiently accounts for the difficulty, and vindicates\nthis scripture from the charge of inconsistency; though some account for\nit thus, by supposing that Saul knew David, (as having been his\narmour-bearer) but did not know his father, and therefore asks, _whose\nson is this?_ or who is he that hath so bold and daring a son, as this\nyouth appears to be? If these things be considered, there appears not\nthe least absurdity in this scripture.\n_Object._ 5. Another contradiction, which some charge the scripture\nwith, is, that when Israel, pursuant to the advice of Balaam, committed\nidolatry, and went a-whoring after the daughters of Moab, and God\nconsumed them for it by the plague, it is said, Numb. xxv. 9. _Those\nthat died in the plague were twenty-four thousand_; but the apostle\nPaul, referring to the same thing, says, 1 Cor. x. 8. _Neither let us\ncommit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three\nand twenty thousand._\n_Answ._ 1. The answer that may be given to this objection, that the\napostle Paul, when he says, _three and twenty thousand died_, or fell,\n_in one day_, speaks of those who died by the immediate hand of God, by\nthe pestilential distemper that was sent among them; but, besides these,\nthere were many more that died by the hand of public justice for this\nsin; for in that chapter in Numbers, verse 4 and 5. we read of the\n_heads of the people being hanged up before the Lord, and the judges\nbeing ordered to slay every man his men that were joined unto\nBaal-peor_. These died by the sword of justice, and it is no great\nimpropriety to say, that such died in a mediate way, by the plague, or\nsword of God; the sword is one of his plagues, as well as pestilential\ndiseases, and is frequently so styled in scripture: now we cannot\nsuppose that fewer died of this latter plague, if that be the import of\nthe word, than a thousand; so that Moses gives the number of all that\ndied, whether by God\u2019s immediate hand, or by the sword of the\nmagistrate, pursuant to his command: but if it be reckoned too great a\nstrain upon the sense of the word plague, to admit of this solution, let\nit be farther observed, that, in the 9th verse, where Moses gives the\nsum total of those that died, it is not said that they were such who\ndied _of_ the plague, but _in_ the plague; that is, those that died in\nor soon after the time that the plague raged among them, whose death was\noccasioned by this sin, were _four and twenty thousand_; so that these\ntwo places of scripture are so far from contradicting, that they rather\nillustrate one another.\n_Object._ 6. Another contradiction is pretended to be between Gal. i. 8.\nwhere the apostle says, _Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any\nother gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let\nhim be accursed_; 2 Cor. xi. 4. _If he that cometh, preacheth another\nJesus whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which\nye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye\nmight well bear with him._ In one place he speaks against those who\npreach another gospel; in the other he says, they may be borne with;\nwhich seems to be a contradiction.\n_Answ._ For the reconciling and accounting for the sense of these two\nscriptures, let us consider, that in the former of them the apostle\npronounces them that preached another gospel accursed, and therefore,\ndoubtless, they were not to be borne with, or allowed of; therefore it\nmust be enquired what he means when he says, in the other scripture,\nthat such may be well borne with; now this scripture will, without the\nleast strain or force upon the words, admit of one of these two senses.\n1. It may be considered as containing a sarcasm, by which the apostle\nreproves their being too much inclined to adhere to false teachers: if,\nsays he, these bring you tidings of a better Spirit, a better gospel,\nthen bear with them; but this they cannot do, therefore reject them; or,\n2. The words may be rendered, instead of _ye might well bear with him,\nye might well bear with me_, as is observed in the marginal reference;\nthe word _him_ being in an Italic character, as will be elsewhere\nobserved,[38] is not in the original, and therefore _me_ may as well be\nsupplied as _him_, and so the meaning is this; ye bear with false\npreachers, are very favourable to them, and seem a little cold to us the\napostles; so that I am afraid, as is observed in the foregoing verse,\nlest your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in\nChrist; you can bear with these false teachers, and will you not bear\nwith me? as he says, ver. 1. _Would to God you could bear with me a\nlittle in my folly, and indeed bear with me._ It is a sign religion is\nat a low ebb, when it is with some difficulty that professors are\npersuaded to bear with those that preach the pure gospel of Christ, who\nare too prone to turn aside to another gospel. Take the words in either\nof these senses, and they exactly harmonize with that text in Galatians,\nand not, as the objectors pretend, contradict it.\n_Object._ 7. Another charge of contradiction, which is brought against\nscripture, is, that our Saviour saith, Matth, x. 34. _Think not that I\nam come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a\nsword_: this is contrary to Christ\u2019s general character, as a _prince of\npeace_, Isa. ix. 6. and to the advice he gives his disciples, not to use\nthe sword, because _such shall perish by it_, Mat. xxvi. 52. and what be\nsaith else, _My kingdom is not of this world_, John xviii. 36. and\ntherefore not to be propagated by might or power, by force or civil\npolicy, or those other carnal methods, by which the kingdoms of this\nworld are advanced and promoted.\n_Answ._ For the reconciling this seeming contradiction, let it be\nconsidered, that Christ did not come to put a sword into his followers\nhands, or to put them upon making war with the powers among whom they\ndwell, for the propagating the Christian religion; his gospel was to be\nadvanced by spiritual methods: in this sense, the design of his coming\nwas not to send a sword, but to bring spiritual peace to his people; but\nwhen he saith, I came to send a sword, it implies that his coming, his\nkingdom and gospel, should occasion persecution and war, by reason of\nthe corruption of men; this the gospel may do, and yet not put men upon\ndisturbing their neighbours, or making war with them; and this is not\ncontrary to Christ\u2019s general character of coming to be the author of\nspiritual peace to his people.\n_Object._ 8. Another contradiction is pretended to be between 1 Kings\nviii. 9. and Heb. ix. 4. in the former it is said, _There was nothing in\nthe ark but the two tables, which Moses put there_; in the latter, that\n_there was the golden pot, that had manna, Aaron\u2019s rod that budded, and\nthe tables of the covenant_.\n_Answ._ This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled: for we\nsuppose it true that there was nothing in the ark but the two tables, as\nit is said in the former of these scriptures; therefore to explain the\nlatter agreeably to it, two senses may be given of it.\n1. It is not necessary to suppose, that the apostle means, in the ark\nwas the golden pot, &c. but in the holiest of all, which he mentions in\nthe foregoing verse; therefore the meaning is, as in the holiest of all,\nthere was the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, so in it was\nthe golden pot and Aaron\u2019s rod: but because there may be an objection\nagainst this sense, from its being said in the words immediately\nfollowing, that over it were the cherubims of glory shadowing the\nmercy-seat, where it refers to the ark, and not to the tabernacle, or\nholiest of all; if therefore the cherubims were over the ark, then the\nother things must be supposed to be in it, which objection, indeed, is\nnot without its force, unless we suppose that the words[39] may be\nrendered _in the higher parts of it_, to wit, of _the holiest of all,\nwere the cherubims of glory above the mercy seat_, and accordingly the\nmeaning is this; that within this second vail was not only the ark, the\ngolden pot of manna, Aaron\u2019s rod, &c. but also the cherubims of glory,\nwhich were above them all: but since the grammatical construction, seems\nrather to favour the objection, there is another sense given of the\nwords, which sufficiently reconciles the seeming contradiction, _viz._\n2. When it is said,[40] that therein, or in it, to wit, the ark, was the\ngolden pot that had manna, and Aaron\u2019s rod that budded, the meaning is,\nthey were near it, or beside it, or some way or other fastened, or\nadjoining to it, in some inclosure, in the outside of the ark, whereas\nnothing was in it but the two tables; so that there is no real\ncontradiction between these two scriptures.\nMany more instances of the like nature might have been given, but,\ninstead thereof, we shall rather chuse to lay down some general rules\nfor the reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture, which may be\napplied by us in other cases, where we meet with the like difficulties.\nAs,\n1. When two scriptures seem to contradict each other, we sometimes find\nthat this arises from the inadvertency of some who have transcribed the\ncopies of scripture, putting one word for another; though it may be\nobserved,\n(1.) That this is not often found; for as great care has been taken in\ntranscribing the manuscripts of scripture, as in any manuscripts\nwhatever, if not greater.\n(2.) If there have been mistakes in transcribing, it is only in a few\ninstances, where there is a likeness between two words, so that one\nmight easily be mistaken for the other; and this ought not to prejudice\nany against the scripture, for it only argues, that though the inspired\npenmen were infallible, the scribes that took copies of scripture for\ncommon use were not so.\n(3.) When there is any such mistake, it may generally be rectified by\nsome other copy, that has the word as it really should be: it is so in\nour printed Bibles, in some editions of them we find mistakes, as to\nsome words, that may be rectified by others, which are more correct; and\nif so, why may not this be supposed to be in some written copies\nthereof, that were used before printing, which is but a late invention,\nwas known in the world, from which all our printed copies are taken?\n2. When the same action in scripture seems to be ascribed to different\npersons, or the same thing said to be done in different places, there is\nno contradiction, for the same person, or place, is sometimes called by\nvarious names: thus Moses\u2019s father-in-law, who met him in the\nwilderness, and advised him in the settling the government of the\npeople, is called, in one place, Jethro, Exod. xviii. 1. and in another\nHobab, Numb. x. 29. So the mountain, from which God gave the law to\nIsrael, is sometimes called mount Sinai, Exod. xix. 20. and at other\ntimes Horeb, Deut. i. 6.\n3. Chronological difficulties, or seeming contradictions, arising from a\ndiffering number of years, in which the same thing is said to be done,\nmay be reconciled, by computing them from the different epocha\u2019s, or\nbeginnings of computation: as it is said, Exod. xii. 40. _The sojourning\nof the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and\nthirty years_; but, when God foretels this sojourning, it is said, Gen.\nxv. 13. _Thy seed shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and\nshall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years_: now\nthe four hundred and thirty years takes its beginning of computation\nfrom Abraham\u2019s being called to leave his country, and sojourn in the\nland of promise, as in a strange land; this was four hundred and thirty\nyears before Israel went out of Egypt; but the four hundred years\nmentioned in Genesis, during which time his seed should sojourn, takes\nits beginning of computation from his having the promised seed, or from\nthe birth of Isaac, which was twenty-five years after his leaving his\ncountry; from that time to the children of Israel\u2019s going out of Egypt\nwas four hundred and five years; and the five years above four hundred\nare left out, as being an inconsiderable number, which is very agreeable\nto our common way of computing time, when a large even number is\nmentioned, to leave out a small one of four or five years, more or less,\nas in the instance here mentioned, especially when time is expressed by\ncenturies, as it is here; for it is said, in ver. 16. _in the fourth\ngeneration_, that is, after the fourth century of years, _they shall\ncome hither again_.\n4. When, by comparing the years of the reign of several of the kings of\nJudah and Israel, mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, we\nfind that some are said, in one of them, to have reigned three or four\nyears longer than the account of the years of their reign, mentioned by\nthe other, the seeming contradiction may be reconciled, by considering\nhim as beginning to reign before his father\u2019s death, as Solomon did\nbefore David died; or from his being nominated as his father\u2019s\nsuccessor, and owned as such by the people, which was sometimes done to\nprevent disputes that might arise about the matter afterwards; and\nsometimes, when a king was engaged in foreign wars, in which he was\nobliged to be absent from his people, and the event hereof was\nuncertain, he appointed his son to reign in his absence, from which time\nhe had the title of a king, though his father was living: or when a king\nwas superannuated, or unfit to reign, as Uzziah was when smote with\nleprosy; or when he was weary of the fatigue and burden of government,\nhe would settle his son, as his viceroy, in his life-time, on which\naccount the son is sometimes said to reign with his father: thus many\naccount for that difficulty, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. where it is said,\n_Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign_; but in 2 Kings\nxxiv. 8. he is said to have been _eighteen years old when he began to\nreign_: the meaning is, that when he was eight years old, he was\nnominated as his father\u2019s successor; but when he was eighteen years old,\nhe began to reign alone, his father being then dead.\n5. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another may not treat of the\nsame, but different subjects, as to the general design thereof: thus,\nthat seeming contradiction between the apostles Paul and James is to be\naccounted for; the former says, Gal. ii. 16. _Knowing that a man is not\njustified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ_;\nbut the other says, Jam. ii. 24. _That by works a man is justified, and\nnot by faith only._ The apostle Paul speaks of a sinner\u2019s justification,\nor freedom from the condemning sentence of the law in the sight of God,\nwhich gives him a right to eternal life, in which respect he looks for\nit out of himself, and, by faith, depends alone on Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness; in this sense, works do not justify: whereas the apostle\nJames, when he asserts, that _a man is justified by works, and not by\nfaith only_, intends that our profession and sincerity therein is\njustified; that is evidenced, not by our having just notions of things,\nor an historical faith, such as the devils themselves have, but by those\nworks of holiness, which are the fruits of it; this is the only\njustification he treats of, and therefore doth not in the least\ncontradict the apostle Paul, who treats of another kind of\njustification, in which works are excluded.\n6. When two scriptures seem to contradict one another, they may\nsometimes be reconciled, by considering the same thing absolutely in one\nplace, and comparatively in the other: thus, in many scriptures, we are\ncommanded to extend that love to every one in their several relations,\nwhich is due; and yet our Saviour says, Luke xiv. 26. _If any man come\nto me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and\nbrethren and sisters, he cannot be my disciple_: this is to be\nunderstood comparatively, that is, our love to the creature ought to\nbear no proportion to that which is due to God.\n7. Scriptures that seem to contradict one another, often speak of\ndifferent persons, or persons of different characters: thus it is said,\nLuke vi. 36. _Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful_; or,\n_Judge not, that ye be not judged_, Matt. vii. 2. This respects persons\nin a private capacity, and therefore doth not contradict those other\nscriptures that are applied to magistrates in the execution of public\njustice; to such it is said, Deut. xix. 21. _Thine eye shall not pity,\nbut life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,\nfoot for foot._\n8. Two contrary assertions may be both true in differing respects; thus\nour Saviour says in one place, _The poor ye have always with you, but me\nye have not always_, Matt. xxvi. 11. and in another, _Lo, I am with you\nalways, even to the end of the world_, chap. xxviii. 20. these are both\ntrue, one respecting Christ\u2019s bodily presence, as man, in which respect\nhe is not now with us; the other his spiritual and powerful influences,\nwhereby he is always present with his people as God.\n9. We must take notice of different times or dispensations, in which\nrespect those laws or ordinances, which were to be received and observed\nas a rule of faith and duty at one time, may not be so at another; thus\ncircumcision is recommended as a duty, and a privilege to the Jews\nbefore Christ\u2019s time, in which respect the apostle reckons it among the\nadvantages which they formerly had above all other nations, Rom. iii. 1,\n2. but when the gospel dispensation was erected, and the Jewish \u0153conomy\nabolished, it was so far from being an advantage, that the observance of\nit was deemed no less than a subversion of the gospel, as the apostle\nsays, Gal. v. 2. _If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you\nnothing_; and the same apostle gives a very diminutive character of\nthose institutes of the ceremonial law, which he calls, in his time,\n_weak and beggarly elements_, such as had a tendency to bring them again\n_into bondage_, and blames them for observing the Jewish festivals, such\nas days, months, times, and years; to wit, the new moons, feasts of\nweeks, or of years, such as the seventh year, or the jubilees, and tells\nthem, on this occasion, _I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed on you\nlabour in vain_, chap. iv. 9, 10, 11. so that what was a duty and a\nprivilege in one age of the church, and enjoined with the greatest\nstrictness, and severest punishments on those that neglected it, is\nforbid, as a sin in another age thereof, without the least shadow of\ncontradiction between those scriptures, which either enjoin or forbid\nit: thus, when our Saviour first sent his twelve disciples to preach the\ngospel, he commanded them, _Not to go in the way of the Gentiles_, Matt.\nx. 5. to wit, so long as he was here upon earth, or till they had\nfinished their ministry among the Jews, to whom the word was first to be\npreached; but afterwards, when the gospel was to be spread throughout\nthe world, he gave them a commission to _preach the gospel to all\nnations_, chap. xxviii. 19. which accordingly they did, as apprehending\nthere was no contradiction between the former prohibition and the\npresent command.[41]\nIV. The divine authority of scripture may be further proved from the\nscope and design of the whole, which is to give all glory to God.\nIt may be observed, concerning the scripture, that the advancing the\ndivine perfections, and debasing the creature, is the great end designed\nby God in giving it; and we find that whatever doctrine is laid down\ntherein, this end is still pursued. Now scripture-doctrines are designed\nto advance the glory of God, either directly or by consequence.\n1. As to the former of these, the scripture abounds with instances, in\nwhich God is adored or set forth, as the object of adoration, that is,\nas having all divine perfections, and as doing every thing becoming\nhimself as a God of glory: thus he is described herein, as the _Lord\nmost high and terrible, a great King over all the earth_, Psal. xlvii.\n2. and _glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders_, Exod.\nxv. 11. and as _the true God, the living God, and an everlasting King_,\nJer. x. 10. and as _the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and\nmercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments_,\nDan. ix. 4. and it is also said, _Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and\nthe power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that\nis in the heaven, and in the earth is thine: thine is the kingdom, O\nLord, and thou art exalted as Head over all_, 1 Chron. xxix. 11. These,\nand such-like adorable perfections, are not only occasionally ascribed\nto God in scripture, but every part thereof displays his glory in a\nmanner so illustrious, as gives ground to conclude, that the great\ndesign of it is to raise in us becoming apprehensions of him, and to put\nus upon adoring and worshipping him as God.\n2. It may, by a just consequence, be said to give all the glory to him,\nas it represents the emptiness, and even nothingness of all creatures,\nwhen compared with him, and hereby recommends him, as all in all: when\nit speaks of the best of creatures, as veiling their faces before him,\nas acknowledging themselves unworthy to behold his glory, and as\nderiving all their happiness from him; and when it speaks of man as a\nsinful guilty creature, expecting all from him, and depending upon him\nfor grace sufficient for him; and when it speaks of God, as the author\nand finisher of faith, in whom alone there is hope of obtaining mercy\nand forgiveness, grace here, and glory hereafter, and lays down this as\nthe sum of all religion; we must certainly conclude that its design is\nto give all glory to God.\nNow let us consider the force of this argument, or how the general scope\nand design of scripture, to give all glory to God, proves its divine\nauthority. Had it been the invention and contrivance of men, or if the\nwriters thereof had pretended they had received it by inspiration from\nGod, and it had not been so, then the great design thereof would have\nbeen to advance themselves; and they would certainly have laid down such\na scheme of religion therein, as is agreeable to the corrupt appetites\nand inclinations of men, or would tend to indulge and dispense with sin,\nand not such an one as sets forth the holiness of God, and his infinite\ndispleasure against it.\nAnd as for salvation, the penmen of scripture, had they not been\ninspired, would certainly have represented it as very easy to be\nattained, and not as a work of such difficulty as it really is; and they\nwould also have propagated such a religion, as supposes the creature not\ndependent on, or beholden to God for this salvation, and then the\nscripture would have detracted from his glory; but since, on the other\nhand, its general design is to give him the glory due to his name, this\nis a convincing evidence of its divine original.\nFrom the general design of scripture, as being to give all glory to God,\nwe may infer,\n(1.) That whenever we read the word of God, we ought to have this great\ndesign in view, and so not consider it barely as an historical narrative\nof things done, but should observe how the glory of the divine\nperfections is set forth, that hereby we may be induced to ascribe\ngreatness to God, and admire him for all the discoveries which he makes\nof himself therein.\n(2.) The scriptures\u2019 general design should be a rule to us in the whole\nof our conversation, wherein we ought to give all glory to God: whatever\nwe receive or expect from him, or whatever duty we engage in, let us act\nas those, that not only take the scripture for our rule, but its general\nscope and design for our example.\n(3.) Whatsoever doctrines are pretended to be deduced from, or to\ncontain the sense of scripture, which, notwithstanding, tend to\ndepreciate the divine perfections, these are to be rejected, as contrary\nto its general scope and design.\nV. Another argument may be taken from the character of the penmen of\nscripture; and here let them be supposed to be either good men, or bad:\nif good men, then they could not give themselves such a liberty to\nimpose upon the world, and pretend that they received that from God,\nwhich they did not; and if they were bad men, they neither could nor\nwould have laid down such doctrines, as centre in, lead the soul to God,\nand tend to promote self-denial, and advance his glory in all things;\nsince this is to suppose the worst of men to have the best ends, which\nwe can never do; for, as our Saviour says, Matt. vii. 16. _Do men gather\ngrapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?_ He is speaking of false\nprophets, who were to be known by their fruits; wicked men will have bad\ndesigns, or are like the corrupt tree, which bringeth forth evil fruit.\nBut, on the other hand, if persons deliver that which carries in it such\ninternal evidence of divine truth, and have such a noble design in view,\nas the securing the honour of God, and promoting his interest in the\nworld, these must certainly be approved of by him, and concluded to be\ngood men; and if so, then they would not impose a fallacy on the world,\nor say that the scripture was given by divine inspiration, when they\nknew it to be otherwise.\nIf the scriptures are not the word of God, then the penmen thereof have\nmiserably deceived, not a small number of credulous people, but the\nwhole Christian world, among whom we must allow that many were\njudicious, and such as would not easily suffer themselves to be imposed\non; to which we may add, that others to whom the gospel was preached,\nwere exasperated enemies to those that preached it, and particularly to\nthese inspired penmen of scripture, and greatly prejudiced against their\ndoctrine, and therefore would use all possible endeavours to detect the\nfallacy, if there had been any; so that it was morally impossible for\nthem to deceive the world in this instance, or make them believe that\nthe scriptures were the word of God, if there had not been the strongest\nevidence to convince them of it, which they could not withstand or\ngainsay.\nBut, that we may enter a little further into the character of the penmen\nof scripture, let it be observed,\n1. That they could not be charged by their enemies with immoral\npractices, or notorious crimes, which might weaken the credit of the\ntruths they delivered: they were, indeed, compassed about with like\ninfirmities with other men; for it is not to be supposed, that, because\nthey were inspired, therefore they were perfectly free from sin; since\nthat does not necessarily follow from their having this privilege\nconferred upon them; yet their enemies themselves could find no great\nblemishes in their character, which might justly prejudice them against\ntheir writings, or that might render them unfit to be employed in this\ngreat work of transmitting the mind of God to the world.\n2. They appear to be men of great integrity, not declining to discover\nand aggravate their own faults, as well as the sins of others. Thus\nMoses, though a man of great meekness, as to his general character,\ndiscovers his own failing, in repining, and being uneasy, because of the\nuntoward and turbulent spirit of the people, over whom he was appointed\na governor, when he represents himself as complaining to God; _Wherefore\nhast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour\nin thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?\nHave I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them, that thou\nshouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom? Whence should I have\nflesh to give unto all this people? I am not able to bear this people\nalone, because it is too heavy for me. And if thou deal thus with me,\nkill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight;\nand let me not see mine own wretchedness_, Numb. xi. 11-15. This was\ncertainly a very great blemish in the character of this excellent man;\nbut he does not attempt to conceal it; nor does he omit to mention his\nbackwardness to comply with the call of God, to deliver his brethren out\nof their bondage in Egypt, but tells us what poor trifling excuses he\nmade; as when he says, Exod. iv. 10, 13, 19. _O Lord, I am not\neloquent_; and when God answers him, by promising to supply this defect,\nhe obstinately persists in declining this service, and says, _O my Lord,\nsend, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send_; that is, by\nany one but myself; so that he who expressed such courage and resolution\nforty years before in defending the oppressed Israelites, and supposed\nthat his brethren would have understood that God, by his hand, would\ndeliver them, but they understood it not, Acts vii. 24, 25. when God\nreally called him to deliver them, he obstinately refused to obey; and,\nindeed, whatever excuses he might make, the main thing that lay at the\nbottom was fear, and therefore, as a further inducement to it, God tells\nhim, _The men were dead that sought his life_. All this he says\nconcerning himself; and elsewhere he tells us, Deut. xxxii. 51, 52.\ncompared with Numb. xx. 10, 11, 12. and Deut. iii. 25-27. that he did\nnot sanctify the name of God in the eyes of the people, but spake\nunadvisedly with his lips; and that, for this, God would not let him go\ninto the land of Canaan, though he earnestly desired it.\nAnd the prophet Jeremiah tells us, how he was ready to faint, and, in a\nmurmuring way, curses the day of his birth, Jer. xx. 7, 8, 14, 15, 16.\nand seems almost determined _not to make mention of God, nor speak any\nmore in his name_, because he had been put in the stocks by Pashur, and\nwas derided and mocked by others, who were, indeed, below his notice.\nAnd David discovered his own sin, though it was a very scandalous one,\nin the matter of Uriah, Psal. li. the title, compared with ver. 14. and\nprays, _Deliver me from blood guiltiness_; which is a confession of his\nbeing guilty of murder.\nThe apostles also discover their infirmities. Thus Paul discovers his\nfurious temper, in persecuting the church, before his conversion, and\nranks himself amongst the chief of sinners, 1 Tim. i. 13, 15. And how\nwilling is Matthew to let the world know, that, before his conversion,\nhe was a publican: thus he characterises himself, Matt. x. 3. and says,\nchap. ix. 9. that when Christ called him, he sat _at the receipt of\ncustom_, though the publicans were reckoned among the vilest of men for\nextortion, and other crimes, and were universally hated by the Jews.\nMoreover as the penmen of scripture expose their own crimes, so they do\nthose of their nearest and dearest friends and relatives, which carnal\npolicy would have inclined them to conceal. Thus Moses tells us how\nAaron his brother made the golden calf, and so was the encourager and\npromoter of the people\u2019s idolatry; that it was he that _bid them break\noff the golden ear-rings, which he received at their hand, whereof he\nmade a molten calf, and then built an altar before it_, Exod. xxxii.\n2-5. Though the Jewish historian[42] was so politic, as to conceal this\nthing, for the honour of his own nation; and therefore when he tells us,\nthat Moses went up into the mount to receive the law, he says nothing of\nthe scandalous crime, which the people were guilty of at the foot of the\nmountain at the same time.\nMoreover, as they do not conceal their sins, so they sometimes declare\nthe meanness of their extraction, which shewed that they did not design\nto have honour from men. Thus Amos tells us, Amos i. 1. _He was among\nthe herdmen of Tekoa_: and that he was not bred up in the schools of the\nprophets, which he intends, when he styles himself, _no prophet, neither\na prophet\u2019s son_, chap. vii. 14.\nAnd the evangelists occasionally tell the world how they were\nfisher-men, when called to be Christ\u2019s disciples, and so not bred up in\nthe schools of learning among the Jews.[43]\n3. They were very far from being crafty or designing men; neither did\nthey appear to be men that were able to manage an imposture of this\nnature, or frame a new scheme of religion, and, at the same time, make\nthe world believe that it was from God. For,\n(1.) None that read the scriptures can find any appearance of design in\nthe penmen thereof, to advance themselves or families. Moses, indeed,\nhad the burden of government, but he did not affect the pomp and\nsplendor of a king; neither did he make any provision for his family, so\nas to advance them to great honours in the world, which it was in his\npower to have done: the laws he gave, rendered those of his own tribe,\nto wit, that of Levi, incapable of, and not designed for kingly\ngovernment; and the highest honour of the priesthood, which was fixed in\nthat tribe, was conferred on his brother\u2019s children, not his own.\n(2.) The prophets were very few of them great men in the world, not\nadvanced to great places in the government; the esteem and reputation\nthey had among the people at any time, was only for their integrity, and\nthe honour conferred on them by God; and the apostles were plain men,\nwho drove on no design to gain riches and honours from those to whom\nthey preached the gospel; but, on the other hand, they expected nothing\nbut poverty, reproach, imprisonment, and, at last, to die a violent\ndeath: therefore, how can it be supposed that they were subtle designing\nmen, who had some worldly advantage in view? It is plain that they had\nno design but to do what God commanded, and to communicate what they had\nreceived from him, and shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,\nwhatever it cost them. The apostle Paul was so far from endeavouring to\nenrich himself by preaching the gospel, that he tells the church, _I\nseek not your\u2019s, but you_, 2 Cor. xii. 14. and how he was fortified\nagainst the afflictions, which he foresaw would attend his ministry,\nwhen he says, Philip, iv. 11, 12. _I have learned in whatsoever state I\nam, therewith to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to\nabound, to be full, and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer want_: and\nhe was not only content to bear afflictions, but, when called to it, he\nprofesses himself to _take pleasure in reproach, in necessities, in\npersecutions, in distresses, for Christ\u2019s sake_, 2 Cor. xii. 10.\nHitherto we have proved, that the penmen of scripture were men of such a\ncharacter, that they would not designedly impose on mankind. But some\nwill say, might they not be imposed on themselves, and think they were\ndivinely inspired, when they were not?\nTo this it may be answered, that if they were deceived or imposed on\nthemselves, when they thought they received the scripture by divine\ninspiration, this must proceed from one of these two causes: either,\n1. They took what was the result of a heated fancy, a strong\nimagination, or raised affections for inspiration, as some of our modern\nenthusiasts have done, who have prefaced their warnings, as they call\nthem, with, _Thus saith the Lord_, &c. when the Lord did not speak by\nthem. And the deists have the same notion of the prophets and inspired\npenmen of scripture, and esteem their writings no farther than as they\ncontain the law of nature, or those doctrines that are self-evident, or\nmight have been invented by the reason of man; and as such they receive\nthem, without any regard to divine inspiration. Or,\n2. If the inspired penmen of scripture were otherwise imposed on, it\nmust be by a diabolic inspiration, of which, in other cases, the world\nhas had various instances, when Satan is said (to use the apostle\u2019s\nwords) to _transform himself into an angel of light_, 2 Cor. xi. 14. or\nhas been suffered to deceive his followers, not only by putting forth\nsigns and lying wonders, but impressing their minds with strong\ndelusions, whereby they have believed a lie, 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11. as\nsupposing it to proceed from divine inspiration; and, to give\ncountenance thereto, has produced such violent agitations, tremblings,\nor distortions in their bodies, as have seemed preternatural, not much\nunlike those with which the heathen oracles were delivered of old, which\nwere called by some, a divine fury; but this cannot, with any shadow of\nreason, be applied to the inspired writers, therefore they were not\nimposed on.\n1. They did not mistake their own fancies for divine revelation.\nTo suppose that they did so, is not only to conclude that all revealed\nreligion is a delusion; but that the church in all ages, and amongst\nthem the wisest and best of men, have been enthusiasts, and all their\nhope, founded on this revelation, has been no better than a vain dream.\nBut it is one thing to assert, and another thing to prove; and because\nthey who take this liberty to reproach the scriptures, pretend not to\nsupport their charge by argument, it might seem less necessary to make a\nreply: however, that our faith may be established, we shall briefly\nconsider this objection. Therefore,\n(1.) This charge is either brought against all that ever spake or wrote\nby divine inspiration, or only against some of them; if only some of\nthem have been thus deluded, we might demand particular instances of any\nof the inspired writers, who are liable to this charge, together with\nthe reasons thereof. If it be said that some of them were men of less\nwisdom, or had not those advantages to improve their natural abilities,\nas others have had; this will not be sufficient to support their cause,\nsince God can make use of what instruments he pleases, and endow them\nwith wisdom in an extraordinary way, to qualify them for the service he\ncalls them to, whereby the glory of his sovereignty more appears. If he\npleases to chuse the _foolish things of the world, to confound the wise,\nthat no flesh shall glory in his presence_, 1 Cor. i. 27, 29. shall he\nfor this be called to an account by vain man? And it is certain, that\nsome who have had this gift, have, as the consequence thereof, been\nendowed with such wisdom, as has tended to confound their most malicious\nenemies. But we will suppose that they, who bring this charge against\nthe inspired writers, will not pretend to single out any among them, but\naccuse them all in general of enthusiasm; and if this charge be grounded\non the vain pretensions of some to inspiration in this age, in which we\nhave no ground to expect this divine gift, will it follow, that, because\nsome are deluded, therefore divine revelation, supported by\nincontestable evidence, was a delusion? Or if it be said, that some of\nold, whom we conclude to have been inspired, were called enthusiasts, as\nJehu, and his fellow-soldiers concluded the prophet to be, who was sent\nto anoint him king, 2 Kings ix. 11. nothing can be inferred from thence,\nbut that there were, in all ages, some Deists, who have treated things\nsacred with reproach and ridicule.\n(2.) But if this charge be pretended to be supported by any thing that\nhas the least appearance of an argument, it will be alleged, in defence\nthereof, that it is impossible for a person certainly to know himself to\nbe inspired at any time; if that could be proved indeed, it would be\nsomething to the purpose: and inasmuch as we are obliged to assert the\ncontrary, it will be demanded, how it might be known that a person was\nunder inspiration, or what are the certain marks by which we may\nconclude that the inspired writers were not mistaken in this matter? I\nconfess, it is somewhat difficult to determine this question, especially\nsince inspiration has so long ceased in the world; but we shall\nendeavour to answer it, by laying down the following propositions.\n1. If some powerful and impressive influences of the Spirit of God on\nthe souls of men, in the more common and ordinary methods of divine\nprovidence and grace, have been not only experienced, but their truth\nand reality discerned by them, who have been favoured therewith, so that\nwithout pretending to inspiration, they had sufficient reason to\nconclude that they were divine; certainly when God was pleased to\nconverse with men in such a way, as that which we call inspiration, it\nwas not impossible for them to conclude that they were inspired; which\nis an argument taken from the less to the greater.\n2. There were some particular instances, in which it seemed absolutely\nnecessary, that they who received intimations from God in such a way,\nshould have infallible evidence that they were not mistaken, especially\nwhen some great duty was to be performed by them, pursuant to a divine\ncommand, in which it would be a dangerous thing for them to be deceived;\nas in the case of Abraham\u2019s offering up his son; and Jacob\u2019s going with\nhis family into Egypt, which was a forsaking the promised land, an\nexposing them to the loss of their religion, through the influence or\nexample of those with whom they went to sojourn; and it might be\nuncertain whether they should ever return or no; therefore he needed a\ndivine warrant, enquired of God with respect to this matter, and\ndoubtless had some way to be infallibly assured concerning the divine\nwill relating hereunto, Gen. xlvi. 2, 3, 4. Moreover, our Saviour\u2019s\ndisciples, leaving their families, going into the most remote parts of\nthe world to propagate the gospel, which they had received in this way,\nevinces the necessity of their knowing themselves to be under a divine\ninspiration: and if they had been deceived in this matter, would they\nnot have been reproved for it by him, whose intimations they are\nsupposed to have followed in the simplicity of their hearts?\n3. As to the way by which God might convince them, beyond all manner of\ndoubt, that he spake to them who were under divine inspiration, there\nare various ways, that might have been taken, and probably were. As,\n(1.) Sometimes extraordinary impressions were made on the soul of the\nprophet, arising from the immediate access of God to it: of this we have\nfrequent instances in scripture; as in that particular vision which\nDaniel saw, which occasioned his _comeliness to be turned into\ncorruption, and his having no strength_, Dan. x. 8. and the vision of\nour Saviour, which John saw, the effect whereof was his falling at his\nfeet as dead, Rev. i. 17. and many other instances of the like nature\nmight be referred to, which were, at least, antecedent to inspiration,\nand the result of the access of God to the soul, which occasioned such a\nchange in nature, as could not but be discerned after the person had a\nlittle recovered himself. But if it be said, that such an effect as this\nmight be produced by an infernal spirit, the answer I would give to that\nis, that supposing this possible, yet it must be proved that God would\nsuffer it, especially in such an instance, in which his own cause was so\nmuch concerned; and besides, it is not improbable that the soul of the\nprophet was sometimes brought into such a frame of spirit, as resembled\nthe heavenly state, as much as it is possible for any one to attain to\nin this world; such an intercourse as this made Jacob say, _This is no\nother but the house of God, and this the gate of heaven_. Gen. xxviii.\n(2.) As this converse with God contained in it something supernatural\nand very extraordinary in the effects thereof, so it is not improbable\nthat God might work miracles, of various kinds, to confirm the prophet\u2019s\nbelief as to this matter, though they are not particularly recorded in\nall the instances in which we read of inspiration; and this would be as\nfull an evidence as could be desired.\nIf it be objected, that it is not probable that miracles were always\nwrought to give this conviction: I would not be too peremptory in\npretending to determine this matter, it is sufficient to say they were\nsometimes wrought; but, however, there were, doubtless, some other\nconcurring circumstances, which put the thing out of all dispute; for\nnot to suppose this, is to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God, as\nwell as to depreciate one of the greatest honours which he has been\npleased to confer upon men. Thus we have considered the unreasonableness\nof the charge brought against the inspired penmen of scripture, as\nthough they were imposed on, by mistaking their enthusiastic fancies for\ndivine revelation. We proceed to consider,\n2. That they were not imposed upon by the devil, as mistaking some\nimpressions made by him on their minds, for divine revelation: this is\nevident; for\n1. Divine inspiration was not only occasional, or conferred in some\nparticular instances, with a design to amuse the world, or confirm some\ndoctrines which were altogether new, impure, and subversive of the\ndivine glory in some ages thereof, when men were universally degenerate,\nand had cast off God and religion; but it was continued in the church\nfor many ages, when they evidently appeared to be the peculiar objects\nof the divine regard; and therefore,\n2. God would never have suffered the devil, in such circumstances of\ntime and things, to have deluded the world, and that in such a degree,\nas that he should be the author of that rule of faith, which he designed\nto make use of to propagate his interest therein; so that his people\nshould be beholden to their grand enemy for those doctrines which were\ntransmitted by inspiration.\n3. Satan would have acted against his own interest, should he have\ninspired men to propagate a religion, which has a direct tendency to\noverthrow his own kingdom; in which instance, as our Saviour observes,\n_His kingdom would be divided against itself_, Matth. xii. 25, 26. As it\nis contrary to the wisdom and holiness of God to suffer it, so Satan\ncould never have done it out of choice, and he has too much subtilty to\ndo it through mistake; therefore the inspired writers could not be\nimposed on by any infernal spirit.\nAnd to this we may add, that this could not be done by a good angel; for\nif such a one had pretended herein to have imitated, or as it were,\nusurped the throne of God, he would not have deserved the character of a\ngood angel; therefore it follows, that they could not have been inspired\nby any but God himself.\nHaving considered that the penmen of scripture have faithfully\ntransmitted to us what they received by divine inspiration, we must now\ntake notice of some things which are alleged by those who endeavour not\nonly to depreciate, but overthrow the divine authority of the sacred\nwritings, when they allege that they were only inspired, as to the\nsubstance or general idea of what they committed to writing, and were\nleft to express the things contained therein in their own words, which,\nas they suppose, hath occasioned some contradictions, which they pretend\nto be found therein, arising from the treachery of their memories, or\nthe unfitness of their style, to express what had been communicated to\nthem. This they found on the difference of style observed in the various\nbooks thereof; as some are written in an elegant and lofty style, others\nclouded with mystical and dark expressions; some are more plain, others\nare laid down in an argumentative way; all which differing ways of\nspeaking they suppose agreeable to the character of the inspired writers\nthereof: so that, though the matter contains in it something divine, the\nwords and phrases, in which it is delivered can hardly be reckoned so.\nAnd as for some books of scripture, especially those that are\nhistorical, they suppose that these might be written without\ninspiration, and that some of them were taken from the histories which\nwere then in being, or some occurrences which were observed in the days\nin which the writers lived, and were generally known and believed in\nthose times, to which they more immediately relate.\nAnd as for those books of scripture, which are more especially\ndoctrinal, they suppose that there are many mistakes in them, but that\nthese respect only doctrines of less importance; whereas the providence\nof God has prevented them from making any gross or notorious blunders,\nsubversive of natural religion; so that the scripture may be deemed\nsufficient to answer the general design thereof, in propagating religion\nin the world, though we are not obliged to conclude that it is\naltogether free from those imperfections that will necessarily attend\nsuch a kind of inspiration.\n_Answ._ If this account of scripture be true, it would hardly deserve to\nbe called the word of God; therefore, that we may vindicate it from this\naspersion, let it be considered,\n1. As to the different styles observed in the various books thereof, it\ndoes not follow from hence, that the penmen were left to deliver what\nthey received, in their own words; for certainly it was no difficult\nmatter for the Spirit of God to furnish the writers thereof with words,\nas well as matter, and to inspire them to write in a style agreeable to\nwhat they used in other cases, whereby they might better understand and\ncommunicate the sense thereof to those to whom it was first given; as if\na person should send a message by a child, it is an easy matter to put\nsuch words into his mouth as are agreeable to his common way of\nspeaking, without leaving the matter to him to express it in his own\nwords: thus the inspired writers might be furnished with words by the\nHoly Ghost, adapted to that style which they commonly used, without\nsupposing they were left to themselves to clothe the general ideas with\ntheir own words.[44]\n2. As to what is said concerning the historical parts of scripture, that\nit is not necessary for them to have been transmitted to us by divine\ninspiration, it may be replied, that these, as well as other parts\nthereof, _were written for our learning_, Rom. xv. 4. so that what is\nexcellent in the character of persons, is designed for our imitation;\ntheir blemishes and defects, to humble us under a sense of the universal\ncorruption of human nature; and the evil consequences thereof, to awaken\nour fears, and dehort us from exposing ourselves to the same judgments\nwhich were inflicted as the punishment of sin: and the account we have\nof the providential dealing of God with his church, in the various ages\nthereof, is of use to put us upon admiring and adoring the divine\nperfections, as much as the doctrinal parts of scripture; and therefore\nit is necessary that we have the greatest certainty that the inspired\nwriters have given us a true narration of things, and consequently that\nthe words, as well as the matter, are truly divine.\n3. When, that they may a little palliate the matter, they allow that the\ninspired writers, though left to the weakness of their memory, and the\nimpropriety of their style, were, notwithstanding, preserved, by the\ninterposure of divine providence, from committing mistakes in matters of\nthe highest importance; it may be replied, That it will be very\ndifficult for them to assign what doctrines are of greater, and what of\nless importance, in all the instances thereof, or wherein providence has\ninterposed, to prevent their running into mistakes, and when it has not;\nso that we are still in an uncertainty what doctrines are delivered to\nus, as they were received by inspiration, and what are misrepresented by\nthe penmen of scripture; and we shall be ready to conclude, that in\nevery section or paragraph thereof, some things may be true, and others\nfalse; some doctrines divine and others human, while we are left without\nany certain rule to distinguish one from the other, and accordingly we\ncannot be sure that any part of it is the word of God; so that such a\nrevelation as this would be of no real service to the church, and our\nfaith would be founded in the wisdom, or rather weakness of men, and our\nreligion, depending on it, could not be truly divine; so that this\nmethod of reasoning is, to use the word inspiration, but to destroy all\nthe valuable ends thereof.\nVI. Another argument, to prove the scriptures to be the word of God, may\nbe taken from their antiquity and wonderful preservation for so many\nages; this appears more remarkable, if we consider,\n1. That many other writings, of much later date, have been lost, and\nnothing more is known of them, but that there were once such books in\nthe world; and books might more easily be lost, when there were no other\nbut written copies of them, and these procured with much expense and\ndifficulty, and consequently their number proportionably small.\n2. That the scripture should be preserved, notwithstanding all the\nmalice of its avowed enemies, as prompted hereunto by Satan, whose\nkingdom is overthrown by it. Had it been in his power, he would\ncertainly have utterly abolished and destroyed it; but yet it has been\npreserved unto this day, which discovers a wonderful hand of providence;\nand would God so remarkably have taken care of a book, that pretends to\nadvance itself by bearing the character of a divinely inspired writing,\nif it had not been really so? Which leads us to the next argument,\ncontaining an advice, which is more convincing than any other; or, at\nleast, if this be added to those arguments which have been already\ngiven, I hope it will more abundantly appear that the scriptures are the\nword of God; since,\nVII. The divine authority thereof is attested by God himself; and if, in\nother cases, _we receive the witness of men_, surely, as the apostle\nobserves, _the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 9.\nNow the testimony of God to the authority of scripture is twofold;\n_First_, Extraordinary; _Secondly_, Ordinary; the extraordinary\ntestimony of God is that of miracles; the ordinary is taken from the use\nwhich he makes of it, in convincing and converting sinners, and building\nup in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.\n1. As to the former of these, God has attested the truth hereof by\nmiracles. A miracle is an extraordinary divine work, whereby something\nis produced, contrary to the common course and laws of nature: thus the\nmagicians confessed, that one of the miracles which Moses wrought was\nthe _finger of God_, Exod. viii. 19. Of these there are many undeniable\ninstances recorded in scripture, both in the Old and New Testament; and\nthese being above the power of a creature, and works peculiar to God,\nthey contain a divine testimony to the truth that is confirmed thereby,\nfor the confirmation whereof an appeal was made to them. Now when we say\nthat the divine authority of scripture was confirmed by miracles, we\nmean,\n(1.) That God has wrought miracles to testify his approbation of most of\nthe prophets and apostles, who were the inspired writers thereof,\nwhereby their mission was declared to be divine; and we cannot think\nthat God, who knows the hearts and secret designs of men, would employ\nor send any to perform so great and important a work, if he knew them to\nbe disposed to deceive and impose on the world; or that they would in\nany instance, call that his word which they did not receive from him.\nThe reason why men sometimes employ unfaithful servants about their work\nis, because they do not know them; they never do it out of choice; and\ntherefore we cannot suppose that God, who perfectly knows the hearts of\nmen, would do so; therefore, having not only employed the penmen of\nscripture as his servants, but confirmed their mission, and testified\nhis approbation of them, by miracles, this is a ground of conviction to\nus that they would not have pretended the scriptures to be the word of\nGod, if they were not so.\nNow that miracles have been wrought for this end, I think, needs no\nproof; for we are assured hereof, not barely by the report of those\nprophets, whose mission is supposed to have been confirmed thereby, but\nit was universally known and received in the church, in those times, in\nwhich they were wrought, and it is not pretended to be denied, by its\nmost inveterate enemies; the truth hereof, _viz._ that Moses, and\nseveral other of the prophets, and our Saviour, and his apostles,\nwrought miracles, can hardly be reckoned a matter in controversy; for it\nis a kind of scepticism to deny it: and it is certain, that herein they\nappealed to God for the confirmation of their mission; as Elijah is said\nexplicitly to have done, when he prays to this effect; _Lord God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art\nGod in Israel, and that I am thy servant; and that I have done all these\nthings at thy word_, 1 Kings xviii. 36. and we read, that God answered\nhim accordingly, _By the fire from heaven consuming the\nburnt-sacrifice_, &c. ver. 38.\n(2.) Such appeals to God, and answers from him, have attained their end,\nby giving conviction to those who were more immediately concerned; this\nis evident from what is said; in that the same prophet, having had his\nrequest granted him, when God wrought a miracle, in raising the dead\nchild to life, the woman of Zarephath confessed, that by this she knew\n_that he was a man of God, and that the word of the Lord, in his mouth,\nwas truth_, 1 Kings xvii. 21-24. And it is not denied by the Jews, the\nmost irreconcileable enemies to Christianity, that what is related in\nthe New Testament, concerning our Saviour\u2019s, and his apostles, working\nmiracles, was true in fact; but the only thing denied by them is, that\nthis was a divine testimony, or that they were wrought by the hand of\nGod; and therefore the common reproach which is cast on them is, that\nthey were wrought by magic art, as the Jews of old objected to our\nSaviour, _that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the\ndevils_, Matth. xii. 24. and his reply to them was unanswerable, when he\nsaid, that this objection would argue _Satan divided against himself_;\nintimating, that he would never take such a method as this to overthrow\nthe Christian religion, which he could not but know was more conducive\nto the establishment of it, than any other that could be used.\n_Object._ 1. But if it be objected, that though miracles were wrought to\nconfirm the mission of several of the prophets, yet none were wrought to\nconfirm the divine authority of the subject matter of the scriptures:\n_Answ._ To this it may be easily answered; that it is sufficient, if we\ncan prove that God has given his testimony, that he made choice of those\nprophets to declare his mind and will to the world; and that he has\naccordingly deemed them fit to be credited, and that they were not men\nliable to any suspicion of carrying on a design to deceive the world; so\nthat if God himself not only styles them holy men, as he does all the\ninspired writers in general, when he says, 2 Pet. i. 21. _Holy men of\nGod spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_, but also wrought\nmiracles to prove that they were his servants and messengers, employed\nin this work; this is as convincing a testimony, as though every part of\nscripture wrote by them had been confirmed by a miracle. Besides, it is\nnot unreasonable to suppose, that the church lived in those ages, in\nwhich the various parts of scripture were written, had some\nextraordinary proofs of their divine authority; since, in many of them,\nmiracles were very common, and, at the same time that the penmen of\nscripture had the gift of inspiration, others had, what the apostle\ncalls, a _discerning of spirits_, 1 Cor. xii. 10. so that they were\nenabled, by this means, to know whether the prophet, that pretended to\ninspiration, was really inspired: this, to me seems very probably, the\nsense of the apostle, when he says, 1 Cor. xiv. 32. _The spirits of the\nprophets are subject to the prophets_, for he is discoursing before of\nprophets speaking by divine revelation, and others judging thereof: now\nif there was this extraordinary gift of discerning of spirits in the\nages, in which particular books of scripture were written, they who were\nfavoured herewith, had a convincing testimony of the inspiration of the\nprophets and apostles, from the same Spirit by whom they were inspired,\nby which means the divine authority of scripture was infallibly known to\nthem, and so imparted to others for their farther confirmation as to\nthis matter.\n_Object._ 2. We are not now to expect miracles to confirm our faith, as\nto the divine original of scripture; therefore how can we be said to\nhave a divine testimony.\n_Answ._ As miracles are now ceased, so such a method of confirming\ndivine revelation is not necessary in all succeeding ages: God did not\ndesign to make that dispensation too common, nor to continue the\nevidence it affords, when there was no necessity thereof. Thus when the\nscribes and Pharisees came to our Saviour, desiring to _see a sign_ from\nhim, Matt, xii. 38. he would not comply with their unreasonable demand;\nand the apostle Paul takes notice of humour prevailing among the Jews in\nhis time, who then _required a sign_, 1 Cor, i, 22. but, instead of\ncomplying with them herein, he refers them to the success of the gospel,\nwhich is _the power of God to salvation_, as the only testimony to the\ntruth thereof that was then needful; and our Saviour, in the parable,\nintimates, that the truth of divine revelation has been so well\nattested, that _they who believe not Moses and the prophets, would not\nbe persuaded, though one rose from the dead_, Luke xvi, 31. Therefore,\nsince we have such a convincing evidence hereof, it is an unreasonable\ndegree of obstinacy to refuse to believe the divine authority of\nscripture, merely because miracles are not now wrought; since, to demand\na farther proof of it, is no other than a tempting God, or disowning\nthat what he has done is sufficient for our conviction; and to say, that\nfor want of this evidence, our faith is not founded on a divine\ntestimony, is nothing to the purpose, unless it could be proved that it\nis not founded on such a testimony formerly given, the contrary to which\nis undeniably evident, since we have this truth confirmed by the\nconfession of the church in all the ages thereof, and therefore we have\nas much ground to believe this matter, as though miracles were wrought\nevery day for its confirmation. This will farther appear, if we consider\nthe abundant ground we have to conclude that God has formerly given such\na testimony to his word; which leads us to enquire how far the testimony\nof the church, in all the ages thereof, is to be regarded.\nThe church has given its suffrage, throughout all the ages thereof, to\nthe divine original of scripture, how much soever it has perverted the\nsense of it. That this argument may be set in a true light, let us\nconsider what the Papists say to this matter, when they appeal to the\nchurch, to establish the divine authority of scripture; and wherein we\ndiffer from them; and how far its testimony is to be regarded, as a\nmeans for our farther conviction. We are far from asserting, with them,\nthat the church\u2019s testimony alone is to be regarded, without the\ninternal evidence of the divine authority of scripture, as though that\nwere the principal, if not the only foundation on which our faith is\nbuilt. If, indeed, they could prove the infallibility of the church, we\nshould more readily conclude the infallibility of its testimony; but all\ntheir attempts of this nature are vain and trifling.\nMoreover, we do not mean altogether the same thing by the church as they\ndo, when they intend by it a council convened together, to decree and\nestablish matters of faith, by him whom they pretend to be the visible\nhead thereof; and so a majority of votes of a body of men, every one of\nwhom are liable to error, must determine, and, according to them, give a\ndivine sanction to our faith. Nor do we think that those, whom they call\nthe fathers of the church, are to be any farther regarded, than as they\nprove what they assert, since there is scarce any error or absurdity,\nbut what some or other of them have given into. We also distinguish\nbetween the churches testimony, that the scripture was given by divine\ninspiration, and the sense they give of many of its doctrines; as to the\nlatter of these, it has given us ground enough to conclude, that its\njudgment is not much to be depended upon; however, we find that, in all\nages, it has given sufficient testimony to this truth, that the\nscriptures are the word of God, and that they have been proved to be so,\nby the seal which God has set thereunto, to wit, by the miracles that\nhave been wrought to confirm it. If therefore God has had a church in\nthe world, or a remnant whom he has preserved faithful; and if their\nfaith, and all their religion, and hope of salvation, has been founded,\nwithout the least exception, on this truth, that the scriptures are the\nword of God, we cannot altogether set aside this argument. But there is\nyet another, which we lay more stress on, namely, the use which God has\nmade of it, which is the second thing to be considered, _viz._\n2. His ordinary method of attesting this truth; it appears therefore, as\nis farther observed in this answer, that the scriptures are the word of\nGod, from their light and power to convince and convert sinners, and to\ncomfort and build up believers to salvation. Here let us consider,\n1. That the work of conviction and conversion is, and has been at all\ntimes, experienced by those who have had any right or claim to\nsalvation; of which there have not only been various instances, in all\nages, but the very being of the church, which supposes and depends\nthereon, is an undeniable proof of it.\n2. As this work is truly divine, so the scriptures have been the\nprincipal, if not the only direct means, by which it has been brought\nabout; so that we have never had any other rule, or standard of faith,\nor revealed religion; nor has the work of grace been ever begun, or\ncarried on, in the souls of any, without it; from whence it evidently\nappears, that God makes use of it to propagate and advance his interest\nin the world, and has given his church ground to expect his presence\nwith it, in all his ordinances, in which they are obliged to pay a due\nregard to scripture; and, in so doing, they have found that their\nexpectation has not been in vain, since God has, by this means,\nmanifested himself to them, and made them partakers of spiritual\nprivileges, which have been the beginning of their salvation.\n3. It cannot be supposed that God would make this use of his word, and\nthereby put such an honour upon it, had it been an imposture, or borne\nthe specious pretence of being instamped with his authority, if it had\nnot been so; for that would be to give countenance to a lie, which is\ncontrary to the holiness of his nature.\nThus we have considered the several arguments, whereby the scripture\nappears to be the word of God; but since multitudes are not convinced\nhereby, we have, in the close of this answer, an account of the means\nwhereby Christians come to a full persuasion as to this matter, and that\nis the testimony of the Spirit in the heart of man, which is the next\nthing to be considered. By this we do not understand that extraordinary\nimpression which some of old have been favoured with, who are said to\nhave been moved by the Holy Ghost, or to have had an extraordinary\nunction from the Holy One, whereby they were led into the knowledge of\ndivine truths, in a way of supernatural illumination. This we pretend\nnot to, since extraordinary gifts are ceased; yet it does not follow\nfrom hence, that the Spirit does not now influence the minds of\nbelievers in an ordinary way, whereby they are led into, and their faith\nconfirmed in all necessary truths, and this in particular, that the\nscriptures are the word of God; for we may observe, that no privilege\nreferring to salvation, was ever taken away, but some other, subservient\nto the same end, has been substituted in the room thereof; especially,\nunless a notorious forfeiture has been made of it, and the church, by\napostacy, has excluded itself from an interest in the divine regard; but\nthis cannot be said of the gospel-church in all the ages thereof, since\nextraordinary gifts have ceased; therefore we must conclude, that being\ndestitute of that way, by which this truth was once confirmed, believers\nhave, instead of it, an inward conviction wrought by the Spirit of God,\nagreeable to his present method of acting; otherwise this present\ngospel-dispensation is, in a very material circumstance, much inferior\nto that in which God discovered his mind and will to man in an\nextraordinary way.\nBut that we may explain what we mean by this inward testimony of the\nSpirit in the hearts of men, whereby they are fully persuaded that the\nscriptures are the word of God, let it be considered,\n(1.) That it is something more than barely a power, or faculty of\nreasoning, to prove the scriptures to be divine, since that is common to\nall; but this is a special privilege, given to those who are hereby\nfully persuaded of this truth. Moreover, there may be a power of\nreasoning, and yet we may be mistaken in the exercise thereof; and\ntherefore this is not sufficient, fully to persuade us that they are the\nword of God, and consequently something more than this is intended in\nthis answer.\n(2.) It is something short of inspiration; therefore, though the\nscripture was known to be the word of God, by the Spirit of inspiration,\nso long as that dispensation continued in the church, yet that privilege\nbeing now ceased, the internal testimony of the Spirit contains a lower\ndegree of illumination, which has nothing miraculous attending it, and\ntherefore falls short of inspiration.\n(3.) It is not an enthusiastic impulse, or strong impression upon our\nminds, whereby we conclude a thing to be true, because we think it is\nso; this we by no means allow of, since our own fancies are not the\nstandard of truth, how strong soever our ideas of things may be;\ntherefore,\n(4.) This inward testimony of the Spirit contains in it a satisfying and\nestablishing persuasion, that the scriptures are the word of God, not\naltogether destitute of other evidences, or convincing arguments: and\nthat which is more especially convincing to weak Christians, is taken\nfrom the use which God makes of the scripture, in beginning and carrying\non the work of grace in their souls, who are thus convinced; and this\nfirm persuasion we find sometimes so deeply rooted in their hearts, that\nthey would sooner die ten thousand deaths than part with scripture, or\nentertain the least slight thought of it, as though it were not divine;\nand certainly there is a special hand of God in this persuasion, which\nwe can call no other than the inward testimony of the Spirit, whereby\nthey are established in this important truth.[45]\nFootnote 20:\n  \u201cSince God has been pleased to leave us the Records of the _Jewish_\n  Religion, which was of old the true religion, and affords no small\n  testimony to the Christian religion, it is not foreign to our purpose,\n  to see upon what foundation the credibility of these is built. That\n  these books are theirs, to whom they are ascribed, appears in the same\n  manner as we have proved of our books. And they, whose names they\n  bear, were either Prophets, or men worthy to be credited; such as\n  _Esdras_, who is supposed to have collected them into one volume, at\n  that time, when the Prophets _Haggai_, _Malachi_, and _Zacharias_,\n  were yet alive. I will not here repeat what was said before, in\n  commendation of _Moses_. And not only that first part, delivered by\n  _Moses_, as we have shewn in the first book, but the latter history is\n  confirmed by many _Pagans_. [21]Thus the _Ph\u0153nician_ annals mention\n  the names of _David_ and _Solomon_, and the league they made with the\n  _Tyrians_. And _Berosus_, as well as the _Hebrew_ books, mention\n  _Nabuchadonosor_, and other _Chald\u00e6ans_. _Vaphres_, the king of\n  _Egypt_ in _Jeremiah_ is the same with _Apries_ in _Herodotus_. And\n  the _Greek_ books are filled with _Cyrus_ and his successors down to\n  _Darius_; and _Josephus_ in his book against _Appion_, quotes many\n  other things relating to the _Jewish_ nation: To which may be added,\n  that we above took out of _Strabo_ and _Trogus_. But there is no\n  reason for us Christians to doubt of the credibility of these books,\n  because there are testimonies in our books, out of almost every one of\n  them, the same as they are found in the _Hebrew_. Nor did Christ when\n  he blamed many things in the teachers of the law, and in the\n  _Pharisees_ of his time, ever accuse them of falsifying the books of\n  _Moses_ and the Prophets, or of using supposititious or altered books.\n  And it can never be proved or made credible, that after Christ\u2019s time,\n  the scripture should be corrupted in any thing of moment; if we do but\n  consider how far and wide the _Jewish_ nation, who every where kept\n  those books, was dispersed over the whole world. For first, the ten\n  tribes were carried into _Media_ by the _Assyrians_, and afterwards\n  the other two. And many of these fixed themselves in foreign\n  countries, after they had a permission from _Cyrus_ to return: the\n  _Macedonians_ invited them into _Alexandria_ with great advantages;\n  the cruelty of _Antiochus_, the civil war of the _Asmon\u00e6i_, and the\n  foreign wars of _Pompey_ and _Sossius_, scattered a great many; the\n  country of _Cyrene_ was filled with _Jews_; the cities of _Asia_,\n  _Macedonia_, _Lycaonia_, and the Isles of _Cyprus_, and _Crete_, and\n  others, were full of them; and that there was a vast number of them in\n  Rome, we learn from _Horace_, _Juvenal_, and _Martial_. It is\n  impossible that such distant bodies of men should be imposed upon by\n  any art whatsoever, or that they should agree in a falsity. We may add\n  further that almost three hundred years before Christ, by the care of\n  the _Egyptian_ kings, the Hebrew books were translated into Greek by\n  those who are called the _Seventy_; that the Greeks might have them in\n  another language, but the sense the same in the main; upon which\n  account they were the less liable to be altered: And the same books\n  were translated into _Chaldee_, and into the _Jerusalem_ language;\n  that is, half _Syriac_; partly a little before, and partly a little\n  after Christ\u2019s time. After which followed other _Greek_ versions, that\n  of _Aquila_, _Symmachus_, and _Theodotion_; which _Origen_, and others\n  after him, compared with the seventy Interpreters, and found no\n  difference in the history; or in any weighty matters. _Philo_\n  flourished in _Caligula\u2019s_ time, and Josephus lived till\n  _Vespasian\u2019s_. Each of them quote out of the _Hebrew_ books the same\n  things that we find at this day. By this time the Christian religion\n  began to be more and more spread, and many of its professors were\n  _Hebrews_: Many had studied the _Hebrew_ learning, who could very\n  easily have perceived and discovered it, if the _Jews_ had received\n  any thing that was false, in any remarkable subject, I mean, by\n  comparing it with more ancient books. But they not only do this, but\n  they bring very many testimonies out of the Old Testament, plainly in\n  that sense in which they are received amongst the _Hebrews_, which\n  _Hebrews_ may be convicted of any crime, sooner than (I will not say\n  of falsity, but) of negligence, in relation to these books; because\n  they used to transcribe and compare them so very scrupulously, that\n  they could tell how often every letter came over. We may add, in the\n  first place, an argument, and that no mean one, why the _Jews_ did not\n  alter the scripture designedly; because the Christians prove, and as\n  they think very strongly, that their Master Jesus was that very\n  Messiah who was of old promised to the forefathers of the _Jews_; and\n  this from those very books, which were read by the _Jews_. Which the\n  _Jews_ would have taken the greatest care should never have been,\n  after there arose a controversy between them and the Christians; if it\n  had ever been in their power to have altered what they would.\u201d\n  GROTIUS.\nFootnote 21:\n  (_Thus the_ Phoenician _Annals_, &c.) See what _Josephus_ cites out of\n  them, Book VIII. Chap. 2. of his Ancient History; where he adds, \u201cthat\n  if any one would see the Copies of those Epistles which _Solomon_ and\n  _Hirom_ wrote to each other, they may be procured of the public\n  Keepers of the Records at _Tyrus_.\u201d (We must be cautions how we\n  believe this; however, see what I have said upon 1 _Kings_ v. 3.)\n  There is a remarkable place concerning _David_, quoted by _Josephus_,\n  Book VII. Ch. 6. of his Ancient History, out of the IVth of\n  _Damascenus\u2019s_ History.\nFootnote 22:\n  \u201cThe enquiries of learned men, and, above all of the excellent\n  Lardner, who never overstates a point of evidence, and whose fidelity\n  in citing his authorities has in no one instance been impeached, have\n  established, concerning these writings, the following propositions:\n  \u201cI. That in the age immediately posterior to that in which St. Paul\n  lived, his letters were publicly read and acknowledged.\n  \u201cSome of them are quoted or alluded to by almost every Christian\n  writer that followed, by Clement of Rome, by Hermas, by Ignatius, by\n  Polycarp, disciples or cotemporaries of the apostles; by Justin\n  Martyr, by the churches of Gaul, by Iren\u00e6us, by Athenagoras, by\n  Theophilus, by Clement of Alexandria, by Hermias, by Tertullian, who\n  occupied the succeeding age. Now when we find a book quoted or\n  referred to by an ancient author, we are entitled to conclude, that it\n  was read and received in the age and country in which that author\n  lived. And this conclusion does not, in any degree, rest upon the\n  judgment or character of the author making such reference. Proceeding\n  by this rule, we have, concerning the First Epistle to the Corinthians\n  in particular, within forty years after the epistle was written,\n  evidence, not only of its being extant at Corinth, but of its being\n  known and read at Rome. Clement, bishop of that city, writing to the\n  church of Corinth, uses these words: \u2018Take into your hands the Epistle\n  of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he at first write unto you\n  in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he did by the Spirit admonish\n  you concerning himself and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then\n  you did form parties[23].\u2019 This was written at a time when probably\n  some must have been living at Corinth, who remembered St. Paul\u2019s\n  ministry there and the receipt of the epistle. The testimony is still\n  more valuable, as it shows that the epistles were preserved in the\n  churches to which they were sent, and that they were spread and\n  propagated from them to the rest of the Christian community. Agreeably\n  to which natural mode and order of their publication, Tertullian, a\n  century afterwards, for proof of the integrity and genuineness of the\n  apostolic writings, bids \u2018any one, who is willing to exercise his\n  curiosity profitably in the business of their salvation, to visit the\n  apostolical churches, in which their very authentic letters are\n  recited, ips\u00e6 authentic\u00e6 liter\u00e6 eorum recitantur.\u2019 Then he goes on:\n  \u2018Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from\n  Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to\n  Asia, you have Ephesus; but if you are near to Italy, you have\n  Rome[24].\u2019 I adduce this passage to show, that the distinct churches\n  or Christian societies, to which St. Paul\u2019s Epistles were sent,\n  subsisted for some ages afterwards; that his several epistles were all\n  along respectively read in those churches; that Christians at large\n  received them from those churches, and appealed to those churches for\n  their originality and authenticity.\n  \u201cArguing in like manner from citations and allusions, we have, within\n  the space of a hundred and fifty years from the time that the first of\n  St. Paul\u2019s Epistles was written, proofs of almost all of them being\n  read, in Palestine, Syria, the countries of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in\n  that part of Africa which used the Latin tongue, in Greece, Italy, and\n  Gaul[25]. I do not mean simply to assert, that, within the space of a\n  hundred and fifty years, St. Paul\u2019s Epistles were read in those\n  countries, for I believe that they were read and circulated from the\n  beginning; but that proofs of their being so read occur within that\n  period. And when it is considered how few of the primitive Christians\n  wrote, and of what was written how much is lost, we are to account it\n  extraordinary, or rather as a sure proof of the extensiveness of the\n  reputation of these writings, and of the general respect in which they\n  were held, that so many testimonies, and of such antiquity, are still\n  extant. \u2018In the remaining works of Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, and\n  Tertullian, there are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small\n  volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, in the\n  writings of all characters for several ages[26].\u2019 We must add, that\n  the Epistles of Paul come in for their full share of this observation;\n  and that all the thirteen epistles, except that to Philemon, which is\n  not quoted by Iren\u00e6us or Clement, and which probably escaped notice\n  merely by its brevity, are severally cited, and expressly recognized\n  as St. Paul\u2019s by each of these Christian writers. The Ebionites, an\n  early, though inconsiderable Christian sect, rejected St. Paul and his\n  epistles[27]; that is, they rejected these epistles, not because they\n  were not, but because they were St. Paul\u2019s; and because, adhering to\n  the obligation of the Jewish law, they chose to dispute his doctrine\n  and authority. Their suffrage as to the genuineness of the epistles\n  does not contradict that of other Christians. Marcion, an heretical\n  writer in the former part of the second century, is said by Tertullian\n  to have rejected three of the epistles which we now receive, _viz._\n  the two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. It appears to me\n  not improbable, that Marcion might make some such distinction as this,\n  that no apostolic epistle was to be admitted which was not read or\n  attested by the church to which it was sent; for it is remarkable\n  that, together with these epistles to private persons, he rejected\n  also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles and the epistles\n  to private persons agree in the circumstance of wanting this\n  particular species of attestation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the\n  Epistle to Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing\n  so by Tertullian[28], who asks \u2018why, when he received a letter written\n  to a single person, he should refuse two to Timothy and one to Titus\n  composed upon the affairs of the church?\u2019 This passage so far favours\n  our account of Marcion\u2019s objection, as it shows that the objection was\n  supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something, which\n  belonged to the nature of a private letter.\n  \u201cNothing of the works of Marcion remains. Probably he was, after all,\n  a rash, arbitrary, licentious critic (if he deserved indeed the name\n  of critic,) and who offered no reason for his determination. What St.\n  Jerome says of him intimates this, and is beside founded in good\n  sense: speaking of him and Basilides, \u2018If they had assigned any\n  reasons,\u2019 says he, \u2018why they did not reckon these epistles,\u2019 _viz._\n  the first and second to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, \u2018to be the\n  apostle\u2019s, we would have endeavoured to have answered them, and\n  perhaps might have satisfied the reader: but when they take upon them,\n  by their own authority, to pronounce one epistle to be Paul\u2019s, and\n  another not, they can only be replied to in the same manner[29].\u2019 Let\n  it be remembered, however, that Marcion received ten of these\n  epistles. His authority therefore, even if his credit had been better\n  than it is, forms a very small exception to the uniformity of the\n  evidence. Of Basilides we know still less than we do of Marcion. The\n  same observation however belongs to him, _viz._ that his objection, as\n  far as appears from this passage of St. Jerome, was confined to the\n  three private epistles. Yet is this the only opinion which can be said\n  to disturb the consent of the two first centuries of the Christian\n  \u00e6ra; for as to Tatian, who is reported by Jerome alone to have\n  rejected some of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, the extravagant or rather\n  delirious notions into which he fell, take away all weight and credit\n  from his judgment. If, indeed, Jerome\u2019s account of this circumstance\n  be correct; for it appears from much older writers than Jerome, that\n  Tatian owned and used many of these epistles[30].\n  \u201cII. They, who in those ages disputed about so many other points,\n  agreed in acknowledging the Scriptures now before us. Contending sects\n  appealed to them in their controversies with equal and unreserved\n  submission. When they were urged by one side, however they might be\n  interpreted or misinterpreted by the other, their authority was not\n  questioned. \u2018Reliqui omnes,\u2019 says Iren\u00e6us, speaking of Marcion, \u2018falso\n  scienti\u00e6 nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confitentur,\n  interpretationes vero convertunt[31].\u2019\n  \u201cIII. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in\n  circulation, and even of a few which are now received into the canon,\n  was contested, these were never called into dispute. Whatever was the\n  objection, or whether, in truth, there ever was any real objection to\n  the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third\n  of John, the Epistle of James, or that of Jude, or to the book of the\n  Revelations of St. John, the doubts that appear to have been\n  entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the\n  testimony as to those writings, about which there was no doubt;\n  because it shows, that the matter was a subject, amongst the early\n  Christians, of examination and discussion; and that, where there was\n  any room to doubt, they did doubt.\n  \u201cWhat Eusebius hath left upon the subject is directly to the purpose\n  of this observation. Eusebius, it is well known, divided the\n  ecclesiastical writings which were extant in his time into three\n  classes; the \u2018\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, uncontradicted,\u2019 as he calls them in one\n  chapter; or \u2018scriptures universally acknowledged,\u2019 as he calls them in\n  another; the \u2018controverted, yet well known and approved by many;\u2019 and\n  \u2018the spurious.\u2019 What were the shades of difference in the books of the\n  second, or in those of the third class; or what it was precisely that\n  he meant by the term _spurious_, it is not necessary in this place to\n  enquire. It is sufficient for us to find, that the thirteen epistles\n  of St. Paul are placed by him in the first class without any sort of\n  hesitation or doubt.\n  \u201cIt is further also to be collected from the chapter in which this\n  distinction is laid down, that the method made use of by Eusebius, and\n  by the Christians of his time, _viz._ the close of the third century,\n  in judging concerning the sacred authority of any books, was to\n  enquire after and consider the testimony of those who lived near the\n  age of the apostles[32].\n  \u201cIV. That no ancient writing, which is attested as these epistles are,\n  hath had its authenticity disproved, or is in fact questioned. The\n  controversies which have been moved concerning suspected writings, as\n  the epistles, for instance, of Phalaris, or the eighteen epistles of\n  Cicero, begin by showing that this attestation is wanting. That being\n  proved, the question is thrown back upon internal marks of\n  spuriousness or authenticity; and in these the dispute is occupied. In\n  which disputes it is to be observed, that the contested writings are\n  commonly attacked by arguments drawn from some opposition which they\n  betray to \u2018authentic history,\u2019 to \u2018true epistles,\u2019 to \u2018the real\n  sentiments or circumstances of the author whom they personate[33];\u2019\n  which authentic history, which true epistles, which real sentiments\n  themselves, are no other than ancient documents, whose early existence\n  and reception can be proved, in the manner in which the writings\n  before us are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or to ages\n  near to his. A modern who sits down to compose the history of some\n  ancient period, has no stronger evidence to appeal to for the most\n  confident assertion, or the most undisputed fact, that he delivers,\n  than writings, whose genuineness is proved by the same medium through\n  which we evince the authenticity of ours. Nor, whilst he can have\n  recourse to such authorities as these, does he apprehend any\n  uncertainty in his accounts, from the suspicion of spuriousness or\n  imposture in his materials.\n  \u201cV. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, properly so called[34],\n  that is, writings published under the name of the person who did not\n  compose them, made their appearance in the first century of the\n  Christian \u00e6ra, in which century these epistles undoubtedly existed. I\n  shall set down under this proposition the guarded words of Lardner\n  himself: \u2018There are no quotations of any books of them (spurious and\n  apocryphal books) in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas,\n  Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings reach\n  from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. _I say this confidently,\n  because I think it has been proved._\u2019 Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.\n  \u201cNor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive\n  Christians. \u2018Iren\u00e6us quotes not any of these books. He mentions some\n  of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian:\n  he has mentioned a book called \u201cActs of Paul and Thecla:\u201d but it is\n  only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned\n  and quoted several such books, but never as authority, and sometimes\n  with express marks of dislike. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of\n  his works. He has mentioned them indeed, but how? Not by way of\n  approbation, but to show that they were of little or no value; and\n  that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians.\u2019 Now,\n  if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent\n  examination, we compare what the same cautious writer had before said\n  of our received scriptures, \u2018that in the works of three only of the\n  above-mentioned fathers, there are more and larger quotations of the\n  small volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero in\n  the writers of all characters for several ages;\u2019 and if, with the\n  marks of obscurity or condemnation, which accompanied the mention of\n  the several apocryphal Christian writings, when they happened to be\n  mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner\u2019s work completely and\n  in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what,\n  having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to\n  assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning,\n  but received with the greatest respect; have been publicly and\n  solemnly read in the assemblies of Christians throughout the world, in\n  every age from that time to this; early translated into the languages\n  of divers countries and people; commentaries writ to explain and\n  illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a\n  religious nature; recommended to the perusal of unbelievers, as\n  containing the authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we\n  attend, I say, to this representation, we perceive in it, not only\n  full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and\n  sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from the\n  pretensions of any others.\n  \u201cThe Epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or\n  confusion that might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of\n  the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever\n  being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of\n  a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392,\n  has this expression: \u2018Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses; sed ab omnibus\n  exploditur;\u2019 there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is\n  rejected by every body[35]. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423,\n  speaks of this epistle in the same terms[36]. Beside these, I know not\n  whether any ancient writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed\n  during the three first centuries of the Church; and when it came\n  afterwards to be mentioned, it was mentioned only to show, that,\n  though such a writing did exist, it obtained no credit. It is probable\n  that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epistle which we now\n  have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is\n  nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine Epistles;\n  and was perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than\n  any serious attempt to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle\n  to the Corinthians under St. Paul\u2019s name, which was brought into\n  Europe in the present century, antiquity is entirely silent. It was\n  unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be\n  extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by\n  the Christians of that country, received into their scriptures. I\n  hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any\n  competition of credit, or of external proof, between these and the\n  received Epistles: or rather, who will not acknowledge the evidence of\n  authenticity to be confirmed by the want of success which attended\n  imposture.\n  \u201cWhen we take into our hands the letters which the suffrage and\n  consent of antiquity hath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that\n  strikes our attention is the air of reality and business, as well as\n  of seriousness and conviction, which pervades the whole. Let the\n  sceptic read them. If he be not sensible of these qualities in them,\n  the argument can have no weight with him. If he be; if he perceive in\n  almost every page the language of a mind actuated by real occasions,\n  and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed,\n  that the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed\n  occult or imaginary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in\n  words, or of being conveyed to the apprehension of the reader in any\n  other way, than by sending him to the books themselves.\u201d\u2014\u2014\n  \u201cIf it be true that we are in possession of the very letters which St.\n  Paul wrote, let us consider what confirmation they afford to the\n  Christian history. In my opinion they substantiate the whole\n  transaction. The great object of modern research is to come at the\n  epistolary correspondence of the times. Amidst the obscurities, the\n  silence, or the contradictions of history, if a letter can be found,\n  we regard it as the discovery of a land mark; as that by which we can\n  correct, adjust, or supply the imperfections and uncertainties of\n  other accounts. One cause of the superior credit which is attributed\n  to letters is this, that the facts which they disclose generally come\n  out _incidentally_, and therefore without design to mislead the public\n  by false or exaggerated accounts. This reason may be applied to St.\n  Paul\u2019s Epistles with as much justice as to any letters whatever.\n  Nothing could be further from the intention of the writer than to\n  record any part of his history. That his history was _in fact_ made\n  public by these letters, and has by the same means been transmitted to\n  future ages, is a secondary and unthought-of effect. The sincerity\n  therefore of the apostle\u2019s declarations cannot reasonably be disputed;\n  at least we are sure that it was not vitiated by any desire of setting\n  himself off to the public at large. But these letters form a part of\n  the muniments of Christianity, as much to be valued for their\n  contents, as for their originality. A more inestimable treasure the\n  care of antiquity could not have sent down to us. Beside the proof\n  they afford of the general reality of St. Paul\u2019s history, of the\n  knowledge which the author of the Acts of the Apostles had obtained of\n  that history, and the consequent probability that he was, what he\n  professes himself to have been, a companion of the apostle\u2019s; beside\n  the support they lend to these important inferences, they meet\n  specifically some of the principal objections upon which the\n  adversaries of Christianity have thought proper to rely. In particular\n  they show,\n  \u201cI. That Christianity was not a story set on foot amidst the\n  confusions which attended and immediately preceded the destruction of\n  Jerusalem; when many extravagant reports were circulated, when men\u2019s\n  minds were broken by terror and distress, when amidst the tumults that\n  surrounded them enquiry was impracticable. These letters show\n  incontestably that the religion had fixed and established itself\n  before this state of things took place.\n  \u201cII. Whereas it hath been insinuated, that our gospels may have been\n  made up of reports and stories, which were current at the time, we may\n  observe that, with respect to the Epistles, this is impossible. A man\n  cannot write the history of his own life from reports; nor, what is\n  the same thing, be led by reports to refer to passages and\n  transactions in which he states himself to have been immediately\n  present and active. I do not allow that this insinuation is applied to\n  the historical part of the New Testament with any colour of justice or\n  probability; but I say, that to the Epistles it is not applicable at\n  all.\n  \u201cIII. These letters prove that the converts to Christianity were not\n  drawn from the barbarous, the mean, or the ignorant set of men, which\n  the representations of infidelity would sometimes make them. We learn\n  from letters the character not only of the writer, but, in some\n  measure, of the persons to whom they are written. To suppose that\n  these letters were addressed to a rude tribe, incapable of thought or\n  reflection, is just as reasonable as to suppose Locke\u2019s Essay on the\n  Human Understanding to have been written for the instruction of\n  savages. Whatever may be thought of these letters in other respects,\n  either of diction or argument, they are certainly removed as far as\n  possible from the habits and comprehension of a barbarous people.\n  \u201cIV. St. Paul\u2019s history, I mean so much of it as may be collected from\n  his letters, is so _implicated_ with that of the other apostles, and\n  with the substance indeed of the Christian history itself, that I\n  apprehend it will be found impossible to admit St. Paul\u2019s story (I do\n  not speak of the miraculous part of it) to be true, and yet to reject\n  the rest as fabulous. For instance, can any one believe that there was\n  such a man as Paul, a preacher of Christianity in the age which we\n  assign to him, and _not_ believe that there were also at the same\n  time, such men as Peter and James, and other apostles, who had been\n  companions of Christ during his life, and who after his death\n  published and avowed the same things concerning him which Paul taught?\n  Judea, and especially Jerusalem, was the scene of Christ\u2019s ministry.\n  The witnesses of his miracles lived there. St. Paul, by his own\n  account, as well as that of his historian, appears to have frequently\n  visited that city; to have carried on a communication with the church\n  there; to have associated with the rulers and elders of that church,\n  who were some of them apostles; to have acted, as occasions offered,\n  in correspondence, and sometimes in conjunction with them. Can it,\n  after this, be doubted, but that the religion and the general facts\n  relating to it, which St. Paul appears by his letters to have\n  delivered to the several churches which he established at a distance,\n  were at the same time taught and published at Jerusalem itself, the\n  place where the business was transacted; and taught and published by\n  those who had attended the founder of the institution in his\n  miraculous, or pretendedly miraculous, ministry?\n  \u201cIt is observable, for so it appears both in the Epistles and from the\n  Acts of the Apostles, that Jerusalem, and the society of believers in\n  that city, long continued the centre from which the missionaries of\n  the religion issued with which all other churches maintained a\n  correspondence and connexion, to which they referred their doubts, and\n  to whose relief, in times of public distress, they remitted their\n  charitable assistance. This observation I think material, because it\n  proves that this was not the case of giving our accounts in one\n  country of what is transacted in another, without affording the\n  hearers an opportunity of knowing whether the things related were\n  credited by any, or even published, in the place where they are\n  reported to have passed.\n  \u201cV. St. Paul\u2019s letters furnish evidence (and what better evidence than\n  a man\u2019s own letters can be desired?) of the soundness and sobriety of\n  his judgment. His caution in distinguishing between the occasional\n  suggestions of inspiration, and the ordinary exercise of his natural\n  understanding, is without example in the history of enthusiasm. His\n  morality is every where calm, pure, and rational: adapted to the\n  condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its\n  various relations; free from the over-scrupulousness and austerities\n  of superstition, and from, what was more perhaps to be apprehended,\n  the abstractions of quietism, and the soarings and extravagancies of\n  fanaticism. His judgment concerning a hesitating conscience; his\n  opinion of the moral indifferency of many actions, yet of the prudence\n  and even the duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce\n  evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, is as\n  correct and just as the most liberal and enlightened moralist could\n  form at this day. The accuracy of modern ethics has found nothing to\n  amend in these determinations.\u201d\n  \u201cBroad, obvious, and explicit agreements prove little; because it may\n  be suggested, that the insertion of such is the ordinary expedient of\n  every forgery; and though they may occur, and probably will occur, in\n  genuine writings, yet it cannot be proved that they are peculiar to\n  these. Thus what St. Paul declares in chap. xi. of 1 Cor. concerning\n  the institution of the eucharist, \u2018For I have received of the Lord\n  that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same\n  night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given\n  thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is\n  broken for you; this do in remembrance of me,\u2019 though it be in close\n  and verbal conformity with the account of the same transaction\n  preserved by St. Luke, is yet a conformity of which no use can be made\n  in our argument; for if it should be objected that this was a mere\n  recital from the Gospel, borrowed by the author of the epistle, for\n  the purpose of setting off his composition by an appearance of\n  agreement with the received account of the Lord\u2019s supper, I should not\n  know how to repel the insinuation. In like manner, the description\n  which St. Paul gives of himself in his epistle to the Philippians\n  (iii. 5.)\u2014\u2018Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the\n  tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a\n  Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the\n  righteousness which is in the law, blameless\u2019\u2014is made up of\n  particulars so plainly delivered concerning him, in the Acts of the\n  Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians,\n  that I cannot deny but that it would be easy for an impostor, who was\n  fabricating a letter in the name of St. Paul, to collect these\n  articles into one view. This, therefore, is a conformity which we do\n  not adduce. But when I read, in the Acts of the Apostles, that \u2018when\n  Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a certain disciple was there,\n  named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman _which was a Jewess_;\u2019 and\n  when, in an epistle addressed to Timothy, I find him reminded of his\n  \u2018having known the Holy Scriptures _from a child_,\u2019 which implies that\n  he must, on one side or both, have been brought up by Jewish parents:\n  I conceive that I remark a coincidence which shews, by its very\n  _obliquity_, that scheme was not employed in its formation.\u201d\n  \u201cAn assertion in the Epistle to the Colossians, _viz._ that \u2018Onesimus\n  was one of them,\u2019 is verified by the Epistle to Philemon; and is\n  verified, not by any mention of Colosse, any the most distant\n  intimation concerning the place of Philemon\u2019s abode, but singly by\n  stating Onesimus to be Philemon\u2019s servant, and by joining in the\n  salutation Philemon with Archippus, for this Archippus, when we go\n  back to the Epistle to the Colossians, appears to have been an\n  inhabitant of that city, and, as it should seem, to have held an\n  office of authority in that church. The case stands thus. Take the\n  Epistle to the Colossians alone, and no circumstance is discoverable\n  which makes out the assertion, that Onesimus was \u2018one of them.\u2019 Take\n  the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all appears concerning\n  the place to which Philemon or his servant Onesimus belonged. For any\n  thing that is said in the epistle, Philemon might have been a\n  Thessalonian, a Philippian, or an Ephesian, as well as a Colossian.\n  Put the two epistles together and the matter is clear. The reader\n  perceives a _junction_ of circumstances, which ascertains the\n  conclusion at once. Now, all that is necessary to be added in this\n  place is, that this correspondency evinces the genuineness of one\n  epistle, as well as of the other. It is like comparing the two parts\n  of a cloven tally. Coincidence proves the authenticity of both.\u201d\n  PALEY.\nFootnote 23:\n  See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22.\nFootnote 24:\n  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 598.\nFootnote 25:\n  See Lardner\u2019s Recapitulation, vol. xii, p. 53.\nFootnote 26:\n  See Lardner\u2019s Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53.\nFootnote 27:\n  Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808.\nFootnote 28:\n  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455.\nFootnote 29:\n  Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458.\nFootnote 30:\n  Lardner, vol. i. p. 313.\nFootnote 31:\n  Iren. advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.\nFootnote 32:\n  Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106.\nFootnote 33:\n  See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal and\n  Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero.\nFootnote 34:\n  I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner\u2019s\n  observations, that comparatively few of those books, which we call\n  apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol.\nFootnote 35:\n  Lardner, vol. x. p. 103.\nFootnote 36:\n  Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88.\nFootnote 37:\n  \u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd are wanting only in 85 and 112 of Kennicott.\nFootnote 38:\nFootnote 39:\n  \u1ffe\u03a5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\nFootnote 40:\n  [\u1f10\u03bd \u1f21] \u03b5\u03bd _oftentimes signifies_, Cum, ad, prope, juxta, _as well as\nFootnote 41:\n  \u201cThe most ancient tradition among all nations, is exactly agreeable to\n  the relation of _Moses_. For his description of the original of the\n  world is almost the very same as in the ancient _Ph\u0153nician_ histories,\n  which are translated by _Philo Biblius_ from _Sanchoniathon\u2019s_\n  Collection; and a good part of it is to be found among the _Indians_\n  and _Egyptians_; whence it is that in _Linus_, _Hesiod_, and many\n  other _Greek_ writers, mention is made of a _Chaos_, (signified by\n  some under the name of an Egg) and of the framing of animals, and also\n  of man\u2019s formation after the divine image, and the dominion given him\n  over all living creatures; which are to be seen in many writers,\n  particularly in _Ovid_, who transcribed them from the _Greek_. That\n  all things were made by the Word of God, is asserted by _Epicharmus_,\n  and the _Platonists_; and before them, by the most ancient writer (I\n  do not mean of those Hymns which go under his name, but) of those\n  Verses which were of old called _Orpheus\u2019s_; not because _Orpheus_\n  composed them, but because they contained his doctrines. And\n  _Empedocles_ acknowledged, that the sun was not the original light,\n  but the receptacle of light, (the storehouse and vehicle of fire, as\n  the ancient Christians express it.) _Aratus_, and _Catullus_, thought\n  the divine residence was above the starry orb; in which _Homer_ says,\n  there is a continual light. _Thales_ taught from the ancient schools,\n  that God was the oldest of beings, because not begotten; that the\n  world was most beautiful, because the workmanship of God; that\n  darkness was before light, which latter we find in _Orpheus\u2019s_ Verses,\n  and _Hesiod_, whence it was, that the nations, who were most tenacious\n  of ancient customs, reckoned the time by nights. _Anaxagoras_\n  affirmed, that all things were regulated by the supreme mind:\n  _Aratus_, that the stars were made by God; _Virgil_, from the\n  _Greeks_, that Life was infused into things by the Spirit of God;\n  _Hesiod_, _Homer_, and _Callimachus_, that man was formed of clay;\n  lastly, _Maximus Tyrius_ asserts, that it was a constant tradition\n  received by all nations, that there was one supreme God, the cause of\n  all things. And we learn from _Josephus_, _Philo_, _Tibullus_,\n  _Clemens Alexandrinus_, and _Lucian_, (for I need not mention the\n  _Hebrews_) that the memory of the seven days\u2019 work was preserved, not\n  only among the _Greeks_ and _Italians_, by honouring the seventh day;\n  but also amongst the _Celt\u00e6_ and _Indians_, who all measured the time\n  by weeks; as we learn from _Philostratus_, _Dion Cassius_, and _Justin\n  Martyr_, and also the most ancient names of the day. The _Egyptians_\n  tell us, that at first men led their lives in great simplicity, their\n  bodies being naked, whence arose the poet\u2019s fiction of the Golden Age,\n  famous among the _Indians_, as _Strabo_ remarks, _Maimonides_ takes\n  notice, that the history of _Adam_, of _Eve_, of the tree, and of the\n  serpent, was extant among the idolatrous _Indians_ in his time: and\n  there are many witnesses in our age, who testify that the same is\n  still to be found amongst the _heathen_ dwelling in _Peru_, and the\n  _Philippine_ islands, people belonging to the same _India_; the name\n  of _Adam_ amongst the _Brachmans_; and that it was reckoned six\n  thousand years since the creation of the world, by those of _Siam_.\n  _Berosus_ in his history of _Chaldea_, _Manethos_ in his of _Egypt_,\n  _Hierom_ in his of _Ph\u0153nicia_, _Hist\u00e6us_, _Hecat\u00e6us_, _Hillanicus_ in\n  theirs of _Greece_, and _Hesiod_ among the Poets; all assert that the\n  lives of those who descended from the first men, were almost a\n  thousand years in length; which is the less incredible, because the\n  historians of many nations (particularly _Pausanias_ and\n  _Philostratus_ amongst the _Greeks_, and _Pliny_ amongst the _Romans_)\n  relate, that men\u2019s bodies, upon opening their sepulchres, were found\n  to be much larger in old time. And _Catullus_, after many of the\n  _Greeks_, relates, that divine visions were made to men before their\n  great and manifold crimes did, as it were, hinder God, and those\n  Spirits that attend him, from holding any correspondence with men. We\n  almost every where, in the _Greek_ and _Latin_ historians, meet with\n  the savage life of the Giants, mentioned by _Moses_. And it is very\n  remarkable concerning the deluge, that the memory of almost all\n  nations ends in the history of it, even those nations which were\n  unknown till our forefathers discovered them: so that _Varro_ calls\n  all _that_ the unknown time. And all those things which we read in the\n  poets, wrapped up in fables (a Liberty they allow themselves) are\n  delivered by the ancient writers according to truth and reality; that\n  is, agreeable to _Moses_; as you may see in _Berosus\u2019s_ History of\n  _Chaldea_, _Abydenus\u2019s_ of _Assyria_, who mentions the dove that was\n  sent out of the ark; and in _Plutarch_ from the _Greeks_; and in\n  _Lucian_, who says, that in _Hierapolis_ of _Syria_, there was\n  remaining a most ancient history of the ark, and of the preserving a\n  few not only of mankind, but also of other living creatures. The same\n  history was extant also in _Molo_ and in _Nicolaus Damascenus_; which\n  latter names the ark, which we also find in the history of _Deucalion_\n  in _Apollodorus_; and many _Spaniards_ affirm, that in several parts\n  of _America_, as _Cuba_, _Mechoacana_, _Nicaraga_, is preserved the\n  memory of the deluge, the saving alive of animals, especially the\n  raven and dove; and the deluge itself in that part called _Golden\n  Castile_. That remark of _Pliny\u2019s_, that _Joppa_ was built before the\n  Flood, discovers what part of the earth men inhabited before the\n  Flood. The place where the ark rested after the deluge on the\n  _Gordy\u00e6an_ mountains, is evident from the constant tradition of the\n  _Armenians_ from all past ages, down to this very day. _Japhet_, the\n  father of the _Europeans_, and from him _Jon_, or, as they formerly\n  pronounced it, _Javon_ of the _Greeks_, and _Hammon_ of the\n  _Africans_, are names to be seen in _Moses_, and _Josephus_ and others\n  observe the like footsteps in the names of other places and nations.\n  And which of the poets is it, in which we do not find mention made of\n  the attempt to climb the heavens? _Diodoris Siculus_, _Strabo_,\n  _Tacitus_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, speak of the burning of _Sodom_.\n  _Herodotus_, _Diodorus_, _Strabo_, _Philo Biblius_, testify the\n  ancient custom of Circumcision, which is confirmed by those nations\n  descended from _Abraham_, not only _Hebrews_, but also _Idum\u00e6ans_,\n  _Ismaelites_, and others. The history of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _Jacob_,\n  and _Joseph_, agreeable with _Moses_, was extant of old in _Philo\n  Biblius_ out of _Sanchoniathon_, in _Berosus_, _Hecat\u00e6us_,\n  _Damascenus_, _Artapanus_, _Eupolemus_, _Demetrius_, and partly in the\n  ancient writers of the Orphic Verses; and something of it is still\n  extant in _Justin_, out of _Trogus Pompeius_. By almost all which, is\n  related also the history of _Moses_, and his principal acts. The\n  Orphic Verses expressly mention his being taken out of the water, and\n  the two tables that were given him by God. To these we may add\n  _Polemon_; and several things about his coming out of _Egypt_, from\n  the _Egyptian_ writers, _Menetho_, _Lysimachus_, _Ch\u00e6remon_. Neither\n  can any prudent man think it at all credible, that _Moses_, who had so\n  many enemies, not only of the _Egyptians_, but also of many other\n  nations, as the _Idum\u00e6ans_, _Arabians_, and _Ph\u0153nicians_, would\n  venture to relate any thing concerning the creation of the world, or\n  the original of things, which could be confuted by more ancient\n  writings, or was contradictory to the ancient and received opinions:\n  or that he would relate any thing of matters in his own time, that\n  could be confuted by the testimony of many persons then alive,\n  _Diodorus Siculus_, _Strabo_, and _Pliny_, _Tacitus_, and after them\n  _Dionysius Longinus_ (concerning loftiness of Speech) make mention of\n  _Moses_. Besides the _Talmudists_, _Pliny_ and _Apuleius_, speak of\n  _Jamnes_ and _Mambres_, who resisted _Moses_ in _Egypt_. Some things\n  there are in other writings, and many things amongst the\n  _Pythagoreans_, about the Law and Rites given by _Moses_, _Strabo_ and\n  _Justin_, out of _Trogus_, remarkably testify concerning the religion\n  and righteousness of the ancient _Jews_; so that there seems to be no\n  need of mentioning what is found, or has formerly been found of\n  _Joshua_ and others, agreeable to the _Hebrew_ books; seeing, that\n  whoever gives credit to _Moses_ (which it is a shame for any one to\n  refuse) cannot but believe those famous miracles done by the hand of\n  God; which is the principal thing here aimed at. Now that the miracles\n  of late date, such as those of _Elija_, _Elisha_, and others, should\n  not be counterfeit, there is this further argument; that in those\n  times _Jud\u00e6a_ was become more known, and because of the difference of\n  religion was hated by the neighbours, who could very easily confute\n  the first rise of a lie. The history of _Jonah\u2019s_ being three days in\n  the whale\u2019s belly is in _Lycophron_ and _\u00c6neus Gazeus_, only under the\n  name of _Herculus_; to advance whose fame, every thing that was great\n  and noble used to be related of him, as _Tacitus_ observes. Certainly\n  nothing but the manifest evidence of the history could compel _Julian_\n  (who was as great an enemy to the _Jews_ as to the Christians) to\n  confess that there were some men inspired by the divine Spirit amongst\n  the _Jews_, and that fire descended from heaven, and consumed the\n  sacrifices of _Moses_ and _Elias_. And here it is worthy of\n  observation, that there was not only very severe punishments\n  threatened amongst the _Hebrews_, to any who should falsely assume the\n  gift of prophecy, but very many kings, who by that means might have\n  procured great authority to themselves, and many learned men, such as\n  _Esdras_ and others, dared not to assume this honour to themselves;\n  nay, some ages before Christ\u2019s time, nobody dared to do it. Much less\n  could so many thousand people be imposed upon, in avouching a constant\n  and public miracle, I mean that of the oracle, which shined on the\n  High Priest\u2019s breast, which is so firmly believed by all the _Jews_,\n  to have remained till the destruction of the first temple, that their\n  ancestors must of necessity be well assured of the truth of it.\u201d\n  GROTIUS.\nFootnote 42:\n  Vid. Joseph Antiq.\nFootnote 43:\n  Reason will affirm that every effect speaks a cause; then we ask how\n  it should happen that a dozen illiterate fishermen and mechanicks of\n  Galilee, after the wisdom of the philosophers had left the world in\n  darkness, should have introduced so much light of knowledge, that our\n  children and servants are wiser than the ancient philosophers? Let no\n  one say, that they only began, what the wisdom of after ages have\n  carried on towards perfection. The writings of the apostles are the\n  same to this day; as is proved by the earliest versions, quotations,\n  and manuscripts. So perfect was the system of morals they left, that\n  no error has been detected in it, and all attempts to build upon or\n  add to it, have only exposed the ignorance of the individuals who have\n  essayed to do so.\n  How has it happened that whilst learned men have ever been at discord\n  about the nature, and true foundation of the obligation of virtue,\n  these despised fishermen, have shown the true foundation and nature of\n  duty, and have erred in no particular? Is it not strange that whilst\n  the wisdom of the philosophers made their purest virtue but a more\n  refined pride, these poor men laid the ax to the root of that pride,\n  and taught the world that even their virtues brought them under\n  additional obligations to Divine grace? Is it not remarkable that the\n  system taught by these unlearned men should so perfectly coincide with\n  what is discovered in the works of God, that whilst it aims to\n  eradicate sin, it represents it as in every instance eventually\n  productive of the glory of that God, who brings good out of the evil,\n  and light out of the darkness?\n  How is it to be accounted for, that when the most learned rabbies\n  perverted the law, and knew not its meaning, that a few crude and\n  uninstructed fishermen should remove their false constructions of that\n  law, explain the types, shadows, promises and prophecies, show how the\n  truth and justice of God might be clear in the pardon of sin, and set\n  the labouring conscience at rest? How came the fishermen of Galilee to\n  discover to the wise and learned what they had never conjectured, and\n  truths, which only attentive minds at the present time can acquiesce\n  in, that all things are certain, because foreknown, and foreknown\n  because Divine knowledge must be infinite and eternal, and yet that\n  rational creatures may be capable of choosing and refusing, though\n  they must be wholly dependent? Is it not passing strange that the\n  wisdom of Philosophers, the learning of Rabbies, the power of Kings\n  and Emperors, the influence of thousands of priests, the prejudices of\n  the world, and the malice of the wicked should be overcome by twelve\n  poor fishermen? How is it to be accounted for that these twelve poor\n  illiterate men should have effected such surprising changes, that\n  modern infidels are ashamed of the evidence of their ancient\n  predecessors, and are obliged to borrow from the fishermen of Galilee\n  a portion of the knowledge they have introduced, without which the\n  opposers of the Gospel must fall into contempt? Is any man so\n  credulous as to imagine men of no better education and opportunities,\n  possessed of themselves all this knowledge? when or where has the\n  natural world produced such a ph\u00e6nomenon? they declared that it was\n  not of themselves, but, that such feeble instruments were chosen, that\n  the power might appear to be what it really was, from God. This\n  testimony they confirmed by miracles, and sealed with their blood.\nFootnote 44:\n  Vide Dodd. Expos. 3 vol. app.\u2014Dick on Insp.\u2014Parry\u2019s Enq.\u2014Hawker, &c.\nFootnote 45:\n  This description of the Spirit\u2019s witness resembles sensible assurance;\n  that there may be such an immediate suggestion, or impression is\n  possible; but the Spirit\u2019s witness is the image of God, and is of\n  adoption.\u2014Vide Edwards\u2019s works, vol. 4. p. 161.\n    QUEST. V. _What do the scriptures principally teach?_\n    ANSW. The scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe\n    concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[46]\nHaving, in the foregoing answer, proved the scriptures to be the word of\nGod, there is in this a general account of the contents thereof; there\nare many great doctrines contained therein, all which may be reduced to\ntwo heads, to wit, what we are to believe, and what we are to do. All\nreligion is contained in these two things, and so we may apply the words\nof the apostle to this case, _Now of the things which we have spoken\nthis is the sum_, Heb. viii. 1. and accordingly, as this Catechism is\ndeduced from scripture, it contains two parts, _viz._ what we are to\nbelieve, and in what instances we are to yield obedience to the law of\nGod. And that the scriptures principally teach these two things, appears\nfrom the apostle\u2019s advice to Timothy, _Hold fast the form of sound\nwords, which thou hast heard of me in faith and love_, 2 Tim. i. 13.\nFrom the scriptures\u2019 principally teaching us matters of faith and\npractice, we infer, that _faith without works is dead_; or that he is\nnot a true Christian who yields an assent to divine revelation, without\na practical subjection to God, in all ways of holy obedience, as the\napostle observes, and gives a challenge, to this effect, to those who\nseparate faith from works; _Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I\nwill shew thee my faith by my works_, James ii. 17, 18. and, on the\nother hand, works without faith are unacceptable. A blind obedience, or\nignorant performance of some of the external parts of religion, without\nthe knowledge of divine truth, is no better than what the apostle calls\n_bodily exercise which profiteth little_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. therefore we\nought to examine ourselves, whether our faith be founded on, or truly\ndeduced from scripture? and whether it be a practical faith, or, as the\napostle says, such as _worketh by love_? Gal. v. 6. whether we grow in\nknowledge, as well as in zeal and diligence, in performing many duties\nof religion, if we would approve ourselves sincere Christians?\nFootnote 46:\n  What we are to believe reaches to Qu. 91. the rest is of practice.\n    QUEST. VI. _What do the scriptures make known of God?_\n    ANSW. The scriptures make known what God is, the persons in the\n    Godhead, the decrees, and the execution of his decrees.\nIt is an amazing instance of condescension, and an inexpressible favour\nwhich God bestows on man, that he should manifest himself to him, and\nthat not only in such a way as he does to all mankind, by the light of\nnature, which discovers that he is; but that he should, in so glorious a\nway, declare what he is, as he does in his word: this is a\ndistinguishing privilege, as the Psalmist observes, when speaking of\nGod\u2019s _shewing his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto\nIsrael_, Psal. cxlvii. he mentions it, as an instance of discriminating\ngrace, in that he _has not dealt so with any other nation_. This raised\nthe admiration of one of Christ\u2019s disciples, when he said, _Lord how is\nit that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world_! John\nxiv. 22. And it is still more wonderful, that he should discover to man\nwhat he does, or rather what he has decreed or purposed to do, and so\nshould impart his secrets to him; how familiarly does God herein deal\nwith man! Thus he says concerning the holy patriarch of old, _Shall I\nhide from Abraham the thing which I do?_ Gen. xvi. 17. However, it is\none thing to know the secret purposes of God, and another thing to know\nthe various properties thereof; the former of these, however known of\nold, by extraordinary intimation, are now known to us only by the\nexecution of them; the latter is what we may attain to the knowledge of,\nby studying the scriptures.\nNow as the scriptures make known, _First_, What God is; _Secondly_, The\npersons in the Godhead; _Thirdly_, His decrees; And _Fourthly_, The\nexecution thereof; so we are directed hereby in the method to be\nobserved in treating of the great doctrines of our religion; and\naccordingly the first part of this Catechism,[47] which treats of\ndoctrinal subjects, contains an enlargement on these four general heads;\nthe first whereof we proceed to consider.\nFootnote 47:\n  That is unto the 91st Quest.\n    QUEST. VII. _What is God?_\n    ANSW. God is a Spirit, in and of himself, infinite in being, glory,\n    blessedness, and perfection, all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable,\n    incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things,\n    most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful, and gracious,\n    long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.\nBefore we proceed to consider the divine perfections, as contained in\nthis answer, let it be premised,\n1. That it is impossible for any one to give a perfect description of\nGod, since he is incomprehensible, therefore no words can fully express,\nor set forth, his perfections; when the wisest men on earth speak of\nhim, they soon betray their own weakness, or discover, as Elihu says,\nthat they _cannot order their speech by reason of darkness_, Job\nxxxviii. 19. or, _that they are but of yesterday, and know_,\ncomparatively, _nothing_, chap. viii. 9. We are but like children,\ntalking of matters above them, which their tender age can take in but\nlittle of, when we speak of the infinite perfections of the divine\nnature; _This knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot\nattain to it_, Psal. cxxxix. 6. _How little a portion is heard of him?_\nJob. xxvi. 14.\n2. Though God cannot be perfectly described; yet there is something of\nhim that we may know, and ought to make the matter of our study and\ndiligent enquiries. When his glory is set forth in scripture, we are not\nto look upon the expressions there made use of, as words without any\nmanner of ideas affixed to them; for it is one thing to have adequate\nideas of an infinitely perfect being, and another thing to have no ideas\nat all of him; neither are our ideas of God to be reckoned, for this\nreason, altogether false, though they are imperfect; for it is one thing\nto think of him in an unbecoming way, not agreeable to his perfections,\nor to attribute the weakness and imperfection to him which do not belong\nto his nature, and another thing to think of him, with the highest and\nbest conceptions we are able to entertain of his infinite perfections,\nwhile, at the same time, we have a due sense of our own weakness, and\nthe shallowness of our capacities. When we thus order our thoughts\nconcerning the great God, though we are far from comprehending his\ninfinite perfections, yet our conceptions are not to be concluded\nerroneous, when directed by his word; which leads us to consider how we\nmay conceive aright of the divine perfections, that we may not think or\nspeak of God, that which is not right, though at best we know but little\nof his glory; and in order thereunto,\n(1.) We must first take an estimate of finite perfections, which we have\nsome ideas of, though not perfect ones in all respects; such as power,\nwisdom, goodness, faithfulness, &c.\n(2.) Then we must conceive that these are eminently, though not formally\nin God; that is, there is no perfection in the creature, but we must\nascribe the same to God, though not in the same way; or thus, whatever\nperfection is in the creature, the same is in God, and infinitely more;\nor it is in God, but not in such a finite, limited, or imperfect way, as\nit is in the creature; _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He\nthat formed the eye, shall not he see? He that teacheth man knowledge,\nshall he not know?_ Psal. xciv. 9, 10. Therefore,\n(3.) When the same words are used that import a perfection in God, and\nin the creature, _viz._ wisdom, power, &c. we must not suppose that\nthese words import the same thing in their different application; for\nwhen they are applied to the creature, though we call them perfections,\nyet they are, at best, but finite, and have many imperfections attending\nthem, all which we must separate or abstract in our thoughts, when the\nsame words are used to set forth any divine perfection: thus knowledge\nis a perfection of the human nature, and the same word is used to denote\na divine perfection; yet we must consider, at the same time, that _the\nLord seeth not as man seeth_, 1 Sam. xvi. 7. The same may be said of all\nhis other perfections; he worketh not as man worketh; whatever\nperfections are ascribed to the creature, they are to be considered as\nagreeable to the subject in which they are; so when the same words are\nused to set forth any of the divine perfections, they are to be\nunderstood in a way becoming a God of infinite perfection.\nThis has given occasion to divines to distinguish the perfections of\nGod, into those that are communicable, and incommunicable.\n1. The communicable perfections of God are such, whereof we find some\nfaint resemblance in intelligent creatures, though, at the same time,\nthere is an infinite disproportion; as when we speak of God as holy,\nwise, just, powerful, or faithful, we find something like these\nperfections in the creature, though we are not to suppose them, in all\nrespects, the same as they are in God; they are in him, in his own, that\nis, an infinite way; they are in us, in our own, that is, a finite and\nlimited way.\n2. The incommunicable perfections of God are such, of which there is not\nthe least shadow, or similitude in creatures, but they rather represent\nhim as opposed to them. Thus when we speak of him as infinite,\nincomprehensible, unchangeable, without beginning, independent, &c.\nthese perfections contain in them an account of the vast distance that\nthere is between God and the creature, or how infinitely he exceeds all\nother beings, and is opposed to every thing that argues imperfection in\nthem.\nFrom this general account we have given of the divine perfections, we\nmay infer,\n1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature; that is,\nthere is nothing which belongs to the divine nature that can be\nattributed to the creature; and nothing proper to the creature is to be\napplied to God: yet there are some rays of the divine glory, which may\nbe beheld as shining forth, or displayed in the creature, especially in\nthe intelligent part of the creation, angels and men, who are, for that\nreason, represented as made after the divine image.\n2. Let us never think or speak of the divine perfections but with the\nhighest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or debase him in our\nthoughts; _Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall\nupon you?_ Job xiii. 11. And whenever we compare God with the creatures,\n_viz._ angels and men, that bear somewhat of his image, let us, at the\nsame time, abstract in our thoughts, all their imperfections, whether\nnatural or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that\nthere is between him and them. We now come to consider the perfections\nof the divine nature, in the order in which they are laid down in this\nanswer.\nI. God is a Spirit; that is, an immaterial substance, without body or\nbodily parts; this he is said to be in John iv. 24. But if it be\nenquired what we mean by a Spirit, let it be premised, that we cannot\nfully understand what our own spirits, or souls are; we know less of the\nnature of angels, a higher kind of spirits, and least of all of the\nspirituality of the divine nature; however, our ideas first begin at\nwhat is finite, in considering the nature and properties of spirits; and\nfrom thence we are led to conceive of God as infinitely more perfect\nthan any finite spirit. Here we shall consider the word spirit, as\napplied more especially to angels, and the souls of men; and let it be\nobserved,\n1. That a spirit is the most perfect and excellent being; the soul is\nmore excellent than the body, or indeed than any thing that is purely\nmaterial; so angels are the most perfect and glorious part of the\ncreation, as they are spiritual beings, in some things excelling the\nsouls of men.\n2. A spirit is, in its own nature, immortal; it has nothing in its frame\nand constitution that tends to corruption, as there is in material\nthings, which consist of various parts, that may be dissolved or\nseparated, and their form altered, which is what we call corruption; but\nthis belongs not to spirits, which are liable to no change in their\nnature, but by the immediate hand of God, who can, if he pleases, reduce\nthem again to their first nothing.\n3. A spirit is capable of understanding, and willing, and putting forth\nactions agreeable thereunto, which no other being can do: thus, though\nthe sun is a glorious and useful being; yet, because it is material, it\nis not capable of thought, or any moral action, such as angels, and the\nsouls of men, can put forth.\nNow these conceptions of the nature and properties of finite spirits,\nlead us to conceive of God as a spirit. And,\n(1.) As spirits excel all other creatures, we must conclude God to be\nthe most excellent and perfect of all beings, and also that he is\n_incorruptible_, _immortal_, and _invisible_, as he is said to be in\nscripture, Rom. i. 23. and 1 Tim. i. 17.\nMoreover, it follows from hence, that he has an understanding and will,\nand so we may conceive of him as the Creator and governor of all things;\nthis he could not be, if he were not an intelligent and sovereign being,\nand particularly a spirit.[48]\n(2.) The difference between other spiritual substances and God, is, that\nall their excellency is only comparative, _viz._ as they excel the best\nof all material beings in their nature and properties; but God, as a\nspirit, is infinitely more excellent, not only than all material beings,\nbut than all created spirits. Their perfections are derived from him,\nand therefore he is called, _The Father of spirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and\n_the God of the spirits of all flesh_, Numb. xvi. 22. and his\nperfections are underived: other spirits are, as we have observed, in\ntheir own nature, immortal, yet God can reduce them to nothing; but God\nis independently immortal, and therefore it is said of him, that _he\nonly hath immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16.\nFinite spirits, indeed, have understanding and will, but these powers\nare contained within certain limits whereas God is an infinite spirit,\nand therefore it can be said of none but him, that _his understanding is\ninfinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\nFrom God\u2019s being a spirit, we may infer,\n1. That he is the most suitable good to the nature of our souls, which\nare spirits; he can communicate himself, and apply those things to them,\nwhich tend to make them happy, as the God and Father of spirits.\n2. He is to be worshipped in a spiritual manner, John iv. 24. that is,\nwith our whole souls, and in a way becoming his spiritual nature;\ntherefore,\n3. We are to frame no similitude or resemblance of him in our thoughts,\nas though he were a corporeal or material being; neither are we to make\nany pictures of him. This God forbids Israel to do, Deut. iv. 12, 15,\n16. and tells them, that they had not the least pretence for so doing,\ninasmuch as they _saw no similitude of him, when he spake to them in\nHoreb_; and to make an image of him would be to corrupt themselves.\nII. God is said to be in, and of, himself, not as though he gave being\nto, or was the cause of himself, for that implies a contradiction;\ntherefore divines generally say, that God is in, and of himself, not\npositively, but negatively, that is, his being and perfections are\nunderived, and not communicated to him, as all finite perfections are,\nby him, to the creature; therefore he is self-existent, or independent,\nwhich is one of the highest glories of the divine nature, by which he is\ndistinguished from all creatures, who live, move, and have their being\nin and from him.\nThis attribute of independency belongs to all his perfections; thus his\nwisdom, power, goodness, holiness, &c. are all independent. And,\n1. With respect to his knowledge or wisdom, he doth not receive ideas\nfrom any object out of himself, as all intelligent creatures do, and, in\nthat respect, are said to depend on the object; so that if there were\nnot such objects, they could not have the knowledge or idea of them in\ntheir minds; therefore the object known must first exist, before we can\napprehend what it is. But this must not be said of God\u2019s knowledge, for\nthat would be to suppose the things that he knows antecedent to his\nknowing them. The independency of his knowledge is elegantly described\nin scripture; _Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his\ncounsellor, has taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who\ninstructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him\nknowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?_ Isa. xl. 13, 14.\n2. He is independent in power, therefore as he receives strength from no\none, so he doth not act dependently on the will of the creature; _Who\nhath enjoined him his way_; Job xxxvi. 23. and accordingly, as he\nreceived the power of acting from no one, so none can hinder, turn\naside, or controul his power, or put a stop to his methods of acting.\n3. He is independent as to his holiness, hating sin necessarily, and not\nbarely depending on some reasons out of himself, which induce him\nthereunto; for it is essential to the divine nature to be infinitely\nopposite to all sin, and therefore to be independently holy.\n4. He is independent as to his bounty and goodness, and so he\ncommunicates blessings not by constraint, but according to his sovereign\nwill. Thus he gave being to the world, and all things therein, which was\nthe first instance of bounty and goodness, and a very great one it was,\nnot by constraint, but by his free will, _for his pleasure they are and\nwere created_. In like manner, whatever instances of mercy he extends to\nmiserable creatures, he still acts independently, in the display\nthereof; nothing out of himself moves or lays a constraint upon him, but\nhe shews mercy because it is his pleasure so to do.\nBut, to evince the truth of this doctrine, that God is independent as to\nhis being, and all his perfections, let it be farther considered,\n(1.) That all things depend on his power, which brought them into, and\npreserves them in being; therefore they exist by his will, as their\ncreator and preserver, and consequently are not necessary, but dependent\nbeings. If therefore all things depend on God, it is the greatest\nabsurdity to say that God depends on any thing, for this would be to\nsuppose the cause and the effect to be mutually dependent on, and\nderived from each other, which infers a contradiction.\n(2.) If God be infinitely above the highest creatures, he cannot depend\non any of them; for dependence argues inferiority. Now that God is above\nall things is certain: this is represented in a very beautiful manner by\nthe prophet, when he says, Isa. xl. 15, 17. _Behold the nations are as\nthe drop of the bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the\nbalance; all nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to\nhim less than nothing and vanity_; therefore he cannot be said to be\ninferior to them, and, by consequence, to depend on them.\n(3.) If God depends on any creature, he does not exist necessarily: and\nif so, then he might not have been; for the same will, by which he is\nsupposed to exist, might have determined that he should not have\nexisted. If therefore God be not independent, he might not have been,\nand, according to the same method of reasoning, he might cease to be;\nfor the same will, that gave being to him, might take it away at\npleasure, which is altogether inconsistent with the idea of a God.\nFrom God\u2019s being independent, or in and of himself, we infer,\n1. That we ought to conclude that the creature cannot lay any obligation\non him, or do any thing that may tend to make him more happy than he is\nin himself; the apostle gives a challenge to this effect, _Who hath\nfirst given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again_, Rom.\nxi. 35. and Eliphaz says to Job, Job xxii. 2, 3. _Can a man be\nprofitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is\nit any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain\nto him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?_\n2. If independency be a divine perfection, then let it not, in any\ninstance, or by any consequence, be attributed to the creature; let us\nconclude, that all our springs are in him, and that all we enjoy and\nhope for is from him, who is the author and finisher of our faith, and\nthe fountain of all our blessedness.\nIII. God is infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection. To be\ninfinite, is to be without all bounds or limits, either actual or\npossible: now that God is so, is evident, from his being independent and\nuncreated; and because his will fixes the bounds of all the\nexcellencies, perfections, and powers of the creature. If therefore he\ndoth not exist by the will of another, he is infinite in being, and\nconsequently in all perfection: thus it is said, Psal. cxlvii. 5. _his\nunderstanding is infinite_, which will farther appear, when we consider\nhim as omniscient; his will determines what shall come to pass, with an\ninfinite sovereignty, that cannot be controuled, or rendered\nineffectual; his power is infinite, and therefore all things are equally\npossible, and easy to it, nor can it be resisted by any contrary force\nor power; and he is infinite in blessedness, as being self-sufficient,\nor not standing in need of any thing to make him more happy than he was\nin himself, from all eternity. The Psalmist is supposed by many, to\nspeak in the person of Christ, when he says, Psal. xvi. 2. _My goodness\nextendeth not to thee_, q. d. \u201cHow much soever thy relative glory may be\nillustrated, by what I have engaged to perform in the covenant of\nredemption, yet this can make no addition to thine essential glory.\u201d And\nif so, then certainly nothing can be done by us which may in the least\ncontribute thereunto.\nIV. God is all-sufficient, by which we understand that he hath enough in\nhimself to satisfy the most enlarged desires of his creatures, and to\nmake them completely blessed. As his self-sufficiency is that whereby he\nhas enough in himself to denominate him completely blessed, as a God of\ninfinite perfection; so his all-sufficiency is that, whereby he is able\nto communicate as much blessedness to his creatures, as he is pleased to\nmake them capable of receiving; and therefore he is able not only to\n_supply all their wants_, _but to do exceedingly above all that they ask\nor think_, Phil. iv. 19. and Eph. iii. 20. This he can do, either in an\nimmediate way; or, if he thinks fit to make use of creatures as\ninstruments, to fulfil his pleasure, and communicate what he designs to\nimpart to us, he is never at a loss; for as they are the work of his\nhands, so he has a right to use them at his will; upon which account,\nthey are said, all of them to be his servants, Psal. cxix. 91.\nThis doctrine of God\u2019s all-sufficiency should be improved by us,\n1. To induce us to seek happiness in him alone: creatures are no more\nthan the stream, but he is the fountain; we may, in a mediate way,\nreceive some small drops from them, but he is the ocean of all\nblessedness.\n2. Let us take heed that we do not reflect on, or in effect, deny this\nperfection; which we may be said to do in various instances. As,\n(1.) When we are discontented with our present condition, and desire\nmore than God has allotted for us. This seems to have been the sin of\nthe angels, who left their first habitation through pride, seeking more\nthan God designed they should have; and this was the sin by which our\nfirst parents fell, desiring a greater degree of knowledge than what\nthey thought themselves possessed of: thus they fancied, that by eating\nthe forbidden fruit, they should be _as gods, knowing good and evil_,\nGen. iii. 5.\n(2.) We practically deny the all-sufficiency of God, when we seek\nblessings of what kind soever they are, in an indirect way, as though\nGod were not able to bestow them upon us in his own way, or in the use\nof lawful means: thus Rebecca and Jacob did, when they contrived a lie\nto obtain the blessing, chap. xxvii. as though there had not been an\nall-sufficiency in providence to bring it about, without their having\nrecourse to those methods that were in themselves sinful.\n(3.) When we use unlawful means to escape imminent dangers. Thus David\ndid _when he feigned himself mad_, supposing, without ground, that he\nshould have been slain by Achish, king of Gath; and that there was no\nother way to escape but this, 1 Sam. xxi. 13. and Abraham and Isaac,\nGen. chapters xx. and xxvi. when they denied their wives, concluding\nthis to have been an expedient to save their lives, as though God were\nnot able to save them in a better and more honourable way.\n(4.) When we distrust his providence, though we have had large\nexperience of its appearing for us in various instances: thus David did,\nwhen he said, in his heart, _I shall one day perish by the hand of\nSaul_, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. and the Israelites, when they said, _Can God\nfurnish a table in the wilderness?_ Psal. lxxviii. 19. though he had\nprovided for them in an extraordinary way ever since they had been\nthere: yea, Moses himself was faulty in this matter, when he said,\n_Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? I am not able\nto bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me_, Numb.\nxi. 13, 14. and Asa, when he tempted Benhadad to break his league with\nBaasha, who made war against him; as though God were not able to deliver\nhim without this indirect practice, though he had in an eminent manner,\nappeared for him, in giving him a signal victory over Zerah the\nEthiopian, when he came against him with an army of a million of men, 2\nChron. xvi. 3. compared with chap. xiv. 9, 13. and likewise Joshua, when\nIsrael had suffered a small defeat, occasioned by Achan\u2019s sin, when they\nfled before the men of Ai, though there were but thirty-six of them\nslain; yet, on that occasion, he is ready to wish that God had not\nbrought them over Jordan, and meditates nothing but ruin and destruction\nfrom the Amorites, forgetting God\u2019s former deliverances, and distrusting\nhis faithfulness, and care of his people, and, as it were, calling in\nquestion his all-sufficiency, as though he were not able to accomplish\nthe promises he had made to them, Josh. vii. 7, 8, 9.\n(5.) When we doubt of the truth, or certain accomplishment of his\npromises, and so are ready to say, _Hath God forgotten to be gracious?\nDoth his truth fail for ever?_ This we are apt to do, when there are\ngreat difficulties in the way of the accomplishment thereof: thus Sarah,\nwhen it was told her that she should have a child, in her old age,\nlaughed, through unbelief, Gen. xviii. 12. and God intimates, that this\nwas an affront to his all-sufficiency, when he says, _Is any thing too\nhard for the Lord?_ ver. 14. and Gideon, though he was told that God was\nwith him, and had an express command to go in his might, with a promise\nthat he should deliver Israel from the Midianites, yet he says, _O Lord\nwherewith shall I save them? for my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am\nthe least in my father\u2019s house_, Judg. vi. 15. God tells him again, _I\nwill be with thee, and smite the Midianites_, ver. 16. yet, afterwards,\nhe desires that he would give him a sign in the wet and dry fleece. What\nis this but questioning his all-sufficiency?\n(6.) When we decline great services, though called to them by God, under\npretence of our unfitness for them: thus when the prophet Jeremiah was\ncalled to deliver the Lord\u2019s message to the rebellious house of Israel,\nhe desires to be excused, and says, _Behold I cannot speak, for I am a\nchild_; whereas the main discouragement was the difficulty of the work,\nand the hazards he was like to run; but God encourages him to it, by\nputting him in mind of his all-sufficiency, when he tells him, that _he\nwould be with him, and deliver him_, Jer. i. 6. compared with ver. 8.\nThis divine perfection affords matter of support and encouragement to\nbelievers, under the greatest straits and difficulties they are exposed\nto in this world; and we have many instances in scripture of those who\nhave had recourse to it in the like cases. Thus, when David was in the\ngreatest straits that ever he met with, upon the Amalekites\u2019 spoiling of\nZiklag, and carrying away the women captives, the people talked of\nstoning him, and all things seemed to make against him; yet it is said,\nthat _he encouraged himself in the Lord his God_, 1 Sam. xxx. 6. so\nMordecai was confident that the _enlargement and deliverance of the Jews\nshould come some other way_, if not by Esther\u2019s intercession for them,\nwhen she was afraid to go in to the king, Esth. iv. 14. and this\nconfidence he could never have obtained, considering the present posture\nof their affairs, without a due regard to God\u2019s all-sufficiency.\nMoreover, it was this divine perfection that encouraged Abraham to obey\nthe difficult command of offering his son: as the apostle observes, he\ndid this as knowing _that God was able to raise him from the dead_, Heb.\nxi. 19. and when believers are under the greatest distress, from the\nassaults of their spiritual enemies, they have a warrant from God, as\nthe apostle had, to encourage themselves, that they shall come off\nvictorious, because _his grace is sufficient for them_, 2 Cor. xii. 8,\nV. God is eternal: this respects his duration, to wit, as he was without\nbeginning, as well as shall be without end; or as his duration is\nunchangeable, or without succession, the same from everlasting to\neverlasting: thus the Psalmist says, _Before the mountains were brought\nforth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world; even from\neverlasting to everlasting thou art God_, Psal. xc. 2.\n1. That God is from everlasting, appears,\n(1.) From his being a necessary, self-existent being, or, as was before\nobserved, in and of himself, therefore he must be from everlasting; for\nwhatever is not produced is from eternity. Now that God did not derive\nhis being from any one, is evident, because he gave being to all things,\nwhich is implied in their being creatures; therefore nothing gave being\nto him, and consequently he was from eternity.\n(2.) If he is an infinitely perfect being, as has been observed before,\nthen his duration is infinitely perfect, and consequently it is\nboundless, that is to say, eternal: it is an imperfection, in all\ncreated beings, that they began to exist, and therefore they are said,\nin a comparative sense, to be but of yesterday; we must therefore, when\nwe conceive of God, separate this imperfection from him, and so conclude\nthat he was from all eternity.\n(3.) If he created all things in the beginning, then he was before the\nbeginning of time, that is, from eternity: thus it is said, _In the\nbeginning God created the heaven and the earth_, Gen. i. 1. this is very\nevident, for time is a successive duration, taking its rise from a\ncertain point, or moment, which we call the beginning: now that\nduration, which was before this, must be from eternity, unless we\nsuppose time before time began, or, which is all one, that there was a\nsuccessive duration before successive duration began, which is a\ncontradiction. Therefore, if God fixed that beginning to all things, as\ntheir Creator, and particularly to time, which is the measure of the\nduration of all created beings, then it is evident that he was before\ntime, and consequently from eternity.\n(4.) This also appears from scripture; as when it is said, _The eternal\nGod is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut.\nxxxiii. 27. and when we read of his _eternal power and Godhead_, Rom. i.\n20. and elsewhere, _Art not thou from everlasting O Lord, my God?_ Hab.\ni. 12. _Thy throne is established of old; thou art from everlasting_,\nPsal. xciii. 2. so his attributes and perfections are said to have been\nfrom everlasting, _The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to\neverlasting_, Psal. ciii. 17.\nAnd this may be argued from many scripture-consequences: thus, there was\nan election of persons to holiness and happiness, _before the foundation\nof the world_, Eph. i. 4. and Christ, in particular, was fore-ordained\nto be our Mediator, before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. i. 20.\nand _set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth\nwas_, Prov. viii. 23. From hence it follows, that there was a sovereign\nwill that fore-ordained it, and therefore God, whose decree or purpose\nit was, existed before the foundation of the world, that is, from\neverlasting.\nMoreover, there were grants of grace given in Christ, or put into his\nhand, from all eternity: thus we read of _eternal life, which God\npromised before the world began_, Tit. i. 2. and of our being _saved,\naccording to his purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus, before the\nworld began_, 2 Tim. i. 9. It hence follows, that there was an eternal\ngiver, and consequently that God was from everlasting.\n2. God shall be to everlasting; thus it is said, _The Lord shall endure\nforever_, Psal. ix. 7. and that he _liveth for ever and ever_, Rev. iv.\n9, 10. and that his _years shall have no end_, Psal. cii. 27. and _the\nLord shall reign for ever_, Psal. cxlvi. 10. therefore he must endure\nfor ever. Again, it is said, that _the Lord keepeth covenant and mercy\nwith them that love him_, to a thousand generations, Deut. vii. 9. and\n_he will ever be mindful of his covenant_, Psal. cxi. 5. that is, will\nfulfil what he has promised therein: if his truth shall not fail for\never, then he, who will accomplish what he has spoken, must endure to\neverlasting.\nBut this may be farther evinced from the perfections of his nature.\n(1.) From his necessary existence, which not only argues, as has been\nbefore observed, that he could not begin to be, but equally proves, that\nhe cannot cease to be, or that he shall be to everlasting.\n(2.) He is void of all composition, and therefore must be to\neverlasting; none but compounded beings, _viz._ such as have parts, are\nsubject to dissolution, which arises from, the contrariety of these\nparts, and their tendency to destroy one another, which occasions the\ndissolution of the whole; but God having no parts, as he is the most\nsimple uncompounded being, there can be nothing in him that tends to\ndissolution, therefore he can never have an end from any necessity of\nnature. And,\n(3.) He must be to eternity, because there is no one superior to him, at\nwhose will he exists, that can deprive him of his being and glory.\n(4.) He cannot will his own destruction, or non-existence, for that is\ncontrary to the universal nature of things; since no being can desire to\nbe less perfect than it is, much less can any one will or desire his own\nannihilation; especially no one, who is possessed of blessedness, can\nwill the loss thereof, for that is incongruous with the nature of it, as\nbeing a desirable good, therefore God cannot will the loss of his own\nblessedness; and since his blessedness is inseparably connected with his\nbeing, he cannot cease to be, from an act of his own will: if therefore\nhe cannot cease to be, from any necessity of nature, or from the will of\nanother, or from an act of his own will, he must be to eternity.\nMoreover, the eternity of God may be proved from his other perfections,\nsince one of the divine perfections infers the other. As,\n1. From his immutability; he is unchangeable in his being, therefore he\nis so in all his perfections, and consequently must be always the same,\nfrom everlasting to everlasting, and not proceed from a state of\nnon-existence to that of being, which he would have done, had he not\nbeen from everlasting, nor decline from a state of being to that of\nnon-existence, which he would be supposed to do, were he not to\neverlasting: either of these is the greatest change that can be\nsupposed, and therefore inconsistent with the divine immutability.\n2. He is the first cause, and the ultimate end of all things, therefore\nhe must be from eternity, and remain the fountain of all blessedness to\neternity.\n3. He could not be almighty, or infinite in power, if he were not\neternal; for that being, which did not always exist, once could not act,\nto wit, when it did not exist; or he that may cease to be, may, for the\nsame reason, be disabled from acting; both which are inconsistent with\nAlmighty power.\n4. If he were not eternal, he could not, by way of eminency be called\n_the living God_, as he is, Jer. x. 10. or said _to have life in\nhimself_, John v. 26. for both these expressions imply his necessary\nexistence, and that argues his eternity.\n3. God\u2019s eternal duration is without succession, as well as without\nbeginning and end, that it is so, appears,\n(1.) Because, as was hinted but now, it is unchangeable, since all\nsuccessive duration infers a change. Thus the duration of creatures,\nwhich is successive, is not the same one moment as it will be the next;\nevery moment adds something to it; now this cannot be said of God\u2019s\nduration. Besides, successive duration implies a being, what we were\nnot, in all respects before, and a ceasing to be what we were, and so it\nis a kind of continual passing from not being to being, which is\ninconsistent with the divine perfections, and, in particular, with his\nunchangeable duration. The Psalmist, speaking of God\u2019s eternal duration,\nexpresses it by the immutability thereof, _Thou art the same, and thy\nyears shall have no end_, Psal. cii. 27.; and the apostle, speaking\nconcerning this matter, says, He is _the same yesterday, to day, and\nforever_, Heb. xiii. 8.\n(2.) Successive duration is applicable to time; and the duration of all\ncreatures is measured, and therefore cannot be termed infinite; it is\nmeasured by its successive parts: thus a day, a year, an age, a million\nof ages, are measured by the number of moments, of which they consist;\nbut God\u2019s duration is unmeasured, that is, infinite, therefore it is\nwithout succession, or without those parts of which time consists.[49]\n4. Eternity is an attribute peculiar to God, and therefore we call it an\nincommunicable perfection. There are, indeed, other things that shall\nendure to everlasting, as angels, and the souls of men; as also those\nheavenly bodies that shall remain after the creature is delivered from\nthe bondage of corruption, to which it is now subject: the heavenly\nplaces, designed for the seat of the blessed, as well as their happy\ninhabitants, shall be everlasting; but yet the everlasting duration of\nthese things infinitely differs from the eternity of God; for as all\nfinite things began to be, and their duration is successive, so their\neverlasting existence depends entirely on the power and will of God, and\ntherefore cannot be called necessary, or independent, as his eternal\nexistence is.\n_Object._ Since the various parts of time, as days, years, &c. and the\nvarious changes, or flux of time; such as past, present, and to come,\nare sometimes attributed to God; this seems inconsistent with the\naccount that has been given of his eternity.\n_Answ._ It is true, we often find such expressions used in scripture:\nthus he is called, the ancient of days, Dan. vii. 9. and his eternity is\nexpressed, by _his years having no end_, Psal. cii. 27. and it is said,\n_He was, is, and is to come_, Rev. i. 4. and chap. iv. 8. But, for the\nunderstanding of such-like expressions, we must consider, that herein\nGod is pleased to speak according to our weak capacity, who cannot\ncomprehend the manner of his infinite duration; we cannot conceive of\nany duration but that which is successive; therefore God speaks to us,\nas he does in many other instances, in condescension to our capacities;\nbut yet we may observe, that though he thus condescends to speak\nconcerning himself, yet there is oftentimes something added, which\ndistinguishes his duration from that of creatures; as when it is said,\n_Behold God is great, and we know him not; neither can the number of his\nyears be searched out_, Job xxxvi. 26. so that though we read of the\nyears of his duration, yet they are such as are unsearchable, or\nincomprehensible years, infinitely different from years, as applied to\ncreated beings; and it is said, _A thousand years in thy sight, are but\nas yesterday, when it is past_, Psal. xc. 4. _One day is with the Lord\nas a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_, 2 Pet. iii. 8.\nand, by the same method of reasoning, it may be said, one moment is with\nthe Lord as a thousand millions of ages, or a thousand millions of ages\nas one moment; such is his duration, and therefore not properly\nsuccessive, like that of creatures.\n2. When any thing past, present, or to come, is attributed to God, it\neither signifies that he is so, as to his works, which are finite, and\nmeasured by successive duration; or else it signifies, that he, whose\nduration is not measured by succession, notwithstanding, exists\nunchangeably, through all the various ages of time. As he is omnipresent\nwith all the parts of matter, yet has no parts himself, so he exists in\nall the successive ages of time, but without that succession, which is\npeculiar to time and creatures.\nSeveral things may be inferred, of a practical nature, from the eternity\nof God. As,\n1. Since God\u2019s duration is eternal, that is, without succession, so that\nthere is no such thing as past, or to come, with him; or if ten thousand\nmillions of ages are but like a moment to him; then it follows, that\nthose sins which we have committed long ago, and perhaps are forgotten\nby us, are present to his view; he knows what we have done against him\never since we had a being in this world, as much as though we were at\npresent committing them.\n2. If God was from eternity, then how contemptible is all created glory,\nwhen compared with his; look but a few ages backward, and it was\nnothing: this should humble the pride of the creature, who is but of\nyesterday, and whose duration is nothing, and less than nothing, if\ncompared with God\u2019s.\n3. The eternity of God, as being to everlasting, affords matter of\nterror to his enemies, and comfort to his people, and, as such, should\nbe improved for the preventing of sin.\n(1.) It affords matter of terror to his enemies. For,\n_1st._ He ever lives to see his threatenings executed, and to pour forth\nthe vials of his fury on them: thus the prophet speaking of God, _as the\neverlasting King_, adds, that _at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and\nthe nations shall not be able to abide his indignation_, Jer. x. 10.\nTherefore the eternity of God argues the eternity of the punishment of\nsin, since this great Judge, who is a consuming fire to impenitent\nsinners, will live for ever to see his threatenings executed upon them.\nThis appears, if we consider,\n_2dly_, That since he is eternal in his being, he must be so in his\npower, holiness, justice, and all his other perfections, which are\nterrible to his enemies: thus the Psalmist says, _Who knoweth the power\nof thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath_, Psal. xc.\n11. and the apostle says, _It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands\nof the living God_, Heb. x. 31.\n(2.) It affords matter of comfort to believers, as opposed to the\nfluctuating and uncertain state of all creature-enjoyments; it is an\nencouragement to them in the loss of friends and relations, or under all\nthe other losses or disappointments they meet with as to their outward\nestate in this world. These are, at best, but short-lived comforts, but\nGod is the _eternal portion_ and happiness of his people, Psal. lxxiii.\n26. and, from his eternity, they may certainly conclude, that the\nhappiness of the heavenly state will be eternal, for it consists in the\nenjoyment of him, who is so; which is a very delightful thought to all\nwho are enabled by faith to lay claim to it.\nVI. God is immutable: thus it is said, that _with him is no\nvariableness, neither shadow of turning_, James i. 17. This is sometimes\nset forth in a metaphorical way, in which respect he is compared to _a\nrock_, Deut. xxxii. 4. which remains immoveable, when the whole ocean,\nthat surrounds it, is continually in a fluctuating state; even so,\nthough all creatures are subject to change, God alone is unchangeable in\nhis being, and all his perfections.\nHere we shall consider,\n1. How immutability is a perfection; and how it is a divine perfection\npeculiar to God.\n(1.) It must be allowed that immutability cannot be said to be an\nexcellency or perfection, unless it be applied to, or spoken of what is\ngood; an immutable state of sin, or misery, is far from being an\nexcellency, when it is applied to fallen angels, or wicked men: but\nunchangeable holiness and happiness, as applied to holy angels, or\nsaints in heaven, is a perfection conferred upon them; and when we speak\nof God\u2019s immutability, we suppose him infinitely blessed, which is\nincluded in the notion of a God; and so we farther say, that he is\nunchangeable in all those perfections in which it consists.\n(2.) Immutability belongs, in the most proper sense, to God alone; so\nthat _as he only_ is said _to have immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16. that is,\nsuch as is underived and independent, he alone is unchangeable; other\nthings are rendered immutable by an act of his will and power, but\nimmutability is an essential perfection of the divine nature; creatures\nare dependently immutable, God is independently so.\n(3.) The most perfect creatures, such as angels and glorified saints,\nare capable of new additions to their blessedness; new objects may be\npresented as occasions of praise, which tend perpetually to increase\ntheir happiness: the angels know more than they did before Christ\u2019s\nincarnation; for they are said to know _by the church_, that is, by the\ndealings of God with his church, _the manifold wisdom of God_, Eph. iii.\n10. and to _desire to look into_ the account the gospel gives of the\n_sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow_, 1 Pet. i. 11,\n12. and they shall have farther additions to their blessedness, when all\nthe elect are joined to their assembly in the great day; so that the\nhappiness of the best creatures is communicated in various degrees; but\nGod\u2019s perfections and blessedness can have no additions made to them,\ntherefore he is immutable in a sense as no creature is.\n2. We shall now prove that God is immutable in his being and all his\nperfections.\n(1.) That he is immutable in his being; this belongs to him as God, and,\nconsequently to him alone. All other beings once were not; there has\nbeen, if I may so express it, a change from a state of non-existence, to\nthat of being; and the same power that brought them into being, could\nreduce them again to their first nothing. To be dependent, is to be\nsubject to change at the will of another; this is applicable to all\nfinite things; for it is said, _As a vesture thou shalt change them, and\nthey shall be changed_: but God being opposed to them as independent, is\nsaid to be _the same_, Psal. cii. 26, 27.\n_1st_, He did not change from a state of non-existence to being,\ninasmuch as he was from everlasting, and therefore necessarily existent;\nand consequently he cannot change from a state of being to that of\nnon-existence, or cease to be; and because his perfections are essential\nto him, and underived, in the same sense as his being is, therefore\nthere can be no change therein.\n_2dly_. He cannot change from a state of greater to a state of less\nperfection, or be subject to the least diminution of his divine\nperfections. To suppose this possible, is to suppose he may cease to be\ninfinitely perfect; that is, to be God: nor can he change from a state\nof less perfection to a state of greater; for that is to suppose him not\nto be infinitely perfect before this change, or that there are degrees\nof infinite perfection. Nor,\n_3dly_, Can he pass from that state, in which he is, to another of equal\nperfection; for, as such a change implies an equal proportion of loss\nand gain, so it would argue a plurality of infinite beings; or since he,\nwho was God before this change, was distinct from what he arrives to\nafter it, this would be contrary to the unity of the divine essence.\nMoreover, this may be farther proved from hence, that if there be any\nchange in God, this must arise either from himself, or some other: it\ncannot be from himself, inasmuch as he exists necessarily, and not as\nthe result of his own will: therefore he cannot will any alteration, or\nchange in himself; this is also contrary to the nature of infinite\nblessedness, which cannot desire the least diminution, as it cannot\napprehend any necessity thereof: and then he cannot be changed by any\nother: for he that changes any other, must be greater than him whom he\nchanges; nor can he be subject to the will of another, who is superior\nto him; since there is none equal, much less superior, to God: therefore\nthere is no being that can add to, or take from, his perfections; which\nleads us,\n(2.) To consider the immutability of God\u2019s perfections. And,\n_First_, Of his knowledge; he seeth not as man seeth; this is obvious.\nFor,\n_1st_, His knowledge is independent upon the objects known; therefore\nwhatever changes there are in them, there is none in him. Things known,\nare considered either as past, present, or to come; and these are not\nknown by us in the same way; for concerning things past, it must be\nsaid, that we shall know them hereafter; whereas God, with one view,\ncomprehends all things, past and future, as though they were present.\n_2dly_, If God\u2019s knowledge were not unchangeable, he might be said to\nhave different thoughts, or apprehensions of things at one time, from\nwhat he has at another, which would argue a defect of wisdom. And indeed\na change of sentiments implies ignorance, or weakness of understanding;\nfor to make advances in knowledge, supposes a degree of ignorance; and\nto decline therein, is to be reduced to a state of ignorance: now it is\ncertain, that both these are inconsistent with the infinite perfection\nof the divine mind; nor can any such defect be applied to him, who is\ncalled, _The only wise God_, 1 Tim. i. 17.\n_3dly_, If it were possible for God\u2019s knowledge to be changed, this\nwould infer a change of his will, since having changed his sentiments,\nhe must be supposed to alter his resolutions and purposes; but his will\nis unchangeable, therefore his understanding or knowledge is so; which\nleads us to prove,\n_Secondly_, That God is unchangeable in his will: thus it is said of\nhim, _He is of one mind, and who can turn him?_ Job xxiii. 13. This is\nagreeable to his infinite perfection, and therefore he does not purpose\nto do a thing at one time, and determine not to do it at another; though\nit is true, the revelation of his will may be changed, whereby that may\nbe rendered a duty at one time, which was not at another: thus the\nordinances of the ceremonial law were prescribed, from Moses\u2019s time to\nChrist; but after that were abolished, and ceased to be ordinances; so\nthat there may be a change in the things willed, or in external\nrevelation of God\u2019s will, and in our duty founded thereon, when there\nis, at the same time, no change in his purpose; for he determines all\nchanges in the external dispensation of his providence and grace,\nwithout the least shadow of change in his own will: this may farther\nappear, if we consider,\n_1st_, That if the will of God were not unchangeable, he could not be\nthe object of trust; for how could we depend on his promises, were it\npossible for him to change his purpose? Neither would his threatenings\nbe so much regarded, if there were any ground to expect, from the\nmutability of his nature, that he would not execute them; and by this\nmeans, all religion would be banished out of the world.\n_2dly_, This would render the condition of the best men, in some\nrespects, very uncomfortable; for they might be one day the object of\nhis love, and the next, of his hatred, and those blessings which\naccompany salvation might be bestowed at one time, and taken away at\nanother, which is directly contrary to scripture, which asserts, that\n_the gifts and calling of God are without repentance_, Rom. xi. 29.\n_3dly_, None of those things that occasion a change in the purposes of\nmen, can be applied to God; and therefore there is nothing in him, that\nin the least degree can lead him to change his will, or determination,\nwith respect to the event of things. For,\n_1st_, Men change their purpose, from a natural fickleness and\ninconstancy, as there is mutability in their very nature; but God being\nunchangeable in his nature, he must be so in his purpose or will.\n_2dly_, Men change their purposes in promising, and not fulfilling their\npromise, or, as we say, in being worse than their word, oftentimes from\nthe viciousness and depravity of their nature; but God is infinitely\nholy, and therefore, in this respect, cannot change.\n_3dly_, Men change their mind or purposes, for want of power, to bring\nabout what they designed; this has hindered many well concerted projects\nfrom taking effect in some, and many threatenings from being executed in\nothers; but God\u2019s will cannot be frustrated for want of power, to do\nwhat he designed, inasmuch as he is Almighty.\n_4thly_, Men change their minds many times, for want of foresight;\nsomething unexpected occurs that renders it expedient for them to alter\ntheir purpose, which argues a defect of wisdom: but God is infinitely\nwise; therefore nothing unforeseen can intervene to induce him to change\nhis purpose.\n_5thly_, Men are sometimes obliged to change their purpose by the\ninfluence, threatenings, or other methods, used by some superior; but\nthere is none equal, much less superior, to God; and consequently none\ncan lay any obligation on him to change his purpose.\nVII. God is incomprehensible: this implies that his perfections cannot\nbe fully known by any creature; thus it is said, _Canst thou by\nsearching, find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto\nperfection?_ Job xi. 7.\nWhen we consider God as incomprehensible, we do not only mean that man\nin this imperfect state, cannot fully comprehend his glory; for it is\nbut very little, comparatively, that we can comprehend of finite things,\nand we know much less of that which is infinite; but when we say that\nGod is incomprehensible, we mean that the best of creatures, in the most\nperfect state, cannot fully conceive of, or describe his glory; and the\nreason is, because they are finite, and his perfections are infinite;\nand there is no proportion between an infinite God, and a finite mind:\nthe water of the ocean might as well be contained in the hollow of the\nhand, or the dust of the earth weighed in a balance, as that the best of\ncreatures should have a perfect and adequate idea of the divine\nperfections. In this case, we generally distinguish between\napprehending, and comprehending; the former denotes our having some\nimperfect, or inadequate ideas of what surpasses our understanding; the\nlatter, our knowing every thing that is contained in it, which is called\nour having an adequate idea thereof: now we apprehend something of the\ndivine perfections, in proportion to the limits of our capacities, and\nour present state; but we cannot, nor ever shall, be able to comprehend\nthe divine glory, since God is incomprehensible to every one but\nhimself. Again, we farther distinguish between our having a full\nconviction that God hath those infinite perfections, which no creature\ncan comprehend, and our being able fully to describe them: thus we\nfirmly believe that God exists throughout all the changes of time, and\nyet that his duration is not measured thereby, or that he fills all\nplaces without being co-extended with matter; we apprehend, as having an\nundeniable demonstration thereof, that he does so, though we cannot\ncomprehend how he does it.\nVIII. God is omnipresent: this is elegantly set forth by the Psalmist,\n_Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy\npresence? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in\nhell, behold, thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning, and\ndwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead\nme, and thy right-hand shall hold me_, Psal. cxxxix. 7-10. This\nperfection of the Godhead doth not consist merely, as some suppose, in\nhis knowing what is done in heaven and earth, which is only a\nmetaphorical sense of omnipresence; as when Elisha tells Gehazi, _Went\nnot my heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to\nmeet thee?_ 2 Kings v. 6. Or, as the apostle says to the church at\nCorinth, that though he was _absent in body_, yet he was _present_ with\nthem _in spirit_, 1 Cor. v. 3. or, as we say, that our souls are with\nour friends in distant places, as often as we think of them: nor doth it\nconsist in God\u2019s being omnipresent by his authority, as a king is said,\nby a figurative way of speaking, to be present in all parts of his\ndominions, where persons are deputed to act under him, or by his\nauthority: but we must take it in a proper sense, as he fills all places\nwith his presence, Jer. xxiii. 24. so that he is not confined to, or\nexcluded from any place; and this he does, not by parts, as the world or\nthe universe is said to be omnipresent, for that is only agreeable to\nthings corporeal, and compounded of parts, and therefore by no means\napplicable to the divine omnipresence. This is a doctrine which it is\nimpossible for us to comprehend, yet we are bound to believe it, because\nthe contrary hereunto is inconsistent with infinite perfection; and it\nis sometimes called his essential presence,[50] to distinguish it from\nhis influential presence, whereby he is said to be where he acts in the\nmethod of his providence, which is either common or special; by the\nformer of these he upholds and governs all things; by the latter he\nexerts his power in a way of grace, which is called his special presence\nwith his people: and as his omnipresence, or immensity, is necessary,\nand not the result of his will, so his influential presence is\narbitrary, and an instance of infinite condescension, in which respect\nhe is said to be, or not to be, in particular places; to come to, or\ndepart from his people; sometimes to dwell in heaven, as he displays his\nglory there agreeably to the heavenly state; at other times to dwell\nwith his church on earth, when he communicates to them those blessings\nwhich they stand in need of; which leads us to consider the next divine\nperfection mentioned in this answer.\nIX. God is almighty, Rev. i. 18. ch. iv. 8. this will evidently appear,\nin that if he be infinite in all his other perfections, he must be so in\npower: thus if he be omniscient, he knows what is possible or expedient\nto be done; and, if he be an infinite sovereign, he wills whatever shall\ncome to pass: now this knowledge would be insignificant, and his will\ninefficacious, were he not infinite in power, or almighty. Again, this\nmight be argued from his justice, either in rewarding or punishing; for\nif he were not infinite in power, he could do neither of these, at least\nso far as to render him the object of that desire, or fear, which is\nagreeable to the nature of these perfections; neither could infinite\nfaithfulness accomplish all the promises which he hath made, so as to\nexcite that trust and dependence, which is a part of religious worship;\nnor could he say, without limitation, as he does, _I have spoken it_, _I\nwill also bring it to pass_; _I have purposed it_, _I will also do it_,\nIsa. xlvi. 11.\nBut since power is visible in, and demonstrated by its effects, and\ninfinite power, by those effects which cannot be produced by a creature,\nwe may observe the almighty power of God in all his works, both of\nnature and grace: thus his eternal power is understood, as the apostle\nsays, _By the things that are made_, Rom. i. 20. not that there was an\neternal production of things, but the exerting this power in time proves\nit to be infinite and truly divine; for no creature can produce the\nsmallest particle of matter out of nothing, much less furnish the\nvarious species of creatures with those endowments, in which they excel\none another, and set forth their Creator\u2019s glory. And the glory of his\npower is no less visible in the works of providence, whereby he upholds\nall things, disposes of them according to his pleasure, and brings about\nevents, which only he who has an almighty arm can effect. These things\nmight have been enlarged on, as evident proofs of this divine\nperfection; but since the works of creation and providence will be\nparticularly considered in their proper place,[51] we shall proceed to\nconsider the power of God, as appearing in his works of grace;\nparticularly,\n1. In some things subservient to our redemption, as in the formation of\nthe human nature of Christ, which is ascribed to the _power of the\nHighest_, Luke i. 35. and in preserving it from being crushed, overcome,\nand trampled on, by all the united powers of hell, and earth: it is\nsaid, _the arm of God strengthened him, so that the enemy should not\nexact upon him, nor the son of wickedness afflict him_, Psal. lxxxix,\n21, 22. It was the power of God that bore him up under all the terrible\nviews he had of sufferings and death, which had many ingredients in it,\nthat rendered it, beyond expression, formidable, and would have sunk a\nmere creature, unassisted thereby, into destruction. It was by the\ndivine power, which he calls _the finger of God_, Luke ix. 20. that he\ncast out devils, and wrought many other miracles, to confirm his\nmission: so, when he _rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child_,\nit is said, _they were all amazed at the mighty power of God_, chap. ix.\n42, 43. and it was hereby that _he was raised from the dead_, which the\napostle calls the _exceeding greatness of the power of God_, Eph. i. 19.\nand accordingly he was _declared to be the Son of God, with power, by\nthis extraordinary event_, Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the power of God will be\nglorified, in the highest degree, in his second coming, when, as he\nsays, he will appear in _the clouds of heaven, with power and great\nglory_. Matt. xxiv. 30.\n2. The power of God eminently appears in the propagation and success of\nthe gospel.\n(1.) In the propagation thereof; that a doctrine, so contrary to the\ncorrupt inclinations of mankind, which had so little to recommend it,\nbut what was divine, should be spread throughout the greatest part of\nthe known world, by a small number of men, raised up and spirited to\nthat end; and, in order thereunto, acted above themselves, and furnished\nwith extraordinary qualifications, such as the gift of tongues, and a\npower to work miracles, is a convincing proof, that the power by which\nall this was done, is infinite. It was hereby that they were not only\ninspired with wisdom, by which they silenced and confounded their\nmalicious enemies, but persuaded others to believe what they were sent\nto impart to them. It was hereby that they were inflamed with zeal, in\nproportion to the greatness of the occasion, fortified with courage to\ndespise the threats, and patiently to bear the persecuting rage of those\nwho pursued them unto bonds and death. It was hereby that they were\nenabled to finish their course with joy, and seal the doctrines they\ndelivered with their blood. And the power of God was herein the more\nremarkable, inasmuch as they were not men of the greatest natural\nsagacity, or resolution; and they always confessed whatever there was\nextraordinary in the course of their ministry, was from the hand of God.\n(2.) The power of God appears in the success of the gospel, the report\nwhereof would never have been believed, had not _the arm of the Lord\nbeen revealed_, Isa. liii. 1. The great multitude that was converted to\nChristianity in one age, is an eminent instance hereof: and the rather,\nbecause the profession they made was contrary to their secular\ninterests, and exposed them to the same persecution, though in a less\ndegree, which the apostles themselves met with; notwithstanding which,\nthey willingly parted with their worldly substance, when the necessity\nof affairs required it, and were content to have all things common, that\nso the work might proceed with more success.\nIt was the power of God that touched their hearts; so that this internal\ninfluence contributed more to the work of grace, than all the rhetorick\nof man could have done. It was this that carried them through all the\nopposition of cruel mocking, bonds, and imprisonment, and at the same\ntime compensated all their losses and sufferings, by those extraordinary\njoys and supports which they had, both in life and death.\nAnd to this we may add, that the daily success of the gospel, in all the\ninstances of converting grace, is an evident effect and proof of the\ndivine power, as will farther appear, when, under a following head, we\nconsider effectual calling, as being the work of God\u2019s almighty power\nand grace.[52]\n_Object._ It will be objected, that there are some things which God\ncannot do, and therefore he is not almighty.\n_Answ._ It is true, there are some things that God cannot do; but the\nreason is, either because it would be contrary to his divine perfections\nto do them, or they are not the objects of power; therefore it is not an\nimperfection in him that he cannot do them, but rather a branch of his\nglory. As,\n1. There are some things which he cannot do, not because he has not\npower to do them, had he pleased; but the only reason is, because he has\nwilled or determined not to do them. Thus if we should say, that he\ncannot make more worlds, it is not for want of infinite power, but\nbecause we suppose he has determined not to make them; he cannot save\nthe reprobate, or fallen angels, not through a defect of power, but\nbecause he has willed not to do it. In this the power of God is\ndistinguished from that of the creature; for we never say that a person\ncannot do a thing, merely because he will not, but because he wants\npower, if he would:[53] but this is by no means to be said of God in any\ninstance. Therefore we must distinguish between his absolute and\nordinate power; by the former he could do many things, which by the\nlatter he will not; and consequently, to say he cannot do those things,\nwhich he has determined not to do, does not in the least overthrow this\nattribute of almighty power.\n2. He cannot do that which is contrary to the nature of things, where\nthere is an impossibility in the things themselves to be done: thus he\ncannot make a creature to be independent, for that is contrary to the\nidea of a creature; nor can he make a creature equal to himself, for\nthen it would not be a creature; it is also impossible that he should\nmake a creature to be, and not to be, at the same time; or render that\nnot done, which is done, since that is contrary to the nature and truth\nof things; to which we may add, that he cannot make a creature the\nobject of religious worship; or, by his power, advance him to such a\ndignity, as shall warrant any one\u2019s ascribing divine perfections to him.\n3. He cannot deny himself, _It is impossible for God to lie_, Heb. vi.\n18. and it is equally impossible for him to act contrary to any of his\nperfections; for which reason he cannot do anything that argues\nweakness: as, for instance, he cannot repent, or change his mind, or\neternal purpose; nor can he do any thing that would argue him, not to be\na holy God: now, though it may be truly said that God can do none of\nthese things, this is no defect in him, but rather a glory, since they\nare not the objects of power, but would argue weakness and imperfection\nin him, should he do them.\nWe shall now consider, what practical improvement we ought to make of\nthis divine attribute.\n(1.) The almighty power of God affords great support and relief to\nbelievers, when they are assaulted, and afraid of being overcome, by\ntheir spiritual enemies: thus when they wrestle, as the apostle says,\nnot only _against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against\npowers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against\nspiritual wickedness in high places_, Eph. vi. 12. and when they\nconsider what numbers have been overcome and ruined by them, and are\ndiscouraged very much, under a sense of their own weakness or inability\nto maintain their ground against them; let them consider that God is\nable to bruise Satan under their feet, and to make them more than\nconquerors, and to cause all grace to abound in them, and to work in\nthem that which is pleasing in his sight.\n(2.) The consideration of God\u2019s almighty power gives us the greatest\nground to conclude, that whatever difficulties seem to lie in the way of\nthe accomplishment of his promises, relating to our future blessedness,\nshall be removed or surmounted; so that those things which seem\nimpossible, if we look no farther than second causes, or the little\nappearance there is, at present, of their being brought about, are not\nonly possible, but very easy for the power of God to effect.\nThus, with respect to what concerns the case of those who are sinking\ninto despair, under a sense of the guilt or power of sin, by reason\nwhereof they are ready to conclude that this burden is so great, that no\nfinite power can remove it; let such consider, that to God all things\nare possible; he can, by his powerful word, raise the most dejected\nspirits, and turn the shadow of death into a bright morning of peace and\njoy.\nMoreover, if we consider the declining state of religion in the world,\nthe apostacy of some professors, the degeneracy of others, and what\nreason the best of them have to say, that it is not with them as in\ntimes past; or when we consider what little hope there is, from the\npresent view we have of things, that the work of God will be revived in\nhis church; yea, if the state thereof were, in all appearance, as\nhopeless as it was when God, in a vision, represented it to the prophet\nEzekiel, when he shewed him the valley full of dry bones, and asked him,\n_Can these bones live?_ Ezek. xxxvii. 3. or if the question be put, can\nthe despised, declining, sinking, and dying interest of Christ be\nrevived? or how can those prophecies, that relate to the church\u2019s future\nhappiness and glory, ever have their accomplishment in this world, when\nall things seem to make against it? this difficulty will be removed, and\nour hope encouraged, when we consider the power of God, to which nothing\nis difficult, much less insuperable.\nAnd to this we may add, that the power of God will remove all the\ndifficulties that lie in our way, with respect to the resurrection of\nthe dead: this is a doctrine which seems contrary to the course of\nnature; and, if we look no farther than the power of the creature, we\nshould be inclined to say, How can this be? But when we consider the\nalmighty power of God, that will sufficiently remove all objections that\ncan be brought against it: thus, when our Saviour proves this doctrine,\nhe opposes the absurd notions which some had relating thereunto, by\nsaying, _Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God_,\nMatth. xxii. 19.\n(3.) Let us have a due regard to this attribute, and take encouragement\nfrom it, when we are engaging in holy duties, and are sensible of our\ninability to perform them in a right manner, and have too much reason to\ncomplain of an unbecoming frame of spirit therein, of the hardness and\nimpenitency of our hearts, the obstinacy and perverseness of our wills,\nthe earthliness and carnality of our affections, and that all the\nendeavours we can use to bring ourselves into a better frame, have not\ntheir desired success; let us encourage ourselves with this\nconsideration, that God can make us _willing in the day of his power_,\nPsal. cx. 3. and _do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or\nthink_, Eph. iii. 20.\n(4.) Let us take heed that we do not abuse, or practically deny, or cast\ncontempt on this divine perfection, by presuming that we may obtain\nspiritual blessings, without dependence on him for them, or expecting\ndivine influences, while we continue in the neglect of his instituted\nmeans of grace: it is true, God can work without means, but he has not\ngiven us ground to expect that he will do so; therefore when we seek\nhelp from him, it must be in his own way.\nAgain, let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection, by\na distrust of God, or by dependence on an arm of flesh; let us not, on\nthe one hand, limit the Holy One of Israel, by saying, Can God do this\nor that for me, either with respect to spiritual or temporal concerns?\nnor, on the other hand, rest in any thing short of him, as though\nomnipotency were not an attribute peculiar to himself. As he is able to\ndo great things for us that we looked not for; so he is much displeased\nwhen we expect these blessings from any one short of himself; _Who art\nthou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man, that shall die, and\nforgettest the Lord thy Maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens,\nand laid the foundation of the earth_? Isa. li. 12.\nX. God knows all things: it has been before considered, that his being a\nSpirit, implies his having an understanding, as a spirit is an\nintelligent being; therefore his being an infinite Spirit, must argue\nthat _his understanding is infinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\nThis may be farther proved,\n1. From his having given being to all things at first, and continually\nupholding them; he must necessarily know his own workmanship, the\neffects of his power; and this is yet more evident, if we consider the\ncreation of all things, as a work of infinite wisdom, which is plainly\ndiscernible therein, as well as almighty power; therefore he must know\nall things, for wisdom supposes knowledge. Moreover, his being the\nproprietor of all things, results from his having created them, and\ncertainly he must know his own.\n2. This farther appears, from his governing all things, or his ordering\nthe subserviency thereof, to answer some valuable ends, and that all\nshould redound to his glory; therefore both the ends and means must be\nknown by him. And as for the governing of intelligent creatures, this\nsupposes knowledge: as the Judge of all, he must be able to discern the\ncause, or else he cannot determine it, and perfectly to know the rules\nof justice, or else he cannot exercise it in the government of the\nworld.\n3. If God knows himself, he must know all other things, for he that\nknows the greatest object, must know things of a lesser nature; besides,\nif he knows himself, he knows what he can do, will do, or has done,\nwhich is as much as to say that he knows all things. And that God knows\nhimself, must be granted for if it be the privilege of an intelligent\ncreature to know himself, though this knowledge in him be but imperfect,\nsurely God must know himself; and because his knowledge cannot have any\ndefect, which would be inconsistent with infinite perfection, therefore\nhe must have a perfect, that is to say, an infinite knowledge of\nhimself, and consequently of all other things.\nThis knowledge of God, which has the creature for its object, is\ndistinguished, in scripture, into his comprehending, seeing, or having a\nperfect intuition of all things, and his approving of things, or it is\neither intuitive or approbative; the former of these is what we\nprincipally understand by this attribute; as when it is said, _Known\nunto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world_, Acts xv.\n18. and, _thou knowest my down-sitting and up-rising, and art acquainted\nwith all my ways; for there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord,\nthou knowest it altogether_, Psal. cxxxix. 2, 3, 4. and, _the Lord\nsearcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the\nthoughts_, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. And as for the other sense of God\u2019s\nknowledge, to wit, of approbation, which is less properly called\nknowledge, because it is rather seated in the will than in the\nunderstanding; of this we read in several scriptures; as when God tells\nMoses, _I know thee by name_, Exod. xxxiii. 12. which is explained by\nthe following words, _And thou hast found grace in my sight_; so when\nour Saviour says, concerning his enemies, _I will profess unto you I\nnever knew you_, Matth. vii. 23. it is not meant of a knowledge of\nintuition, but approbation. In the former sense, he knows all things,\nbad as well as good, that which he hates and will punish, as well as\nwhat he delights in; in the latter, he only knows that which is good, or\nagreeable to his will.\nMoreover, God is said to know what he can do, and what he has done, or\nwill do.\n(1.) God knows what he can do, even many things that he will not do; for\nas his power is unlimited, so that he can do infinitely more than he\nwill, so he knows more than he will do. This is very obvious; for we\nourselves, as free agents, can do more than we will, and, as\nintelligent, we know in many instances, what we can do, though we will\nnever do them: much more must this be said of the great God, who\n_calleth things that be not as though they were_, Rom. iv. 17. so David\nenquires of God, _Will Saul come down? and will the men of Keilah\ndeliver me up into has hand?_ And God answers him, _He will come down,\nand the men of Keilah will deliver thee up_, 1 Sam. xxiii. 12. which\nimplies, that God knew what they would have done, had not his providence\nprevented it. In this respect, things known by him are said to be\npossible, by reason of his power, whereas the future existence thereof\ndepends on his will.\n(2.) God knows whatever he has done, does, or will do, _viz._ things\npast, present, or to come. That he knows all things present, has been\nproved, from the dependence of things on his providence; and his\nknowledge being inseparably connected with his power: and that he knows\nall things that are past, is no less evident, for they were once\npresent, and consequently known by him; and to suppose that he does not\nknow them, is to charge him with forgetfulness, or to suppose that his\nknowledge at present is less perfect than it was, which is inconsistent\nwith infinite perfection. Moreover, if God did not know all things past,\nhe could not be the Judge of the world; and particularly, he could\nneither reward nor punish; both which acts respect only things that are\npast; therefore such things are perfectly known by him. Thus, when Job\nconsidered his present afflictions, as the punishment of past sins, he\nsays, Job xiv. 17. _My transgression is sealed up in a bag; thou sewest\nup mine iniquity_; which metaphorical way of speaking, implies his\nremembering it: so when God threatens to punish his adversaries for\ntheir iniquity, he speaks of it, as remembered by him, _laid up in\nstore_ with him, and _sealed up among his treasures_, Deut. xxxii. 34,\n35. So, on the other hand, when he designed to reward, or encourage, the\nreligious duties, performed by his people, who feared his name, it is\nsaid, _a book of remembrance was written before him, for them_, Mal.\nBut that which we shall principally consider, is, God\u2019s knowing all\nthings future, _viz._ not only such as are the effects of necessary\ncauses, where the effect is known in or by the cause, but such as are\ncontingent, with respect to us; which is the most difficult of all\nknowledge whatsoever, and argues it to be truly divine.\nBy future contingences, we understand things that are accidental, or, as\nwe commonly say, happen by chance, without any fore-thought, or design\nof men. Now that many things happen so, with respect to us, and\ntherefore we cannot certainly foreknow them, is very obvious; but even\nthese are foreknown by God[54] For,\n1. Things that happen without our design, or fore-thought, and therefore\nare not certainly foreknown by us, are the objects of his providence,\nand therefore known unto him from the beginning: thus _the fall of a\nsparrow to the ground_ is a casual thing, yet our Saviour says, that\nthis is not without his providence, Matth. x. 29. Therefore,\n2. That which is casual, or accidental to us, is not so to him; so that\nthough we cannot have a certain or determinate foreknowledge thereof, it\ndoes not follow that he has not; since,\n3. He has foretold many such future events, as appears by the following\ninstances.\n(1.) Ahab\u2019s death by an arrow, shot at random, may be reckoned a\ncontingent event; yet this was foretold before he went into the battle,\n1 Kings xxii. 17, 18, 34. and accomplished accordingly.\n(2.) That Israel should be afflicted and oppressed in Egypt, and\nafterwards should be delivered, was foretold four hundred years before\nit came to pass, Gen. xv. 13, 14. And when Moses was sent to deliver\nthem out of the Egyptian bondage, God tells him, before-hand, how\nobstinate Pharaoh would be, and with how much difficulty he would be\nbrought to let them go, Exod. iii. 19, 20.\n(3.) Joseph\u2019s advancement in Egypt was a contingent and very unlikely\nevent, yet it was made known several years before, by his prophetic\ndream, Gen. xxxvii. 5, &c. and afterwards, that which tended more\nimmediately to it, was his foretelling what happened to the chief butler\nand baker, and the seven years of plenty and famine in Egypt, signified\nby Pharaoh\u2019s dream; all which were contingent events, and were foretold\nby divine inspiration, and therefore foreknown by God.\n(4.) Hazael\u2019s coming to the crown of Syria, and the cruelty that he\nwould exercise, was foretold to him, when he thought he could never be\nsuch a monster of a man, as he afterwards appeared to be, 2 Kings viii.\n(5.) Judas\u2019s betraying our Lord was foretold by him, John vi. 70, 71.\nthough, at that time, he seemed as little disposed to commit so vile a\ncrime as any of his disciples.\nThus having considered God\u2019s knowledge, with respect to the object,\neither as past, or future, we shall conclude this head, by observing\nsome properties, whereby it appears to be superior to all finite\nknowledge, and truly divine, _viz._\n1. It is perfect, intimate, and distinct, and not superficial, or\nconfused, or only respecting things in general, as ours often is: thus\nit is said concerning him, that _he bringeth out his host by number, and\ncalleth them all by names_, Isa. xl. 26. which denotes his exquisite\nknowledge of all things, as well as propriety in, and using them at his\npleasure. And since all creatures _live and move_, or act, _in him_,\nActs xvii. 28. or by his powerful influence, it follows from hence, that\nhis knowledge is as distinct and particular, as the actions themselves,\nyea, the most indifferent actions, that are hardly taken notice of by\nourselves, such as our _down-sitting and up-rising_, Psal. cxxxix. 2.\nand every transient thought that is no sooner formed in our minds, but\nforgotten by us, is known by him afar off, at the greatest distance of\ntime, when it is irrecoverably lost with respect to us. That God knows\nall things thus distinctly, is evident not only from their dependence\nupon him; but it is said, that when he had brought his whole work of\ncreation to perfection, _He saw every thing that he had made, and behold\nit was very good_, that is, agreeable to his eternal design, or, if we\nmay so express it, to the idea, or plat-form, laid in his own mind; and\nthis he pronounced concerning every individual thing, which is as much\nthe object of his omniscience, as the effect of his power: what can be\nmore expressive of the perfection and distinctness of his knowledge than\nthis? Therefore the apostle might well say, that _there is not any\ncreature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked,\nand opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do_, Heb. iv. 13.\n2. He knows every thing, even future contingencies, with a certain and\ninfallible knowledge, without the least hesitation, or possibility of\nmistake; and therefore, as opinion, or conjecture, is opposed to\ncertainty, it is not in the least applicable to him. In this his\nknowledge differs from that of the best of creatures, who can only guess\nat some things that may happen, according to the probable fore-views\nthey have thereof.\n3. As to the manner of his knowing all things, it is not in a discursive\nway, agreeable to our common method of reasoning, by inferring one thing\nfrom another, or by comparing things together, and observing their\nconnexion, dependence, and various powers and manner of acting, and\nthereby discerning what will follow; for such a knowledge as this is\nacquired, and presupposes a degree of ignorance: conclusions can hardly\nbe said to be known, till the premises, from whence they are deduced, be\nduly weighed; but this is inconsistent with the knowledge of God, who\nsees all things in himself; things possible in his own power, and things\nfuture in his will, without inferring, abstracting, or deducing\nconclusions from premises, which to do is unbecoming him, who is perfect\nin knowledge.\n4. He knows all things at once, not successively, as we do; for if\nsuccessive duration be an imperfection, (as was before observed, when we\nconsidered the eternity of God) his knowing all things after this\nmanner, is equally so; and, indeed, this would argue an increase of the\ndivine knowledge, or a making advances in wisdom, by experience, and\ndaily observation of things, which, though applicable to all intelligent\ncreatures, can, by no means, be said of him, whose _understanding is\ninfinite_, Psal. cxlvii. 5.\nWe shall now consider what improvement we ought to make of God\u2019s\nomniscience, as to what respects our conduct in this world.\n_First_, Let us take heed that we do not practically deny this\nattribute.\n1. By acting as though we thought that we could hide ourselves from the\nall-seeing eye of God; let us not say, to use the words of Eliphaz, _How\ndoth God know? Can he judge through the dark cloud? Thick clouds are a\ncovering to him, that he seeth not, and he walketh in the circuit of\nheaven_, Job xxii. 13, 14. How vain a supposition is this! _since there\nis no darkness, or shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may\nhide themselves_, chap. xxxiv. 22. Hypocrisy is, as it were, an attempt\nto hide ourselves from God, an acting as though we thought that we could\ndeceive or impose on him, which is called, in scripture, _a lying to\nhim_, Psal. lxxviii. 36. or, _a compassing him about with lies and\ndeceit_, Hos. xi. 12. This all are chargeable with, who rest in a form\nof godliness, as though God saw only the outward actions, but not the\nheart.\n2. By being more afraid of man than God, and venturing to commit the\nvilest abominations, without considering his all-seeing eye, which we\nwould be afraid and ashamed to do, were we under the eye of man, as the\napostle saith, _It is a shame even to speak of those things which are\ndone of them in secret_, Eph. v. 12. Thus God says, concerning an\napostatizing people of old, speaking to the prophet Ezekiel, _Son of\nman, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the\ndark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The Lord\nseeth us not, the Lord hath forsaken the earth_, Ezek. viii. 12.\n_Secondly_, The consideration of God\u2019s omniscience should be improved,\nto humble us under a sense of sin, but especially of secret sins, which\nare all known to him: thus it is said, _Thou hast set our iniquities\nbefore thee; our secret sins in the light of thy countenance_, Psal. xc.\n8. and _his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings_,\nJob xxxiv. 21. There are many things which we know concerning ourselves,\nthat no creature is privy to, which occasions self-conviction, and might\nfill us with shame and confusion of face. But this falls infinitely\nshort of God\u2019s omniscience; _for if our heart condemn us, God is greater\nthan our heart, and knoweth all things_, 1 John iii. 20. And this should\nmake sinners tremble at the thoughts of a future judgment; for if sins\nbe not pardoned, he is able to bring them to remembrance, and, as he\nthreatens he will do, _set them in order before their eyes_, Psal. l.\n_Thirdly_, The due consideration of this divine perfection, will, on the\nother hand, tend very much to the comfort of believers: he seeth their\nsecret wants, the breathings of their souls after him, and as our\nSaviour saith, _Their Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward them\nopenly_, Matt. vi. 4. With what pleasure may they appeal to God, as the\nsearcher of hearts, concerning their sincerity, when it is called in\nquestion by men. And when they are afraid of contracting guilt and\ndefilement, by secret faults, which they earnestly desire, with the\nPsalmist, to be cleansed from, Psal. xix. 12. it is some relief to them\nto consider that God knows them, and therefore is able to give them\nrepentance for them; so that they may pray with David; _Search me, O\nGod, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there\nbe any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting_, Psal.\ncxxxix. 23, 24. Moreover, it is a quieting thought, to all who are\naffected with the church\u2019s troubles, and the deep laid designs of its\nenemies against it, to consider that God knows them, and therefore can\neasily defeat, and turn them into foolishness.\n_Fourthly_, The due consideration of God\u2019s omniscience will be of great\nuse to all Christians, to promote a right frame of spirit in holy\nduties; it will make them careful how they behave themselves as being in\nhis sight; and tend to fill them with a holy reverence, as those that\nare under his immediate inspection, that they may approve themselves to\nhim.\nXI. God is most wise, or infinite in wisdom; or, as the apostle\nexpresses it, he is _the only wise God_, Rom. xvi. 27. This perfection\nconsidered as absolute, underived, and truly divine, belongs only to\nhim; so that the angels themselves, the most excellent order of created\nbeings, are said to be destitute of it, or _charged with folly_, Job iv.\n18. For our understanding what this divine perfection is, let us\nconsider; that wisdom contains in it more than knowledge, for there may\nbe a great degree of knowledge, where there is but little wisdom, though\nthere can be no wisdom without knowledge: knowledge is, as it were, the\neye of the soul, whereby it apprehends, or sees, things in a true light,\nand so it is opposed to ignorance, or not knowing things; but wisdom is\nthat whereby the soul is directed in the skilful management of things,\nor in ordering them for the best; and this is opposed, not so much to\nignorance, or error of judgment, as to folly, or error in conduct, which\nis a defect of wisdom; and it consists more especially in designing the\nbest and most valuable end in what we are about to do, in using the most\nproper means to effect it, and in observing the fittest season to act,\nand every circumstance attending it, that is most expedient and\nconducive thereunto; also in foreseeing and guarding against every\noccurrence that may frustrate our design, or give us an occasion to\nblame ourselves for doing what we have done, or repent of it, or to wish\nwe had taken other measures. Now, that we may from hence take an\nestimate of the wisdom of God, it appears,\n1. In the reference, or tendency of all things to his own glory, which\nis the highest and most excellent end that can be proposed; as he is the\nhighest and best of beings, and his glory, to which all things are\nreferred, is infinitely excellent.\nHere let us consider,\n(1.) That God is, by reason of his infinite perfection, naturally and\nnecessarily the object of adoration.\n(2.) He cannot be adored, unless his glory be set forth and\ndemonstrated, or made visible.\n(3.) There must be an intelligent creature to behold his glory, and\nadore his perfections, that are thus demonstrated and displayed.\n(4.) Every thing that he does is fit and designed to lead this creature\ninto the knowledge of his glory; and that it is so ordered, is an\neminent instance of divine wisdom. We need not travel far to know this,\nfor wherever we look, we may behold how excellent his name is in all the\nearth: and because some are so stupid, that they cannot, or will not, in\na way of reasoning, infer his divine perfections from things that are\nwithout us, therefore he has instamped the knowledge thereof on the\nsouls and consciences of men; so that, at sometimes, they are obliged,\nwhether they will or no, to acknowledge them. There is something which\n_may be known of God, that is said to be manifest in, and shewn to_ all;\nso that _the Gentiles who have not the law_, that is, the written word\nof God, _do, by nature the things_, that is, some things, _contained\ntherein_, and so are _a law unto themselves_, and _shew the work of the\nlaw written in their hearts_, Rom. i. 19. chap. ii. 14, 15. And, besides\nthis, he has led us farther into the knowledge of his divine perfections\nby his word, which he is said to have magnified above all his name,\nPsal. cxxxvii. 2. therefore having thus adapted his works and word, to\nset forth his glory, he discovers himself to be infinite in wisdom.[55]\n2. The wisdom of God appears, in that whatever he does, is in the\nfittest season, and all the circumstances thereof tend to set forth his\nown honour, and argue his foresight to be infinitely perfect; so that he\ncan see no reason to wish it had been otherwise ordered, or to repent\nthereof. _For all his ways are judgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4. _to every\nthing there is a season and a time, to every purpose under the heaven;\nand he hath made every thing beautiful in his time_, Eccl. iii. 1, 11.\nFor the farther illustrating of this, since wisdom is known by its\neffects, we shall observe some of the traces, or footsteps thereof in\nhis works. And,\n(1.) In the work of creation. As it requires infinite power to produce\nsomething out of nothing; so the wisdom of God appears in that excellent\norder, beauty, and harmony, that we observe in all the parts of the\ncreation; and in the subserviency of one thing to another, and the\ntendency thereof to promote the moral government of God in the world,\nand the good of man, for whose sake this lower world was formed, that so\nit might be a convenient habitation for him, and a glorious object, in\nwhich he might contemplate, and thereby be led to advance the divine\nperfections, which shine forth therein, as in a glass; so that we have\nthe highest reason to say, _Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom\nhast thou made them all_, Psal. civ. 24. _He hath made the earth by his\npower; he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched\nout the heavens by his discretion_, Jer. x. 12. But since this argument\nhath been insisted on, with great ingenuity, and strength of reason by\nothers,[56] we shall add no more on that subject, but proceed to\nconsider,\n(2.) The wisdom of God, as appearing in the works of providence, in\nbringing about unexpected events for the good of mankind, and that, by\nmeans that seem to have no tendency thereto, but rather the contrary;\nthis will appear in the following instances. As,\n_1st_, Jacob\u2019s flying from his father\u2019s house, was wisely ordered, as a\nmeans not only for his escaping the fury of his brother, and the trial\nof his faith, and to humble him for the sinful method he took to obtain\nthe blessing; but also for the building up his family, and encreasing\nhis substance in the world, under a very unjust father-in-law and\nmaster, such as Laban was.\n_2dly_, Joseph\u2019s being sold into Egypt, was ordered, as a means of his\npreserving not only that land, but his father\u2019s house, from perishing by\nfamine; his imprisonment was the occasion of his advancement. And all\nthis led the way to the accomplishment of what God had foretold relating\nto his people\u2019s dwelling in Egypt, and their wonderful deliverance from\nthe bondage they were to endure therein.\n_3dly_, The wisdom of God was seen in the manner of Israel\u2019s deliverance\nout of Egypt, in that he first laid them under the greatest\ndiscouragements, by suffering the Egyptians to increase their tasks and\nburdens; hardening Pharaoh\u2019s heart, that he might try his people\u2019s\nfaith, and make their deliverance appear more remarkable; and then\nplaguing the Egyptians, that he might punish their pride, injustice, and\ncruelty; and, at last, giving them up to such an infatuation, as\neffectually procured their final overthrow, and his people\u2019s safety.\n_4thly_, In leading Israel forty years in the wilderness, before he\nbrought them into the promised land, that he might give them statutes\nand ordinances, and that they might experience various instances of his\npresence among them, by judgments and mercies, and so be prepared for\nall the privileges he designed for them, as his peculiar people, in the\nland of Canaan.\n_5thly_, We have a very wonderful instance of the wisdom of providence\nin the book of Esther; when Haman, the enemy of the Jews, had obtained a\ndecree for their destruction, and Mordecai was first to be sacrificed to\nhis pride and revenge, providence turned whatever he intended against\nhim, upon himself. There was something very remarkable in all the\ncircumstances that led to it, by which the church\u2019s deliverance and\nadvancement was brought about; when, to an eye of reason, it seemed\nalmost impossible,\n(3.) The wisdom of God appears yet more eminently, in the work of our\nredemption; this is that which _the angels desire to look into_, and\ncannot behold without the greatest admiration; for herein God\u2019s manifold\nwisdom is displayed, 1 Pet. i. 12. Eph. iii. 10. This solves the\ndifficulty, contained in a former dispensation of providence, respecting\nGod\u2019s suffering sin to enter into the world, which he could have\nprevented, and probably would have done, had he not designed to\nover-rule it, for the bringing about the work of our redemption by\nChrist; so that what we lost in our first head, should be recovered with\ngreat advantage in our second, the Lord from heaven.\nBut though this matter was determined in the eternal covenant, between\nthe Father and the Son, and the necessity of man seemed to require that\nChrist should be immediately incarnate, as soon as man fell, yet it was\ndeferred till many ages after; and herein the wisdom of God eminently\nappeared. For,\n_1st_, God hereby tried the faith and patience of his church, and put\nthem upon waiting for, and depending on him, who was to come; so that\nthough they had not received this promised blessing, yet they _saw it\nafar off_; _were persuaded of, and embraced it_, and, with _Abraham,\nrejoiced to see his day_, though at a great distance, Heb. xi. 13. John\nviii. 56. and hereby they glorified the faithfulness of God, and\ndepended on his word, that the work of redemption should be brought\nabout, as certainly, as though it had been actually accomplished.\n_2dly_, Our Saviour, in the mean time took occasion to display his own\nglory, as the Lord, and Governor of his church, even before his\nincarnation, to whom he often appeared in a human form, assumed for that\npurpose, as a prelibation thereof; so that they had the greatest reason,\nfrom hence, to expect his coming in our nature.\n_3rdly_, The time of Christ\u2019s coming in the flesh, was such as appeared\nmost seasonable; when the state of the church was very low, religion\nalmost lost among them, and the darkness they were under, exceeding\ngreat; which made it very necessary that the Messiah should come: when\niniquity almost universally prevailed among them, then _the deliverer\nmust come out of Sion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob_, Rom. xi.\n26. and when the darkness of the night was greatest, it was the most\nproper time for _the Sun of Righteousness to arise with healing in his\nwings_, Mal. iv. 2. compared with Matt. iv. 16.\n(4.) The wisdom of God farther appears in the various methods he has\ntaken in the government of his church, before and since the coming of\nChrist. For,\n_1st_, God at first, as has been before observed,[57] left his church\nwithout a written word, till Moses\u2019s time, that he might take occasion\nto converse with them more immediately, as an instance of infinite\ncondescension; and to shew them, that though they had no such method of\nknowing his revealed will as we have, yet that he could communicate his\nmind to them another way; and, when the necessity of affairs required\nit, then his wisdom was seen in taking this method to propagate religion\nin the world.\n_2dly_, When God designed to govern his church by those rules, which he\nhath laid down in scripture, he revealed the great doctrines contained\ntherein, in a gradual way; so that the dispensation of his providence\ntowards them, was like the light of the morning, increasing to a perfect\nday: he first instructed them by various types and shadows, leading them\ninto the knowledge of the gospel, which was afterwards to be more\nclearly revealed: he taught them, as they were able to bear it, like\nchildren growing in knowledge, till they arrive to a perfect manhood: he\nfirst gave them grounds to expect the blessings which he would bestow in\nafter-ages, by the manifold predictions thereof; and afterwards\nglorified his faithfulness in their accomplishment.\n_3dly_, He sometimes governed them in a more immediate way, and\nconfirmed their faith, as was then necessary, by miracles; and also\nraised up prophets, as occasion served, whom he furnished, in an\nextraordinary way, for the service to which he called them, to lead his\nchurch into the knowledge of those truths, on which their faith was\nbuilt.\nAnd, to this we may add, that he gave them various other helps for their\nfaith, by those common and ordinary means of grace, which they were\nfavoured with, and which the gospel church now enjoys, and has ground to\nconclude that they will be continued until Christ\u2019s second coming. Here\nwe might take occasion to consider how the wisdom of God appears in\nfurnishing his church with a gospel-ministry, and how the management\nthereof is adapted to the necessities of his people; in employing such\nabout this work, who are duly qualified for it, assisting them in the\ndischarge thereof, and succeeding their humble endeavours; and all this\nin such a way, as that the praise shall redound to himself, who builds\nhis house, and bears the glory; but this we may have occasion to insist\non in a following part of this work.[58]\n(5.) The wisdom of God appears in the method he takes to preserve,\npropagate, and build up his church in the world. Therefore,\n_1st_, As his kingdom is not of this world, but of a spiritual, nature,\nso he hath ordered that it shall not be promoted by those methods of\nviolence, or carnal policy, by which the secular interests of men are\noft-times advanced. He has no where appointed that wars should be\nproclaimed to propagate the faith, or that persons should be forced to\nembrace it against their wills, or be listed under Christ\u2019s banner, by\nbribery, or a prospect of worldly advantage; therefore all the success\nthe gospel has had, which is worthy to be called success, has been such\nas is agreeable to the spirituality of Christ\u2019s kingdom; thus his house\nis to be built, _not by might, nor by power, but by his Spirit_, Zech.\n_2dly_, That the church should flourish under persecution, and those\nmethods which its enemies take to ruin it, should be over-ruled, to its\ngreater advantage; and that hereby shame and disappointment should\nattend every weapon that is formed against Sion, as being without\nsuccess; and that the church should appear more eminently to be the care\nof God, when it meets with the most injurious treatment from men, is a\nplain proof of the glory of this attribute: and, on the other hand, that\nits flourishing state, as to outward, things, should not be always\nattended with the like marks or evidences of the divine favour, in what\nmore immediately respects salvation, is an instance of the divine\nwisdom, as God hereby puts his people on setting the highest value on\nthose things that are most excellent; and not to reckon themselves most\nhappy in the enjoyment of the good things of this life, when they are\ndestitute of his special presence with them.\n_3dly_, The preserving the rising generation from the vile abominations\nthat there are in the world, especially the seed of believers, and\ncalling many of them by his grace, that so there may be a constant\nreserve of those, who may be added to his church, as others, who have\nserved their generation, are called out of it, which is a necessary\nexpedient for the preserving his interest in the world: in this the\nwisdom of God is eminently glorified, as well as his other perfections.\nFrom what has been said concerning the wisdom of God, we may infer,\n1. That none can be said to meditate aright on the works of God, such as\ncreation, providence, or redemption, who do not behold and admire his\nmanifold wisdom displayed therein, as well as his other perfections. As\nwe conclude him a very unskilful observer of a curious picture or\nstatue, who only takes notice of its dimensions in general, or the\nmatter of which it is composed, without considering the symmetry and\nproportion of all the parts thereof, and those other excellencies, by\nwhich the artist has signalized his skill; so it is below a Christian to\nbe able only to say, that there are such works done in the world, or to\nhave a general idea of its being governed by providence, without having\nhis thoughts suitably affected with the harmonious subserviency of\nthings, and the design of all to set forth the glory of him, who is a\nGod of infinite wisdom.\n2. If we cannot understand the meaning of some particular dispensations\nof providence, so as to admire the wisdom of God therein, let us compare\nall the parts of providence together, and one will illustrate and add a\nbeauty to another, as our Saviour says to Peter, _What I do thou knowest\nnot now, but thou shalt know hereafter_, John xiii. 7. therefore let us\ncompare the various dark dispensations, which the church of God is under\nat one time, with the glory that shall be put upon it at another.\n3. From the displays of the wisdom of God in all his works, let us learn\nhumility, under a sense of our own folly: thus the Psalmist takes\noccasion to express his low thoughts of mankind in general, and says,\n_What is man, that thou art mindful of him?_ when he had been meditating\non the glory of some other parts of his creation, which he calls, _The\nwork of his fingers_, Psal. viii. 3, 4. that is, creatures, in which his\nwisdom is displayed in a very eminent degree. But, besides this, we may\ntake occasion to have a humble sense of our own folly; that is, our\ndefect of wisdom; since it is but a little of God that is known by us,\nand the wonderful effects of divine wisdom are known but in part by us,\nwho dwell in houses of clay.\n4. Let us subject our understandings to God, and have a high veneration\nfor his word, in which his wisdom is displayed, which he has ordained,\nas the means whereby we may be made wise unto salvation; and whatever\nincomprehensible mysteries we find contained therein, let us not reject\nor despise them because we cannot comprehend them.\n5. Since God is infinite in wisdom, let us seek wisdom of him, according\nto the apostle\u2019s advice, _If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask it of\nGod, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall\nbe given him_, James i. 5.\nXII. God is most holy, or infinite in holiness, which is essential to\nhim: thus he is often styled, _The Holy One of Israel_, Isa. i. 4. and\nthis attribute is thrice repeated by the seraphim, who, with the utmost\nreverence and adoration, _cried, one unto another, Holy, holy, holy, is\nthe Lord of hosts_, chap. vi. 3. And he is said to be holy, exclusively\nof all others, as this is a divine perfection, and as he is infinitely\nand independently so, _O Lord, thou only art holy_, Rev. xv. 4. and the\nreason of this is assigned, to wit, because he is the only God; holiness\nis his very nature and essence; _There is none holy as the Lord, for\nthere is none besides him_, 1 Sam. ii. 2. In considering this divine\nperfection, we shall enquire,\n1. What we are to understand by it. Holiness is that whereby he is\ninfinitely opposite to every thing that tends to reflect dishonour, or\nreproach, on his divine perfections; and especially as he is infinitely\nopposite in his nature, will, and works, to all moral impurity; as his\npower is opposed to all natural weakness, his wisdom to the least defect\nof understanding or folly, so his holiness is opposed to all moral\nblemishes, or imperfections, which we call sin; so that it is not so\nmuch one single perfection, as the harmony of all his perfections, as\nthey are opposed to sin; and therefore it is called, _The beauty of the\nLord_, Psal. xxvii. 4. and when the Psalmist prays that the church may\nbe made and dealt with as an holy people, he says, _Let the beauty of\nthe Lord our God be upon us_, Psal. xc. 17. It is that which, if we may\nso express it, adds a lustre to all his other perfections; so that if he\nwere not glorious in holiness, whatever else might be said of him, would\ntend rather to his dishonour than his glory, and the beauty of his\nperfections would be so sullied that they could not be called divine: as\nholiness is the brightest part of the image of God in man, without which\nnothing could be mentioned concerning him, but what turns to his\nreproach, his wisdom would deserve no better a name than that of\nsubtilty, his power destructive and injurious, his zeal furious madness;\nso if we separate holiness from the divine nature, all other\nexcellencies would be inglorious, because impure.\n2. We proceed to consider the holiness of God, as glorified or\ndemonstrated in various instances.\n(1.) In his works. This perfection was as eminently displayed in the\nwork of creation, especially that of angels and men, as his power,\nwisdom, and goodness; for he made them with a perfect rectitude of\nnature, without the least spot or propensity to sin, and with a power to\nretain it; so that there was no natural necessity laid on them to sin,\nwhich might infer God to be the author of it: and furthermore, as a\nmoral expedient to prevent it, as well as to assert his own sovereignty,\nhe gave them a law, which was holy, as well as just and good, and warned\nthem of those dreadful consequences that would ensue on the violation\nthereof; as it would render them unholy, deprive them of his image, and\nconsequently separate them from him, and render them the objects of his\nabhorrence; and, to this we may add, that his end in making all other\nthings was, that his intelligent creatures might actively glorify him,\nand be induced to holiness.\n(2.) This divine perfection appears likewise in the government of the\nworld, and of the church, in all the dispensations of his providence,\neither in a way of judgment, or of mercy; therefore he shews his\ndispleasure against nothing but sin, which is the only thing that\nrenders creatures the objects of punishment, and all the blessings he\nbestows are a motive to holiness. As for his people, whom he hath the\ngreatest regard to, they are described, as _called to be saints_, 1 Cor.\ni. 2. and it is said of the church of Israel, that it was _holiness unto\nthe Lord_, Jer. ii. 3. and all his ordinances are holy, and to be\nengaged in with such a frame of spirit, as is agreeable thereunto: thus\nhe says, _I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me_, Lev. x. 3.\nand _holiness becometh his house for ever_, Psal. xciii. 5. In like\nmanner, we are to take an estimate of the success thereof, when, through\nthe divine blessing accompanying them, they tend to promote internal\nholiness in those who are engaged therein, whereby they are\ndistinguished from the rest of the world, and _sanctified by his truth_,\nJohn xvii. 17.\n_Object._ It may be objected by some, that God\u2019s suffering sin to enter\ninto the world, which he might have prevented, was a reflection cast on\nhis holiness.\n_Answ._ It must be allowed, that God might have prevented the first\nentrance of sin into the world, by his immediate interposure, and so\nhave kept man upright, as well as made him so; yet let it be considered,\nthat he was not obliged to do this; and therefore might, without any\nreflection on his holiness, leave an innocent creature to the conduct of\nhis own free-will, which might be tempted, but not forced, to sin,\nespecially since he designed to over-rule the event hereof, for the\nsetting forth the glory of all his perfections, and, in an eminent\ndegree, that of his holiness; but this will more particularly be\nconsidered under some following answers.[59]\nFrom what has been said concerning the holiness of God, let us take\noccasion to behold and admire the beauty and glory thereof, in all the\ndivine dispensations, as he can neither do, nor enjoin any thing but\nwhat sets forth his infinite purity; therefore,\n1. As he cannot be the author of sin, so we must take heed that we do\nnot advance any doctrines from whence this consequence may be inferred;\nthis ought to be the standard by which they are to be tried, as we shall\ntake occasion to observe in several instances, and think ourselves as\nmuch concerned to advance the glory of this perfection, as of any other:\nnotwithstanding it is one thing for persons to militate against what\nappears to be a truth, by alleging this popular objection, that it is\ncontrary to the holiness of God, and another thing to support the\ncharge; this will be particularly considered, when such-like objections,\nbrought against the doctrine of predestination, and several other\ndoctrines, are answered in their proper place.\n2. It is an excellency, beauty, and glory, in the Christian religion,\nwhich should make us more in love with it, that it leads to holiness,\nwhich was the image of God in man. All other religions have indulged,\nled to, or dispensed with many impurities, as may be observed in those\nof the Mahometans and Pagans; and the different religions, professed by\nthem who are called Christians, are to be judged more or less valuable,\nand accordingly to be embraced or rejected, as they tend more or less to\npromote holiness. And here I cannot but observe, that it is a singular\nexcellency of the Protestant religion above the Popish, that all its\ndoctrines and precepts have a tendency thereunto; whereas the other\nadmits of, dispenses with, and gives countenance to manifold impurities;\nas will appear, if we consider some of the doctrines held by them, which\nlead to licentiousness. As,\n(1.) That some sins are, in their own nature, so small, that they do not\ndeserve eternal punishment, and therefore that satisfaction is to be\nmade for them, by undergoing some penances enjoined them by the priest;\nupon which condition, he gives them absolution, and so discharges them\nfrom any farther concern about them; which is certainly subversive of\nholiness, as well as contrary to scripture, which says, _The wages of\nsin is death_, Rom. vi. 23. the word of God knows no distinction between\nmortal and venial sins, especially in the sense which they give thereof.\n(2.) The doctrine of indulgences and dispensations to sin, given forth\nat a certain rate. This was a great matter of offence to those who took\noccasion, for it, among other reasons, to separate from them in the\nbeginning of the reformation, whereby they gave glory to the holiness of\nGod, in expressing a just indignation against such vile practices. It is\ntrue the Papists allege, in defence thereof, that it is done in\ncompassion to those, whose natural temper leads them, with impetuous\nviolence, to those sins, which they dispense with; and that this is, in\nsome respects, necessary, in as much as the temptations of some, arising\nfrom their condition in the world, are greater than what others are\nliable to. But none of these things will exempt a person from the guilt\nof sin, much less warrant the practice of those, who hereby encourage\nthem to commit it.\n(3.) Another doctrine maintained by them is, that the law of God, as\nconformed to human laws, respects only outward, or overt-acts, as they\nare generally called, and not the heart, or principle, from whence they\nproceed; and therefore that concupiscence, or the corruption of nature,\nwhich is the impure fountain, from whence all sins proceed, comes not\nunder the cognisance of the divine law, nor exposes us to any degree of\npunishment; and that either because they suppose it unavoidable, or else\nbecause every sin is an act, and not a habit, the off-spring, or effect\nof lust, which, when (as they pervert the words of the apostle) _it has\nconceived, brings forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth\nforth death_, James i. 15. whereas the spring of defiled actions is, in\nreality, more corrupt and abominable than the actions themselves, how\nmuch soever actual sins may be supposed to be more scandalous and\npernicious to the world, as they are more visible; if the fruit be\ncorrupt, the tree that brings forth must be much more so; and though\nthis is not so discernible by others, yet it is abhorred and punished by\na jealous God, who searches the heart and the reins; therefore this\ndoctrine is contrary to his holiness.\n(4.) The merit of good works, and our justification thereby, is a\nreflection on this divine perfection; as it makes way for boasting, and\nis inconsistent with that humility, which is the main ingredient in\nholiness; and casts the highest reflection on Christ\u2019s satisfaction,\nwhich is the greatest expedient for the setting forth the holiness of\nGod, as it argues it not to have been absolutely necessary, and\nsubstitutes our imperfect works in the room thereof.\n(5.) Another doctrine, which is contrary to the holiness of God, is that\nof purgatory, and prayers for the dead, which they are as tenacious of,\nas Demetrius, and his fellow-craftsmen, were of the image of Diana, at\nEphesus, the destruction whereof would endanger their craft, Acts xix.\n25, 27. so, if this doctrine should be disregarded, it would bring no\nsmall detriment to them. But that which renders it most abominable, is,\nthat it extenuates the demerit of sin, and supposes it possible for\nothers to do that for them by their prayers, which they neglected to do\nwhilst they were alive, who, from this presumptuous supposition, did not\nsee an absolute necessity of holiness to salvation. These, and many\nother doctrines, which might have been mentioned, cast the highest\nreflection on the holiness of God, and not only evince the justice and\nnecessity of the reformation, but oblige, us to maintain the contrary\ndoctrines.\nIf it be objected, by way of reprisal, that there are many doctrines,\nwhich we maintain, that lead to licentiousness, I hope we shall be able\nto exculpate ourselves; but this we reserve for its proper place, that\nwe may avoid the repetition of things, which we shall be obliged to\ninsist on elsewhere.\n3. Let us not practically deny, or cast contempt on this divine\nperfection; which we may be said to do.\n(1.) When we live without God in the world, as though we were under no\nobligation to holiness. The purity of the divine nature is proposed in\nscripture, not only as a motive, but, so far as conformity to it is\npossible, as an exemplar of holiness: and therefore we are exhorted to\nbe holy, not only _because he is holy_, but _as he is holy_, 1 Pet. i.\n15, 16. or so far as the image of God in man consists therein; therefore\nthey who live without God in the world, being _alienated from his life_,\n_viz._ _his holiness, and giving themselves over unto lasciviousness, to\nwork all uncleanness with greediness_, regard not the holiness of his\nnature or law. These sin presumptuously, and accordingly, are said to\n_reproach the Lord_, Numb. xv. 30. as though he was a God that had\npleasure in wickedness; or if they conclude him to be infinitely\noffended with it, they regard not the consequence of being the objects\nof his displeasure, and fiery indignation.\n(2.) Men reflect on the holiness of God when they complain of religion,\nas though it were too strict and severe a thing; a yoke that sits very\nuneasy upon them, which they resolve to keep at the greatest distance\nfrom, especially unless they may have some abatements made, or\nindulgence given, to live in the commission of some beloved lusts. These\ncannot bear a faithful reprover: thus Ahab hated Micaiah, _because he\ndid not prophesy good concerning him, but evil_; and the people did not\nlike to hear of the holiness of God; therefore they desire that the\nprophets would _cause the Holy One of Israel to cease before them_, Isa.\nxxx. 11. and to this we may add,\n(3.) They do, in effect, deny or despise this attribute, who entertain\nan enmity or prejudice against holiness in others, whose conversation is\nnot only blameless, but exemplary; such make use of the word saint, as a\nterm of reproach, as though holiness were not only a worthless thing,\nbut a blemish or disparagement to the nature of man, a stain on his\ncharacter, and to be avoided by all who have any regard to their\nreputation, or, at least as though religion were no other than\nhypocrisy, and much more so, when it shines brightest in the\nconversation of those who esteem it their greatest ornament. What is\nthis, but to spurn at the holiness of God, by endeavouring to bring that\ninto contempt, which is his image and delight?\nXIII. God is most just. This attribute differs but little from that of\nholiness, though sometimes they are thus distinguished; as holiness is\nthe contrariety, or opposition of his nature to sin, justice is an\neternal and visible display thereof; and, in particular, when God is\nsaid to be just, he is considered as the governor of the world; and\ntherefore when he appears in the glory of his justice, he bears the\ncharacter of a judge; accordingly it is said concerning him, _Shall not\nthe Judge of all the earth do right?_ Gen. xviii. 25. and he is said,\n_without respect of persons, to judge according to every man\u2019s work_, 1\nPet. i. 17. Now the justice of God is sometimes taken for his\nfaithfulness, which is a doing justice to his word; but this will be\nmore particularly considered, when we speak of him as abundant in truth.\nBut, according to the most common and known sense of the word, it is\ntaken either for his disposing, or his distributive justice; the former\nis that whereby his holiness shines forth in all the dispensations of\nhis providence, as all his ways are equal, of what kind soever they be;\nthe latter, to wit, his distributive justice, consists either in\nrewarding or punishing, and so is styled either remunerative or\nvindictive; in these two respects, we shall more particularly consider\nthis attribute.\n1. The justice of God, as giving rewards to his creatures; this he may\nbe said to do, without supposing the persons, who are the subjects\nthereof, to have done any thing by which they have merited them: we\noften find, in scripture, that the heavenly glory is set forth as a\nreward, Mat. x. 41, 42. and 1 Cor. iii. 14. and it is called, _a crown\nof righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give at\nthat day_, 2 Tim. iv. 8. to wit, when he appears, in the glory of his\njustice, to judge the world in righteousness; and it is also said, that\nit is _a righteous thing with God to recompense to his people who are\ntroubled, rest, when the Lord shall be revealed from heaven_, 2 Thess.\ni. 6. 7. But, for the understanding such like expressions, I humbly\nconceive, that they import the necessary and inseparable connexion that\nthere is between grace wrought in us, and glory conferred upon us: it is\ncalled, indeed, a reward, or a crown of righteousness, to encourage us\nto duty; but, without supposing that, what we do has any thing\nmeritorious in it. If we ourselves are less than the least of all God\u2019s\nmercies, then the best actions put forth by us must be so, for the\naction cannot have more honour ascribed to it than the agent; or if, as\nour Saviour says, when _we have done all, we must say, we are\nunprofitable servants_, Luke xvii. 10. and that sincerely, and not in a\nway of compliment, as some Popish writers understand it, consistently\nwith their doctrine of the merit of good works, we must conclude that it\nis a reward not of debt, but of grace; and therefore the word is taken\nin a less proper sense. It is not a bestowing a blessing purchased by\nus, but for us; Christ is the purchaser, we are the receivers; it is\nstrictly and properly the reward of his merit, but, in its application,\nthe gift of his grace.\n2. There is his vindictive justice, whereby he punishes sin, as an\ninjury offered to his divine perfections, an affront to his sovereignty,\na reflection on his holiness, and a violation of his law, for which he\ndemands satisfaction, and inflicts punishment, proportioned to the\nnature of the crime, which he continues to do, till satisfaction be\ngiven: this is called, _his visiting iniquity_, Deut. v. 9. or _visiting\nfor it_, Jer. v. 9. and it is also called, his _setting his face\nagainst_ a person, and _cutting him off from amongst his people_, Lev.\nxvii. 10. and when he does this, his wrath is compared to flames of\nfire; it is called, _The fire of his jealousy_, Zeph. i. 18. and they,\nwho are the objects hereof, are said to _fall into the hands of the\nliving God_, who is a _consuming fire_, Heb. x. 31. compared with chap.\nBut that we may farther consider how God glorifies this perfection, and\nthereby shews his infinite hatred of sin, we may observe,\n(1.) An eminent instance thereof in his inflicting that punishment that\nwas due to our sins, on the person of Christ our Surety. It was, indeed,\nthe highest act of condescending grace that he was willing to be charged\nwith, or to have the iniquity of his people laid upon him; but it was\nthe greatest display of vindictive justice, that he was accordingly\npunished for it, as _he is said to be made sin for us, who knew no sin_,\n2 Cor. v. 21. and accordingly God gives a commission to the sword of his\njustice, to awake and exert itself, in an uncommon manner, against him,\n_the man his fellow_, Zech. xiii. 7. In this instance, satisfaction is\nnot only demanded, but fully given, in which it differs from all the\nother displays of vindictive justice; but of this, more will be\nconsidered under some following answers.[60]\n(2.) The vindictive justice of God punishes sin in the persons of\nfinally impenitent sinners in hell, where a demand of satisfaction is\nperpetually made, but can never be given, which is the reason of the\neternity of the punishment inflicted, which is called, _everlasting\ndestruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his\npower_, 2 Thes. i. 9. this we shall also have occasion to insist on more\nlargely, under a following an answer.[61]\nIn these two instances, punishment is taken in a strict and proper\nsense: but there is, indeed, another sense, in which many evils are\ninflicted for sins committed, which, though frequently called\npunishments, yet the word is taken in a less proper sense, to wit, when\nbelievers, who are justified upon the account of the satisfaction which\nChrist has given for their sins, are said to be punished for them; as\nwhen it is said, _Thou, our God, hast punished us less than our\niniquities deserve_, Ezra ix. 13. and _if his children forsake my law,\nand keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with\nthe rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless, my loving\nkindness will I not utterly take from him_, Psal. lxxxix. 30-31. and the\nprophet, speaking of some, for whom God would execute judgment, and be\nfavourable to them in the end, so that they should behold his\nrighteousness; yet he represents them, as _bearing the indignation of\nthe Lord, because they had sinned against him_, Micah vii. 9. And, as\nthese evils are exceedingly afflictive, being oftentimes attended with a\nsad apprehension and fear of the wrath of God; so they are called\npunishments, because sin is the cause of them: yet they differ from\npunishment in its most proper sense, as but now mentioned, in that,\nthough justice inflicts evils on them for sin, yet it doth not herein\ndemand satisfaction, for that is supposed to have been given, inasmuch\nas they are considered as justified; and, to speak with reverence, it is\nnot agreeable to the nature of justice to demand satisfaction twice.\nNevertheless, it is one thing for God really to demand it, and another\nthing for believers to apprehend or conclude that such a demand is made;\nthis they may often do, as questioning whether they are believers, or in\na justified state: however, God\u2019s design, in these afflictive\ndispensations, is to humble them greatly, and shew them the demerit of\nsin, whatever he determines shall be the consequence thereof.\nMoreover, the persons, who are the subjects of this punishment, are\nconsidered not as enemies, but as children, and therefore the objects of\nhis love, at the same time that his hand is heavy upon them; for which\nreason some have called them castigatory punishments, agreeably to what\nthe apostle saith, _Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth_; and that herein\n_he dealeth with them as with sons_, Heb. xii. 6, 7.\nFrom what has been said, concerning the justice of God in rewarding or\npunishing, we may infer,\n1. Since the heavenly blessedness is called a reward, to denote its\nconnexion with grace and duty, let no one presumptuously expect one\nwithout the other: the crown is not to be put upon the head of any one,\nbut him that runs the Christian race; and it is a certain truth, that\n_without holiness no man shall see the Lord_, chap. xii. 14.\nAnd, on the other hand, as this is a reward of grace, founded on\nChrist\u2019s purchase, let us take heed that we do not ascribe that to our\nperformances, which is wholly founded on Christ\u2019s merit. Let every thing\nthat may be reckoned a spur to diligence, in the idea of a reward, be\napprehended and improved by us, to quicken and excite us to duty; but\nwhatever there is of praise and glory therein, let that be ascribed to\nChrist; so that when we consider the heavenly blessedness in this view,\nlet us say, as the angels, together with that blessed company who are\njoined with them, are represented, speaking, _Worthy is the Lamb that\nwas slain, to receive power, riches, wisdom, and strength, and honour,\nand glory, and blessing_, Rev. v. 12. It is the price that he paid which\ngives it the character of a reward and therefore the glory of it is to\nbe ascribed to him.\n2. From what has been said concerning the vindictive justice of God\ninflicting punishments on his enemies, let us learn the evil and heinous\nnature of sin, and so take warning thereby, that we may not expose\nourselves to the same or like judgments. How deplorable is the condition\nof those, who have contracted a debt for which they can never satisfy!\nwho are said, _to drink of the wrath of the Almighty, which is poured\nout, without mixture, into the cup of his indignation_, Job xxi. 20.\ncompared with Rev. xiv. 10. This should induce us to fly from the wrath\nto come, and to make a right improvement of the price of redemption\nwhich was given by Christ, to deliver his people from it.\n3. Believers, who are delivered from the vindictive justice of God, have\nthe highest reason for thankfulness; and it is a very great\nencouragement to them, under all the afflictive evils, which they\nendure, that the most bitter ingredients are taken out of them. It is\ntrue, they are not in themselves _joyous, but grievous; nevertheless,\nafterwards they yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them, who\nare exercised thereby_, Heb. xii. 11. and let us not presume without\nground, but give diligence, that we may conclude that these are the\ndispensations of a reconciled Father, who _corrects with judgment not in\nanger, lest he should bring us to nothing_, Jer. x. 24. It will afford\ngreat matter of comfort, if we can say, that he is, at the same time, _a\njust God, and a Saviour_, Isa. xlv. 21. and, as one observes, though he\npunishes for sin, yet it is not with the punishment of sin.\nXIV. God is most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in\ngoodness, all which perfections are mentioned together in Exod. xxxiv.\n7. and we shall first consider his goodness, which, in some respects,\nincludes the other, though in others it is distinguished from them, as\nwill be more particularly observed. This being one of his communicable\nperfections, we may conceive of it, by comparing it with that goodness\nwhich is in the creature, while we separate from it all the\nimperfections thereof, by which means we may arrive to some idea of it.\nTherefore persons are denominated good, as having all those perfections\nthat belong to their nature, which is the most large and extensive sense\nof goodness; or else it is taken in a moral sense, and so it consists in\nthe rectitude of their nature, as we call a holy man a good man; or\nlastly, it is taken for one who is beneficent, or communicatively good,\nand so it is the same with benignity. Now to apply this to the goodness\nof God, it either includes in it all his perfections, or his holiness in\nparticular, or else his being disposed to impart or communicate those\nblessings to his creatures, that they stand in need of, in which sense\nwe are here to understand it as distinguished from his other\nperfections.\nThis goodness of God supposes that he has, in himself, an infinite and\ninexhaustible treasure of all blessedness, enough to fill all things,\nand to make his creatures completely happy. This he had from all\neternity, before there was any object in which it might be displayed, or\nany act of power put forth to produce one. It is this the Psalmist\nintends, when he says, Psal. cxix. 68. _Thou art good_, and when he\nadds, _thou doest good_; as the former implies his being good in\nhimself, the latter denotes his being so to his creatures.\nBefore we treat of this perfection in particular, we shall observe the\ndifference that there is between goodness, mercy, grace, and patience,\nwhich, though they all are included in the divine benignity, and imply\nin them the communication of some favours that tend to the creatures\nadvantage, as well as the glory of God, yet they may be distinguished\nwith respect to the objects thereof: thus goodness considers its object,\nas indigent and destitute of all things, and so it communicates those\nblessings that it stands in need of. Mercy considers its object as\nmiserable, therefore, though an innocent creature be the object of the\ndivine bounty and goodness, it is only a fallen, miserable, and undone\ncreature, that is an object of compassion. And grace is mercy displayed\nfreely, therefore its object is considered not only as miserable, but\nunworthy; however, though the sinner\u2019s misery, and worthiness of pity,\nmay be distinguished, these two ideas cannot be separated, inasmuch as\nthat which renders him miserable, denominates him at the same time\nguilty, since misery is inseparably connected with guilt, and no one is\nmiserable as a creature, but as a sinner; therefore we are considered as\nunworthy of mercy, and so the objects of divine grace, which is mercy\nextended freely, to those who have rendered themselves unworthy of it.\nAnd patience, or long-suffering, is the suspending deserved fury, or the\ncontinuing to bestow undeserved favours, a lengthening out of our\ntranquillity; these attributes are to be considered in particular. And,\n1. Of the goodness of God. As God was infinite in power from all\neternity, before there was any display thereof, or act of omnipotency\nput forth; he was eternally good, before there was any communication of\nhis bounty, or any creature, to which it might be imparted; so that the\nfirst display of this perfection was in giving being to all things,\nwhich were the objects of his bounty and goodness, as well as the\neffects of his power; and all the excellencies, or advantages, which one\ncreature hath above another, are as so many streams flowing from this\nfountain, _He giveth to all, life and breath, and all things_, Acts\n2. The mercy of God, which considers its object as miserable, is\nillustrated by all those distressing circumstances, that render sinners\nthe objects of compassion. Are all, by nature, bond-slaves to sin and\nSatan? It is mercy that sets them free, _delivers them, who, through\nfear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage_, Heb. ii.\n15. Are we all, by nature, dead in sin, unable to do what is spiritually\ngood, alienated from the life of God? Was our condition miserable, as\nbeing without God in the world, and without hope: like the poor infant,\nmentioned by the prophet, _cast out in the open field, to the loathing\nof our persons, whom no eye pitied?_ it was mercy that _said to us,\nlive_, Ezek. xvi. 4, 5, 6. accordingly God is said _to have remembered\nus in our low estate, for his mercy endureth for ever_, Psal. cxxxvi.\nThe mercy of God is either common or special; common mercy gives all the\noutward conveniencies of this life, which are bestowed without\ndistinction; as _he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and\nsendeth rain on the just and on the unjust_, Matth. v. 45. so it is\nsaid, _his tender mercies are over all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 9. but\nhis special mercy is that which he bestows on, or has reserved for the\nheirs of salvation, which he communicates to them in a covenant way, in\nand through a Mediator; so the apostle speaks of _God, as the Father of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all\ncomfort_, 2 Cor. i. 3.\n3. As God is said to be merciful, or to extend compassion to the\nmiserable, so he doth this freely, and accordingly is said to be\ngracious; and as grace is free, so it is sovereign, and bestowed in a\ndiscriminating way; that is given to one which he denies to another, and\nonly because it is his pleasure: thus says one of Christ\u2019s disciples,\n_Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto\nthe world?_ John xiv. 22. And our Saviour himself glorifies God for the\ndisplay of his grace, in such a way, when he says, _I thank thee, O\nFather, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things\nfrom the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes_; and\nconsiders this as the result of his sovereign will, when he adds, _even\nso Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight_, Matth. xi. 25, 26. Now\nthe discriminating grace of God appears in several instances; as,\n(1.) In that he should extend salvation to men, rather than to fallen\nangels; so our Saviour _took not on him the nature of angels, but the\nseed of Abraham_, because he designed to save the one, and to reserve\nthe other, _in chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great\nday_, Heb. ii. 16. compared with Jude ver. 6. And among men, only some\nare made partakers of this invaluable blessing, which all were equally\nunworthy of; and their number is comparatively very small, therefore\nthey are called a _little flock_, and _the gate_, through which they\nenter, _is strait_, and _the way narrow that leads to life, and few\nthere be that find it_, Luke xii. 32. compared with Matth. vii. 13, 14.\nAnd there are many who make a considerable figure in the world, for\nriches, honours, great natural abilities, bestowed by common providence,\nthat are destitute of special grace, while others, who are poor, and\ndespised in the world, are called, and saved; the apostle observed it to\nbe so in his day, when he says, _not many mighty, not many noble, are\ncalled; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound\nthe wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the things that\nare mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised\nhath God chosen, yea, things that are not, to bring to nought things\n(2.) In several things relating to the internal means, whereby he fits\nand disposes men for salvation: thus the work of conversion is an\neminent instance of discriminating grace, for herein he breaks through,\nand overcomes, that reluctancy and opposition, which corrupt nature\nmakes against it; subdues the enmity and rebellion that was in the heart\nof man, works a powerful change in the will, whereby he subjects it to\nhimself, which work is contrary to the natural biass and inclination\nthereof; and that which renders this grace more illustrious, is, that\nmany of those who are thus converted, were, before this, notorious\nsinners; some have been _blasphemers, persecutors, and injurious_, as\nthe apostle says concerning himself before his conversion, and concludes\nhimself to have been _the chief of sinners_; and tells us, how he _shut\nup many of the saints in prison_, and, when they were put to death, _he\ngave his voice against them; punished them often in every synagogue, and\ncompelled them to blaspheme, and, being exceedingly against them,\npersecuted them unto strange cities_, 1 Tim. i. 13, 15. compared with\nActs xxvi. 10, 11. But you will say, he was, in other respects, a moral\nman; therefore he gives an instance elsewhere of some who were far\notherwise, whom he puts in mind of their having been _fornicators,\nidolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind,\nthieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners; such_, says he,\n_were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are\njustified_. Moreover, the change wrought in the soul is unasked for, and\nso it may truly be said, God is found of them that sought him not; and\nundesired; for though unregenerate sinners desire to be delivered from\nmisery, they are far from desiring to be delivered from sin, or to have\nrepentance, faith, and holiness: if they pray for these blessings, it is\nin such a manner, that the Spirit of God hardly calls it prayer; for the\nSpirit of grace, and of supplications, by which alone we are enabled to\npray in a right manner, is what accompanies or flows from conversion; if\ntherefore God bestows this privilege on persons so unworthy of it, and\nso averse to it, it must certainly be an instance of sovereign and\ndiscriminating grace.\n(3.) This will farther appear, if we consider how much they, who are the\nobjects thereof, differ from what they were; or if we compare their\npresent, with their former state. Once they were blind and ignorant of\nthe ways of God, and going astray in crooked paths; the apostle speaks\nof this in the abstract, _Ye were sometimes darkness_, Eph. v. 8. and\nthat _the god of this world, had blinded the minds of some, lest the\nlight of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them_, 2 Cor.\niv. 4. but now they are made _light in the Lord_, and brought into the\nway of truth and peace. Their hearts were once impenitent, unrelenting,\nand inclined to sin, without remorse, or self-reflection; nothing could\nmake an impression on them, as being _past feeling, and giving\nthemselves over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with\ngreediness_, Eph. iv. 19. but now they are penitent, humble, relenting,\nand broken under a sense of sin, afraid of every thing that may be an\noccasion thereof, willing to be reproved for it, and desirous to be set\nat a greater distance from it. Once they were destitute of hope, or\nsolid peace of conscience; but now they have hope and joy in believing,\nand are delivered from that bondage, which they were, before this,\nexposed to; such a happy turn is given to the frame of their spirits:\nand as to the external and relative change which is made in their state,\nthere is no condemnation to them, as justified persons; and therefore\nthey who, before this, were in the utmost distress, expecting nothing\nbut hell and destruction, are enabled to lift up their heads with joy,\nexperiencing the blessed fruits and effects of this grace in their own\nsouls.\n(4.) The discriminating grace of God farther appears, in that he bestows\nthese saving blessings on his people, at such seasons, when they appear\nmost suitable, and adapted to their condition; as he is a very present\nhelp in a time of trouble, when their straits and difficulties are\ngreatest, then is his time to send relief; when sinners sometimes have\nwearied themselves in the greatness of their way, while seeking rest and\nhappiness in other things below himself, and have met with nothing but\ndisappointment therein; when they are brought to the utmost extremity,\nthen he appears in their behalf. And so with respect to believers, when\ntheir comforts are at the lowest ebb, their hope almost degenerated into\ndespair, their temptations most prevalent and afflicting, and they ready\nto sink under the weight that lies on their spirits, when, as the\nPsalmist says, their _hearts are overwhelmed within them; then he leads\nthem to the rock that is higher than they_, Psal. lxi. 2. when they are\neven _desolate and afflicted, and the troubles of their hearts are\nenlarged, then he brings them out of their distresses_, Psal. xxv. 16,\nThus the grace of God eminently appears, in what he bestows on his\npeople; but if we look forward, and consider what he has prepared for\nthem, or the hope that is laid up in heaven, then we may behold the most\namazing displays of grace, in which they who shall be the happy objects\nthereof, will be a wonder to themselves, and will see more of the glory\nof it than can be now expressed in words; as the Psalmist says, in a way\nof admiration, _Oh, how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up\nfor them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in\nthee before the sons of men!_ Psal. xxx. 19.\n_Object._ 1. If it be objected, that the afflictions, which God\u2019s people\nare exposed to in this life, are inconsistent with the glory of his\ngrace and mercy.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that afflictive providences are so\nfar from being inconsistent with the glory of these perfections, that\nthey tend to illustrate them the more. For since sin has rendered\nafflictions needful, as an expedient, to humble us for it, and also to\nprevent it for the future, so God designs our advantage thereby; and\nhowever grievous they are, yet since they are so over-ruled by him, as\nthe apostle says, that they _yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness\nunto them, who are exercised thereby_, Heb. xii. 11. they are far from\nbeing inconsistent with the mercy and grace of God.\nAnd this will farther appear, if we consider that these outward\nafflictions are often attended with inward supports, and spiritual\ncomforts; so that, as the apostle says concerning himself, _as the\nsufferings of Christ abound in them, their consolations abound by him_,\n2 Cor. i. 5. or _as the outward man perishes, the inward man is renewed\nday by day_, chap. iv. 16. it was nothing but this could make him say,\n_I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in\npersecutions, in distresses for Christ\u2019s sake, for when I am weak, then\nam I strong_, chap. xii. 10.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that the doctrine of free grace\nleads men to licentiousness; and therefore that what we have said\nconcerning it, is either not true and warrantable, or, at least, should\nnot be much insisted on, for fear this consequence should ensue.\n_Answ._ The grace of God doth not lead to licentiousness, though it be\noften abused, and presumptuous sinners take occasion from thence to go\non, as they apprehend, securely therein, because God is merciful and\ngracious, and ready to forgive, which vile and disingenuous temper the\napostle observed in some that lived in his days, and expresses himself\nwith the greatest abhorrence thereof, _Shall we continue in sin, that\ngrace may abound? God forbid_, Rom. vi. 1, 2. But does it follow, that\nbecause it is abused by some, as an occasion of licentiousness, through\nthe corruption of their natures, that therefore it leads to it? The\ngreatest blessings may be the occasion of the greatest evils; but yet\nthey do not lead to them. That which leads to licentiousness, must have\nsome motive or inducement in it, which will warrant an ingenuous mind,\nacting according to the rules of equity and justice, to take those\nliberties; but this nothing can do, much less the grace of God. His\ngreat clemency, indeed, may sometimes give occasion to those who hate\nhim, and have ingratitude and rebellion rooted in their nature, to take\nup arms against him; and an act of grace may be abused, so as to make\nthe worst of criminals more bold in their wickedness, who presume that\nthey may commit it with impunity: but this is not the natural tendency,\nor genuine effect thereof; nor will it be thus abused by any, but those\nwho are abandoned to every thing that is vile and ungrateful. As the law\nof God prohibits all sin, and his holiness is opposite to it, so his\ngrace affords the strongest motive to holiness; it is therefore the\nneglect or contempt of this grace, and a corrupt disposition to act\ncontrary to the design thereof, that leads to licentiousness. Grace and\nduty are inseparably connected, so that where God bestows the one, he\nexpects the other; yea, duty, which is our act, is God\u2019s gift, as the\npower to perform it is from him: thus when he promises to give his\npeople _a new heart, and put his Spirit within them, and cause them to\nwalk in his statutes_, he tells them, that they should _remember their\nevil ways and doings, and loathe themselves in their own sight for their\niniquities_; which is not only a prediction, respecting the event, but a\npromise of what he would incline them to do; and when he adds, that _for\nthis he would be enquired of by them_, Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27, 31, 37. or\nthat they should seek them by fervent prayer, he secures to them, by\npromise, a disposition and grace to perform this great duty, which is\ninseparably connected with expected blessings. God himself therefore\nwill take care that, however others abuse his grace, it shall not lead\nthose who are in a distinguishing way, the objects thereof, to\nlicentiousness.\nAnd to this we may add, that it is a disparagement to this divine\nperfection to say, that, because some take occasion from it to continue\nin sin, therefore its glory is to be, as it were, concealed, and not\npublished to the world. As some of old did not care to hear of the\nholiness of God, and therefore, if the prophets would render their\ndoctrine acceptable to them, they must not insist on that perfection,\nbut _cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before them_, Isa. xxx.\n11. so there are many who are as little desirous to hear of the free and\ndiscriminating grace of God, which contains the very sum and substance\nof the gospel, lest it should be abused, whereas the glory thereof\ncannot be enough admired; and therefore it ought often to be\nrecommended, as what leads to holiness, and lies at the very root of all\nreligion.\nAnd that it may be so improved, let it be farther considered, that it is\nthe greatest inducement to humility, as well as one of the greatest\nornaments and evidences of a true Christian. This appears from the\nnature of the thing, for grace supposes its object unworthy, as has been\nbut now observed; and it argues him a debtor to God for all that he\nenjoys or expects, which, if it be duly considered, will make him appear\nvile and worthless in his own eyes, and excite in him a degree of\nthankfulness in proportion to the ground he has to claim an interest\ntherein, and the extensiveness of the blessed fruits and effects\nthereof.\n4. We proceed to speak of God as long-suffering, or as he is styled by\nthe apostle, _The God of patience_, Rom. xv. 5. sometimes this attribute\nis set forth in a metaphorical way, and called a _restraining his\nwrath_, Psal. lxxvi. 10. and a _refraining himself_, and _holding his\npeace_, or _keeping silence_, Isa. xlii. 14. and Psal. l. 21. and, while\nhe does this, he is represented, speaking after the manner of men, as\none that is _weary with forbearing_, Isa. i. 13. chap. vii. 13. Mal. ii.\n17. and he is said to be pressed, under a provoking people, _as a cart\nis pressed that is full of sheaves_, Amos ii. 13. By all which\nexpressions, this perfection is set forth in a familiar style, according\nto our common way of speaking: but that we may briefly explain the\nnature thereof, let us consider, in general; that it is a branch of his\ngoodness and mercy, manifested in suspending the exercise of his\nvindictive justice, and in his not punishing in such a degree as sin\ndeserves. But that we may consider this more particularly, we shall\nobserve something concerning the objects thereof, and the various\ninstances in which it is displayed; how it is glorified; and how the\nglory thereof is consistent with that of vindictive justice; and lastly,\nhow it is to be improved by us.\n(1.) Concerning the objects of God\u2019s patience. Since it is the deferring\nof deserved wrath, it follows from hence, that an innocent creature\ncannot be the object of it, inasmuch as vindictive justice makes no\ndemand upon him; nor has it any reserves of punishment laid up in store\nfor him; such an one is, indeed the object of goodness, but not of\nforbearance; for punishment cannot be said to be deferred where it is\nnot due: and, on the other hand, they cannot be said to be the objects\nthereof, in whom the vindictive justice of God is displayed to the\nutmost, when all the vials of his wrath are poured forth. Whether the\ndevils are, in some sense, the objects of God\u2019s forbearance, as having\nground to expect a greater degree of punishment after the final\njudgment, is disputed by some, who contend about the sense of the word\n_forbearance_; they are said, indeed, _to be reserved in chains, under\ndarkness, unto the judgment of the great day_, Jude, ver. 6. that is,\nthough their state be hopeless, and their misery great, beyond\nexpression, yet there is a greater degree of punishment, which they\nbring upon themselves, by all the hostilities they commit against God in\nthis world: this farther appears, from what they are represented, as\nsaying to our Saviour, _Art thou come to torment us before the time?_\nMatth. viii. 29.[63] By which it is sufficiently evident that their\nmisery shall be greater than now it is. However, this less degree of\npunishment, inflicted on them, is never called in scripture, an instance\nof God\u2019s patience, or long-suffering, towards them; therefore we must\nconclude that they are not, properly speaking, the objects of the glory\nof this attribute. Patience then is only extended to sinful men, while\nin this world: for it is called, in scripture, _The riches of his\ngoodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering_, Rom. ii. 4. and it is\nsaid to _lead_ those, who are the objects of it, _to repentance_;\ntherefore there must be, together with the exercise of this perfection,\na day or season of grace granted, which is called, in scripture, with a\npeculiar emphasis, the sinner\u2019s _day, or the time of his visitation_, in\nwhich it ought to be his highest concern _to know the things of his\npeace_, Luke xix. 42, 44. and the gospel that is preached, in this\nseason of God\u2019s forbearance, is called, _The word of his patience_, Rev.\niii. 10. so that there is something more in this attribute than barely a\ndeferring of punishment. Accordingly God is said, to _wait that he may\nbe gracious_, Isa. xxx. 18. and the effects and consequences thereof are\nvarious, (as may be said of all the other means of grace) so that\nsinners, who neglect to improve it, have not only thereby a reprieve\nfrom deserved punishment, but all those advantages of common grace,\nwhich attend it: but, with respect to believers, it may be said, as the\napostle expresses it, _The long-suffering of our Lord is salvation_, 2\nPet. iii. 15. It is evidently so to them, and therefore God doth not\nspare them, that he may take a more fit opportunity to punish them; but\nhe waits till the set time to favour them is come, that he may extend\nsalvation to them; and, in this respect more especially, the exercise of\nthis perfection is founded in the death of Christ. And inasmuch as the\nelect, who are purchased thereby, were, by the divine appointment, to\nlive throughout all the ages of time, and to have the saving effects of\nhis redemption applied to them, one after another, it was necessary that\nthe patience of God should be so long continued, which is therefore\nglorified more immediately with respect to them, as the result thereof;\nand, in subserviency thereunto, it is extended to all the world.\n(2.) The patience of God has been displayed in various instances.\n_1st_, It was owing hereto that God did not immediately destroy our\nfirst parents as soon as they fell; he might then, without the least\nimpeachment of his justice, have banished them for ever from his\npresence, and left their whole posterity destitute of the means of\ngrace, and have punished them all in proportion to the guilt contracted;\ntherefore that the world is continued to this day, is a very great\ninstance of God\u2019s long-suffering.\n_2dly_, When mankind was universally degenerate, and all flesh had\ncorrupted their way, before the flood, and God determined to destroy\nthem, yet he would not do this, till his patience had spared them, after\nhe had given an intimation of this desolating judgment, an hundred and\ntwenty years before it came, Gen. vi. 2, 3. and Noah was, during this\ntime, a preacher of righteousness, while the long-suffering of God is\nsaid to have waited on them, 2 Pet. ii. 5. compared with 1 Pet. iii. 20.\n_3dly_, The Gentiles, who not only worshipped and served the creature\nmore than the Creator, but committed other vile abominations, contrary\nto the dictates of nature, and thereby filled up the measure of their\niniquity, are, notwithstanding, said to be the objects of God\u2019s\npatience, though in a lower sense, than that in which believers are said\nto be so; accordingly the apostle observes, _that in times past, God\nsuffered all nations to walk in their own ways_, that is, God did not\ndraw forth his sword out of its sheath, by which metaphor the prophet\nsets forth the patience of God; he did not stir up all his wrath, _but\ngave them rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts\nwith food and gladness_, Acts xiv. 16, 17. Ezek. xxi. 3.\n_4thly_, The church of the Jews, before the coming of Christ, had long\nexperience of the forbearance of God. It is said, that _he suffered\ntheir manners forty years in the wilderness_, Acts xiii. 18. and\nafterwards, when they often revolted to idolatry, following the customs\nof the nations round about them, yet he did not utterly destroy them,\nbut, in their distress, raised them up deliverers; and when their\niniquity was grown to such a height that none but a God of infinite\npatience, could have borne with them, he, notwithstanding, spared them\nmany years before he suffered them to be carried away captive into\nBabylon; and afterwards, when their rebellion against him was arrived to\nthe highest pitch, when they had crucified the Lord of glory, yet he\nspared them some time, till the gospel was first preached to them, and\nthey had rejected it, and thereby _judged themselves unworthy of eternal\nlife_, Acts xiii. 46.\n_5thly_, After this, the patience of God was extended to those who\nendeavoured to pervert the gospel of Christ, namely, to false teachers\nand backsliding churches, to whom he gave _space to repent, but repented\nnot_, Rev. ii. 21. And to this we may add, that he has not yet poured\nforth the vials of his wrath on the Antichristian powers, though he has\nthreatened, that _their plagues shall come in one day_, chap. xviii. 1.\n(3.) We are next to consider the method which God takes in glorifying\nthis attribute. We have already observed that, with respect to\nbelievers, the patience of God is glorified in subserviency to their\nsalvation; but, with respect to others, by whom it is abused, the\npatience of God discovers itself,\n_1st_, In giving them warning of his judgments before he sends them. _He\nspeaketh once, yea twice, but man perceiveth it not_, that he may\n_withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man_, Job xxxiii.\n14, 17. and, indeed, all the prophets were sent to the church of the\nJews, not only to instruct them, but to warn them of approaching\njudgments, and they were faithful in the delivery of their message. In\nwhat moving terms doth the prophet Jeremiah lament the miseries, which\nwere ready to befal them! And with what zeal doth he endeavour, in the\nwhole course of his ministry, to bring them to repentance, that so the\nstorm might blow over, or, if not, that their ruin might not come upon\nthem altogether unexpected!\n_2dly_, When the divine warnings are not regarded, but wrath must be\npoured forth on an obstinate and impenitent people, this is done by\ndegrees. God first sends lesser judgments before greater, or inflicts\nhis plagues, as he did upon Egypt, one after another, not all at once;\nand so he did upon Israel of old, as the prophet Joel observes, _first\nthe palmer-worm, then the locust; after that, the canker-worm, and then\nthe caterpillar, devoured the fruits of the earth, one after another_,\nJoel i. 4. So the prophet Amos observes, that God first sent a famine\namong them, which he calls _cleanness of teeth in all their cities_, and\nafterwards _some of them were overthrown, as God overthrew Sodom and\nGomorrah_, Amos iv. 8, 18. Some think, that the gradual approach of\ndivine judgments is intended by what the prophet Hosea says, when the\njudgments of God are compared to the light that goeth forth, Hos. vi. 5.\nwhich implies more than is generally understood by it, as though the\njudgments of God should be rendered visible, as the light of the sun is;\nwhereas the prophet seems hereby to intimate, that the judgments of God\nshould proceed, like the light of the morning, that still increases unto\na perfect day. And it is more than probable that this is intended by the\nsame prophet, when he represents God as speaking concerning Ephraim,\nthat he would be to them as a moth, which doth not consume the garment\nall at once, as when it is cast into the fire, but frets it by degrees,\nor like rottenness, which is of a spreading nature, chap. v. 12. Thus\nthe judgments of God are poured forth by degrees, that, at the same\ntime, there may be comparatively, at least, a display of divine\npatience.\n_3dly_, When God sends his judgments abroad in the world, he often\nmoderates them; none are proportionate to the demerit of sin; as it is\nsaid of him, that being full of compassion, he forgave the iniquity of a\nvery rebellious people, that is, he did not punish them as their\niniquity deserved, and therefore he destroyed them not, and did not stir\nup all his wrath, Psal. lxxviii. 38. so the prophet Isaiah says\nconcerning Israel, that God _hath not smitten him, as he had smote those\nthat smote him; nor is he slain according to the slaughter of them that\nare slain by him; but that he would debate with them in measure, who\nstayeth his rough wind in the day of his east wind_, Isa. xxvii. 7, 8.\n_4thly_, When God cannot, in honour, defer his judgments any longer, he\npours them forth, as it were, with reluctancy; as a judge, when he\npasseth sentence on a criminal, doth it with a kind of regret, not\ninsulting, but rather pitying his misery, which is unavoidable, because\nthe course of justice must not be stopped. Thus the prophet says, that\n_God doth not afflict willingly_, that is, with delight or pleasure,\n_nor grieve the children of men_, Lam. iii. 35. that is, he doth not\npunish them, because he delights to see them miserable; but to secure\nthe rights of his own justice in the government of the world: so when\nIsrael had been guilty of vile ingratitude and rebellion against him,\nand he threatens to turn his hand upon them, and destroy them, he\nexpresseth himself in such terms, speaking after the manner of men, as\nimply a kind of uneasiness, when he says, _Ah! I will ease me of mine\nadversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies_, Isa. i. 24. and before God\ngave up Israel into the hands of the Assyrians, he seems, again speaking\nafter the manner of men, to have an hesitation or debate in his own\nmind, whether he should do this or no, when he says, _How shall I give\nthee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make\nthee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned\nwithin me, my repentings are kindled together_, Hos. xi. 8. and when our\nSaviour could not prevail upon Jerusalem to repent of their sins, and\nembrace his doctrine, when he was obliged to pass a sentence upon them,\nand to tell them, that the things of their peace were hid from their\neyes, and that _their enemies should cast a trench about the city, and\nshould lay it even with the ground_, he could not speak of it without\ntears; _when he beheld the city, he wept over it_, Luke xix. 41, &c.\n(4.) The next thing to be considered, concerning the patience of God,\nis, that the glory of it is consistent with that of his vindictive\njustice; or how he may be said to defer the punishment of sin, and yet\nappear to be a sin-hating God.\nIt is certain that the glory of one divine perfection cannot interfere\nwith that of another; as justice and mercy meet together in the work of\nredemption, so justice and patience do not oppose each other, in any of\nthe divine dispensations. It is true, their demands seem to be various;\njustice requires that the stroke should be immediately given; but\npatience insists on a delay hereof, inasmuch as without this it does not\nappear to be a divine perfection; if therefore patience be a divine\nattribute, and its glory as necessary to be displayed, as that of any of\nhis other perfections, it must be glorified in this world, and that by\ndelaying the present exercise of vindictive justice in the highest\ndegree, or it cannot be glorified at all: justice will be glorified,\nthroughout all the ages of eternity, in those who are the objects\nthereof; but patience can then have no glory, since (as has been\nobserved) the greatest degree, either of happiness or misery, is\ninconsistent with the exercise thereof; therefore this being a\nperfection, which redounds so much to the divine honour, we must not\nsuppose that there is no expedient for its being glorified, or that the\nglory of vindictive justice is inconsistent with it.\nNow this harmony of these two perfections must be a little considered.\nJustice, it is true, obliges God to punish sin, yet it does not oblige\nhim to do it immediately; but the time, as well as the way, is to be\nresolved into his sovereign will. In order to make this appear, let us\nconsider, that the design of vindictive justice, in all the punishment\nit inflicts, is either to secure the glory of the holiness of God; or to\nassert his rights, as the governor of the world; now if the deferring of\npunishment doth not interfere with either of these, then the glory of\nGod\u2019s patience is not inconsistent with that of his vindictive justice.\nBut more particularly,\n_First_, The glory of his holiness is, notwithstanding this,\nsufficiently secured; for though he delays to punish sin, in the highest\ndegree, yet, at the same time, he appears to hate it, by the\nthreatenings which he hath denounced against sinners, which shall\ncertainly have their accomplishment, if he says, that _he is angry with\nthe wicked every day_, and that _his soul hateth them_, is there any\nreason to suppose the contrary? or if he has threatened that _he will\nrain upon them snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest_,\nwhich shall be the _portion of their cup_, and that because, as _the\nrighteous Lord, he loveth righteousness_, Psal. vii. 11. and xi. 6, 7.\nis not this a sufficient security, for the glory of his holiness, to\nfence against any thing that might be alleged to detract from it? If\nthreatened judgments be not sufficient, for the present, to evince the\nglory of this divine perfection; then it will follow, on the other hand,\nthat the promises he has made of blessings not yet bestowed, are to be\nas little regarded for the encouraging our hope, and securing the glory\nof his other perfections; and then his holiness would be as much\nblemished in delaying to reward, as it can be supposed to be in delaying\nto punish.\nIf therefore the truth of God, which will certainly accomplish his\nthreatenings, be a present security for the glory of his holiness, it is\nnot absolutely necessary that vindictive justice should be immediately\nexercised in the destruction of sinners, and so exclude the exercise of\nGod\u2019s forbearance and long-suffering.\nAnd to this it may be added, that there are many terrible displays of\nGod\u2019s vindictive justice in his present dealing with sinners; as it is\nsaid, _The Lord is known by the judgments which he executes_, as well as\nby those he designs to pour forth on his enemies; the wicked are now\n_snared in the work of their own hands_, but in the end they shall be\n_turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God_, Psal. ix. 16,\n17. If vindictive justice takes occasion to inflict many temporal and\nspiritual judgments upon sinners in this world, then the glory of God\u2019s\nholiness is illustrated at the same time that his patience is prolonged.\nThis may be observed in God\u2019s dealing with his murmuring and rebellious\npeople in the wilderness which gave him occasion to take notice of the\nabuse of his patience, and to say, Numb. xiv. 11, 18-21. _How long will\nthis people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for\nall the signs which I have shewed among them?_ Upon this, justice is\nready to strike the fatal blow; _I will_, says God, _smite them with the\npestilence, and disinherit them_; which gives Moses occasion to\nintercede for them, and plead the glory of God\u2019s patience, _The Lord is\nlong-suffering, and of great mercy; Pardon_, says he, _I beseech thee,\nthe iniquity of this people, as thou hast forgiven them from Egypt, even\nuntil now_; by which he means, as I humbly conceive, spare thy people,\nas thou hast often done, when, by reason of their provocations, thou\nmightest justly have destroyed them; and God answers him in the\nfollowing words, _I have pardoned, according to thy word_; but he adds,\n_As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the\nLord_, that is, with the report of the glory of his vindictive justice,\nwhich should be spread far and near; and then he threatens them that\nthey should not see the land of Canaan, _viz._ those who murmured\nagainst him; so that vindictive justice had its demands fulfilled in one\nrespect, while patience was glorified in the other; on which occasion\nthe Psalmist says, Psal. xcix. 8. _Thou answeredst them, O Lord_,\nnamely, Moses\u2019s prayer for them, but now mentioned, _Thou wast a God\nthat forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions._\n_Secondly_, Consider the vindictive justice of God, as tending to secure\nhis rights, as the governor of the world, and being ready to take\nvengeance for sin, which attempts to control his sovereign authority,\nand disturb the order of his government: now the stroke of justice may\nbe suspended for a time, that it may make way for the exercise of\npatience, provided there be no just occasion given hereby for men to\ntrample on the sovereignty of God, despise his authority, or rebel\nagainst him, without fear: but these consequences will not necessarily\nresult from his extending forbearance to sinners; for we do not find\nthat the delaying to inflict punishment among men is any prejudice to\ntheir government, therefore why should we suppose that the divine\ngovernment should suffer any injury thereby; when a prince, for some\nreasons of state, puts off the trial of a malefactor for a time, to the\nend that the indictment may be more fully proved, and the equity of his\nproceedings more evidently appear, this is always reckoned a greater\nexcellency in his administration, than if he should proceed too hastily\ntherein; and we never find that it tends to embolden the criminal to\nthat degree as impunity would do; for he is punished, in part, by the\nloss of his liberty, and if he be convicted, then he loses the privilege\nof an innocent subject; his life is forfeited, and he is in daily\nexpectation of having it taken away. If such a method as this tends to\nsecure the rights of a government, when a prince thinks fit to allow a\nreprieve to some for a time; may not God stop the immediate proceedings\nof vindictive justice for a time, without the least infringement made,\neither on his holiness, or his rectoral justice? Which leads us to\nconsider,\n(5.) How the patience of God is to be improved by us; and,\n_1st_, Since it is a divine perfection, and there is a revenue of glory\ndue to God for the display thereof, this should put us upon the exercise\nof those graces, which it engages us to. Some of the divine attributes\ntend to excite our fear, but this should draw forth our admiration and\npraise: and we have more reason to adore and admire the divine\nforbearance, when we consider,\n_First_, How justly he might destroy us. The best man on earth may say,\nwith the Psalmist, _If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O lord, who\nshall stand?_ Psal. cxxx. 3. He need not watch for occasions, or\ndiligently search out some of the inadvertencies of life, to find matter\nfor our conviction and condemnation, since the multitude and heinous\naggravation of our sins, proclaim our desert of punishment, which might\nprovoke, and immediately draw down, his vengeance upon us; and that\nwhich farther enhances our guilt is, that we provoke him, though laid\nunder the highest obligations to the contrary.\n_Secondly_, How easily might he bring ruin and destruction upon us? He\ndoes not forbear to punish us for want of power, as earthly kings often\ndo; or because the exercise of justice may be apprehended, as a means to\nweaken their government, or occasion some rebellions, which they could\nnot easily put a stop to. Thus David says concerning himself, that he\nwas _weak, though anointed king_, and that _the sons of Zeruiah were too\nhard for him_, on the occasion of Joab\u2019s having forfeited his life, when\nthe necessity of affairs required the suspending his punishment, 2 Sam.\niii. 39. but this cannot be said of God, who is represented as _slow to\nanger, and great in power_, Nah. i. 3. that is, he does not punish,\nthough he easily could: it would be no difficulty for him immediately to\ndestroy an ungodly world, any more than it is for us to crush a moth or\na worm, or break a leaf: finite power can make no resistance against\nthat which is infinite: what are briars and thorns before the consuming\nfire?\n_2dly_, Let us take heed that we do not abuse this divine perfection; it\nis a crime to abuse the mercy of God in the smallest instances thereof,\nbut much more to slight and contemn the riches of his forbearance, or\nmercy, extended to so great a length, as it has been to most of us; and\nthis is done,\n1. By those who infer, from his forbearing to pour forth his fury on\nsinners, that he neglects the government of the world; or take occasion\nfrom thence to deny a providence, and because his threatenings are not\nexecuted at present, therefore they do, as it were, defy him to do his\nworst against them; this some are represented as doing, with an uncommon\ndegree of presumption, and that with a scoff; for they are termed\n_scoffers, walking after their own lusts; saying, Where is the promise\nof his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as\nthey were from the beginning of the creation_, 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4.\n2. By those who take occasion from hence to sin presumptuously; and\nbecause he not only delays to punish, but, at the same time, expresses\nhis willingness to receive returning sinners, at what time soever they\ntruly repent, take occasion to persist in their rebellion, concluding\nthat it is time enough to submit to him; which is not only to abuse,\nbut, as it were, to wear out his patience, and provoke his indignation,\nlike them, of whom it is said, that _because sentence against an evil\nwork is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is\nfully set in them to do evil_, Eccl. viii. 11. But you will say, these\nare uncommon degrees of wickedness, which only the vilest part of\nmankind are chargeable with; therefore let us add,\n3. That a bare neglect to improve our present season, and day of grace,\nor to embrace the great salvation offered in the gospel, is an abuse of\nGod\u2019s patience; and this will certainly affect the greatest number of\nthose who are favoured with the gospel dispensation; and, indeed, who\nare there that improve it as they ought? and therefore all are said more\nor less, to abuse the patience of God, which affords matter of great\nhumiliation in his sight.\nNow that we may be duly sensible of this sin, together with the\nconsequences thereof, let us consider; that this argues the highest\ningratitude, and that more especially, in a professing people; therefore\nthe apostle, reproving the Jews for this sin, puts a very great emphasis\non every word, when he says, _Or despisest thou the riches of his\ngoodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering?_ Rom. ii. 4. Let us also\nconsider, that the consequence thereof is very destructive, inasmuch as\nthis is the only opportunity that will be afforded to seek after those\nthings that relate to our eternal welfare. What stress does the apostle\nlay on the word _now_, which is twice repeated, as well as the word\n_behold_, which is a note of attention, implying, that he had something\nremarkable to communicate, when he says, _Behold, now is the accepted\ntime; behold, now is the day of salvation_, 2 Cor. vi. 2. And to this we\nmay add, which is a very awakening consideration, that the abuse of\nGod\u2019s patience will expose finally impenitent sinners to a greater\ndegree of his vengeance. Thus when the forbearance of God had been\nextended to Israel for many years, from his bringing them up out of the\nland of Egypt; and this had been attended all that time with the means\nof grace, and many warnings of approaching judgments, he tells them;\n_You only have I known, of all the families of the earth, therefore will\nI punish you_, that is, my wrath shall fall more heavily upon you, _for\nall your iniquities_, Amos iii. 2. and when God is represented, as\ncoming to reckon with Babylon, the cup of his wrath must be _filled\ndouble; how much she hath glorified herself_, saith God, _and lived\ndeliciously, so much sorrow and torment give her; for she saith in her\nheart, I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow_, Rev.\nxviii. 6, 7.\n_3dly_, Let us, on the other hand, improve God\u2019s patience, by duly\nconsidering the great end and design thereof, and what encouragement it\naffords to universal holiness: it is a great relief to those who are at\nthe very brink of despair; for if they cannot say that it has hitherto\nled them to repentance, as apprehending themselves to be yet in a state\nof unregeneracy, let us consider, that, notwithstanding this, a door of\nhope is still opened, the golden sceptre held forth, and the invitation\ngiven to come to Christ; therefore let this excite us to a diligent\nattendance on the means of grace, for though forbearance is not to be\nmistaken, as it is by many, for forgiveness, yet we are encouraged to\nwait and hope for it, in all God\u2019s holy institutions, according to the\ntenor of the gospel.\nAnd they who are not only spared, but pardoned, to whom grace has not\nonly been offered, but savingly applied, may be encouraged to hope for\nfarther displays thereof, as well as to improve what they have received,\nwith the greatest diligence and thankfulness.\n_4thly_, Let us consider the great obligation we are laid under, by the\npatience of God, to a constant exercise of the grace of patience, in our\nbehaviour towards God and man.\n1. In our behaviour towards God; we are hereby laid under the highest\nengagements to submit to his disposing will, and, in whatever state we\nare, therewith to be content, without murmuring, or repining, when under\nafflictive providences, _Shall we receive good at his hand, and shall we\nnot receive evil?_ Job ii. 10. Has he exercised so long forbearance\ntowards us, not only before we were converted, when our life was a\nconstant course of rebellion, against him; but he has since, not only\npassed by, but forgiven innumerable offences? And shall we think it\nstrange when he testifies his displeasure against us in any instances?\nShall we be froward and uneasy, because he does not immediately give us\nwhat we desire, or deliver us from those evils we groan under?\n2. Let us exercise patience, in our behaviour towards men. Shall we give\nway to, or express, unbecoming resentment against those whom we converse\nwith, for injuries done us, which are often rather imaginary than real?\nOr if they are very great, as well as undeserved, let not our passions\nexceed their due bounds; especially let us not meditate revenge, but\nconsider how many injuries the great God has passed over in us, and how\nlong his patience has been extended towards us.\nXV. God is abundant in truth. That we may understand what is meant by\nthis perfection, we may observe the difference between his being called\na true God, and a God of truth; though they seem to import the same\nthing, and are not always distinguished in scripture: thus he that\nreceiveth Christ\u2019s testimony, is said to _set to his seal that God is\ntrue_, that is, in accomplishing what he has promised, respecting the\nsalvation of his people, or that he is a God of truth; and elsewhere it\nis said, _Let God be true, but every man a liar_, that is, a God of\ntruth: yet they are, for the most part, distinguished; so that when he\nis called the true God, or the only true God, it does not denote one\ndistinct perfection of the divine nature, but the Godhead, in which\nrespect it includes all his divine perfections, and is opposed to all\nothers, who are called gods, but are not so by nature: but this will be\nmore particularly considered in the next answer.\nBut when, on the other hand, we speak of him, as the God of truth, we\nintend hereby that he is true to his word, or a God that cannot lie,\nwhose faithfulness is unblemished, because he is a God of infinite\nholiness; and therefore whatever he has spoken, he will certainly bring\nit to pass. This respects either his threatenings, or his promises: as,\nto the former of these, it is said, that _the judgments of God_, that\nis, the sentence he has passed against sinners, is _according to truth_,\nRom. ii. 2. and the display of his vindictive justice is called, his\n_accomplishing his fury_, Ezek. vi. 12. This renders him the object of\nfear, and it is, as it were, a wall of fire round about his law, to\nsecure the glory thereof from the insults of his enemies.\nThere is also his faithfulness to his promises, in which respect he is\nsaid to be the _faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them\nthat love him, and keep his commandments, unto a thousand generations_,\nDeut. vii. 9. This is that which encourages his people to hope and trust\nin him, and to expect that blessedness, which none of his perfections\nwould give them a sufficient ground to lay claim to, were it not\npromised, and this promise secured by his infinite faithfulness.\nAlmighty power is able to make us, happy, and mercy and goodness can\ncommunicate every thing that may contribute thereunto; but it does not\nfrom hence follow that they will, since God is under no natural\nobligation to glorify these perfections: but when he is pleased to give\nforth a promise relating hereunto, and the accomplishment thereof\nascertained to us by his infinite faithfulness; this renders these\nblessings not only possible, but certain, and so affords, to the heirs\nof salvation, strong consolation. It is this that renders things future\nas certain as though they were present, and so lays a foundation for our\nrejoicing in hope of eternal life, whatever difficulties may seem to lie\nin the way of it.\nHere we may take occasion to consider the blessings which are secured by\nthe faithfulness of God, of which some respect mankind in general, and\nthe blessings of common providence, _viz._ that the world should be\npreserved, and all flesh not perish out of it, from the deluge to\nChrist\u2019s second coming; and that, during this time, the regular course\nof nature should not be altered, but _that seed-time and harvest, cold\nand heat, summer and winter, day and night, should not cease_, Gen. ix.\n11. compared with chap. viii. 22.\nThere are also promises made to the church in general, that it should\nhave a being in the world, notwithstanding all the shocks of\npersecution, which it is exposed to; and, together with these, God has\ngiven the greatest security, that the ordinances of divine worship\nshould be continued, and that, _in all places where he records his name,\nhe will come to his people and bless them_, Exod. xx. 24. And to this we\nmay add, that he has promised to increase and build up his church; and\nthat to Shiloh, the great Redeemer, should the _gathering of the people\nbe_, and that he would _multiply them, that they should not be few_, and\nalso, _glorify them, that they should not be small_, Gen. xlix. 10.\ncompared with Jer. xxx. 19. and that the glory should be of an\nincreasing nature, especially that which it should arrive to in the\nlatter ages of time, immediately before its exchanging this militant for\na triumphant state in heaven.\nMoreover, there are many great and precious promises made to particular\nbelievers, which every one of them have a right to lay claim to, and are\noftentimes enabled so to do, by faith, which depends entirely on this\nperfection: and these promises are such as respect the increase of\ngrace; that they shall _go from strength to strength_, or that _they who\nwait on the Lord shall renew their strength_, Psal. lxxxiv. 7. and Isa.\nxl. 31. and that they shall be recovered, after great backslidings,\nPsal. xxxvii. 14. Psal. lxxxix. 30-33. and be enabled to persevere in\nthat grace, which is begun in them, till it is crowned with compleat\nvictory, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Rom. xvi. 20. Job xvii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 57. and\nalso that they shall be made partakers of that inward peace and joy,\nwhich accompanies or flows from the truth of grace, Isa. xi. 1. chap.\nlvii. 19. chap. xxxii. 17. and that all this shall be attended with\nperfect blessedness in heaven at last, Psal. lxxiii. 24. 2 Tim. iv. 8.\nThe scripture abounds with promises of the like nature, which are suited\nto every condition, and afford relief to God\u2019s people, under all the\ndifficulties they meet with in the world; the accomplishment whereof is\nmade sure to them by this divine perfection.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected against this divine attribute; that God has\nnot, in some instances, fulfilled his threatenings, which has tended to\nembolden some in a course of obstinacy and rebellion against him;\nparticularly that the first threatening was not executed as soon as man\nfell; for though God told our first parents, that in the very _day they\nshould eat of the forbidden fruit, they should surely die_: yet Adam\nlived after this, nine hundred and thirty years, Gen. ii. 17. compared\nwith chap. v. 5.\nIt is also objected, that God threatened to destroy Nineveh, within\nforty days after Jonah was sent to publish this message to them, Jonah\niii. 4. nevertheless they continued in a flourishing state many years\nafter.\n_Answ._ 1. As to what respects the first threatening, that death should\nimmediately ensue upon sin\u2019s being committed, we shall have occasion to\nspeak to this in its proper place,[64] and therefore all that need be\nreplied to it at present is, that the threatening was in some respect,\nexecuted the day, yea, the moment in which our first parents sinned: If\nwe take it in a legal sense, they were immediately brought into a state\nof condemnation, which, in a forensic sense, is often called death; they\nwere immediately separated from God, the fountain of blessedness, and\nplunged into all those depths of misery, which were the consequence of\ntheir fall; or if we take death, the punishment threatened, for that\nwhich is, indeed, one ingredient in it, to wit, the separation of soul\nand body; or for the greatest degree of punishment, consisting in\neverlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of\nhis power; then it is sufficient to say, that man\u2019s being liable\nhereunto was the principal thing intended in the threatening. Certainly\nGod did not hereby design to tie up his own hands, so as to render it\nimpossible for him to remit the offence, or to recover the fallen\ncreature out of this deplorable state; and therefore if you take death\nfor that which is natural, which was not inflicted till nine hundred and\nthirty years after, then we may say, that his being exposed to, or\nbrought under an unavoidable necessity of dying the very day that he\nsinned, might be called his dying from that time; and the scripture will\nwarrant our using the word in that sense, since the apostle, speaking to\nthose who were, by sin, liable to death, says, _The body is dead,\nbecause of sin_, Rom. viii. 10. that is, it is exposed to death, as the\nconsequence thereof, though it was not actually dead; and if we take\ndeath for a liability to eternal death, then the threatening must be\nsupposed to contain a tacit condition, which implies, that man was to\nexpect nothing but eternal death, unless some expedient were found out,\nwhich the miserable creature then knew nothing of, to recover him out of\nthat state into which he was fallen.\n2. As to what concerns the sparing of Nineveh; we have sufficient ground\nto conclude that there was a condition annexed to this threatening, and\nso the meaning is; that they should be destroyed in forty days, if they\ndid not repent: this condition was designed to be made known to them,\notherwise Jonah\u2019s preaching would have been to no purpose, and the\nwarning given would have answered no valuable end; and it is plain, that\nthe Ninevites understood it in this sense, otherwise there would have\nbeen no room for repentance; so that God connected the condition with\nthe threatening: and as, on the one hand, he designed to give them\nrepentance, so that the event was not dubious and undetermined by him,\nas depending on their conduct, abstracted from his providence; so, on\nthe other hand, there was no reflection cast on his truth, because this\nprovisionary expedient, for their deliverance, was as much known by them\nas the threatening itself.\n_Object._ 2. It is objected that several promises have not had their\naccomplishment. Thus there are several promises of spiritual blessings,\nwhich many believers do not experience the accomplishment of in this\nlife; which has given occasion to some to say, with the Psalmist, _Doth\nhis promise fail for evermore?_ Psal. lxxvii. 8.\n_Answ._ It is true, that all the promises of God are not literally\nfulfilled in this world to every particular believer; the promise of\nincrease of grace is not actually fulfilled, while God suffers his\npeople to backslide from him, and the work of grace is rather declining\nthan sensibly advancing; neither are the promises, respecting the\nassurance and joy of faith, fulfilled unto one that is sinking into the\ndepths of despair; nor those that respect the presence of God in\nordinances, to such as are destitute of the influences of his grace\ntherein; nor are the promises of victory over temptation fulfilled, to\nthose who are not only assaulted, but frequently overcome by Satan, when\nit is as much as they can do to stand their ground against him; and\nthere are many other instances of the like nature: notwithstanding, the\ntruth of God may be vindicated, if we consider,\n1. That there is no promise made, whereof there are not some instances\nof their accomplishment in kind; this therefore is a sufficient\nconviction to the world, that there are such blessings bestowed as God\nhas promised.\n2. Those who are denied these blessings, may possibly be mistaken when\nthey conclude themselves to be believers; and then it is no wonder that\nthey are destitute of them, for God has promised to give joy and peace\nonly in a way of believing; or first to give the truth of grace, and\nthen the comfortable fruits and effects thereof. But we will suppose\nthat they are not mistaken, but have experienced the grace of God in\ntruth; yet their graces are so defective, that they know but little of\ntheir own imperfections, if they do not take occasion from thence, to\njustify God, who with-holdeth those blessings from them, and to adore,\nrather than call in question, the equity of his proceeding therein. And\nif remunerative justice be not laid under obligations to bestow these\nblessings by any thing performed by us, then certainly the faithfulness\nof God is not to be impeached, because he is pleased to deny them.\n3. In denying these blessings, he oftentimes takes occasion to advance\nhis own glory some other way, by trying the faith and patience of his\npeople, correcting them for their miscarriages, humbling them by his\ndealings with them, and over-ruling all for their good in the end; which\nis an equivalent for those joys and comforts which they are deprived of.\nAnd, indeed, God has never promised these blessings to any, but with\nthis reserve, that if he thinks it necessary, for his own glory, and\ntheir good, to bring about their salvation some other way, he will do\nit, without the least occasion given hereby to detract from the glory of\nhis faithfulness.\n4. All these promises, which have not had their accomplishment in kind,\nin this world, shall be accomplished in the next, with the greatest\nadvantage; so that then they will have no reason to complain of the\nleast unfaithfulness in the divine administration. If rivers of\npleasures at God\u2019s right hand for ever, will not compensate for the want\nof some comforts, while we are in this world, or silence all objections\nagainst his present dealings with men, nothing can do it; or if the full\naccomplishment of all the promises hereafter, will not secure the glory\nof this perfection, it is a sign that men are disposed to contend with\nthe Almighty, who deny it; therefore to such we may justly apply God\u2019s\nown words to Job, _He that reproveth God, let him answer it_; or, as he\nfarther says, _Wilt thou disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me,\nthat thou mayest be righteous?_ Job xl. 2. compared with ver. 8.\nWe shall now consider how the faithfulness of God ought to be improved\nby us. And,\n(1.) The consideration thereof may be a preservative against presumption\non the one hand, or despair on the other. Let no one harden himself in\nhis iniquity; or think that because the threatnings are not yet fully\naccomplished, therefore they never shall; it is one thing for God to\ndelay to execute them, and another thing to resolve not to do it. We may\nvainly conclude, that the bitterness of death is past, because _our\nhouses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them_; but let\nit be considered, that _the wicked are reserved for the day of\ndestruction; they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath_, Job xxi.\n9. compared with ver. 30. the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.\nHis threatenings lay him under an obligation to punish finally\nimpenitent sinners, because he is a God of truth; therefore let none\nharden themselves against him, or expect impunity in a course of open\nrebellion against him. And, on the other hand, let not believers give\nway to despair of obtaining mercy, or conclude, that, because God is\nwithdrawn, and hides his face from them, therefore he will never return;\nor, because his promises are not immediately fulfilled, therefore they\nnever shall, since his faithfulness is their great security; _he will\never be mindful of his covenant_, Psal. cxi. 5.\n(2.) Let us compare the providences of God with his word, and see how\nevery thing tends to set forth his faithfulness. We are very stupid, if\nwe take notice of the great things that are doing in the world; and we\nbehold them to little purpose, if we do not observe how this divine\nperfection is glorified therein. The world continues to this day,\nbecause God has several things yet to do in it, in pursuance of his\npromises; the whole number of the elect are to be gathered, and brought\nin to Christ; their graces must be tried, and their faith built up in\nthe same way, as it has been in former ages; therefore the church is\npreserved, and _the gates of hell have not prevailed against it_,\naccording to his word, Matth. xvi. 18. and as it was of old, so we now\nobserve that the various changes which are made in civil affairs, are\nall rendered subservient to its welfare; _the earth helps the woman_,\nRev. xii. 16. not so much from its own design, as by the appointment of\nprovidence; and why does God order it so, but that his promises might be\nfulfilled? And that the same ordinances should be continued, and that\nbelievers should have the same experience of the efficacy and success\nthereof, as the consequence of his presence with them, which he has\ngiven them ground to expect _unto the end of the world_, Matth. xxviii.\n20. are blessings in which his faithfulness is eminently glorified.\n(3.) This divine perfection is a sure foundation for our faith. As his\ntruth, with respect to what he has revealed, is an infallible ground for\nour faith of assent, so his faithfulness, in fulfilling his promises,\naffords the highest encouragement for our trust and dependence on him:\nthus we are said to _commit the keeping of our souls to him in\nwell-doing, as unto a faithful Creator_, 1 Pet. iv. 19. and, when we lay\nthe whole stress of our salvation upon him, we have no reason to\nentertain any doubt about the issue thereof. Moreover, are we exposed to\nevils in this world? we may conclude, that as _he has delivered, and\ndoes deliver_, so we have reason to _trust in him, that he will deliver\nus_, 2 Cor. i. 10. and is there much to be done for us, to make us meet\nfor heaven? we may be _confident of this very thing, that he that has\nbegun a good work in us, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ_,\nPhil. i. 6.\n(4.) The faithfulness of God should be improved by us, as a remedy\nagainst that uneasiness and anxiety of mind, which we often have about\nthe event of things, especially when they seem to run counter to our\nexpectation. Thus when there is but a very melancholy prospect before\nus, as to what concerns the glory of God in the world, and the\nflourishing state of his church in it, upon which we are ready to say\nwith Joshua, _Lord, what wilt thou do unto thy great name?_ Josh. vii.\n9. or when we have many sad thoughts of heart about the rising\ngeneration, and are in doubt whether they will adhere to, or abandon,\nthe interest of Christ; when we are ready to fear whether there will be\na reserve of faithful men, who will stand up for his gospel, and fill\nthe places of those who are called off the stage, after having served\ntheir generation by the will of God; or when we are too much oppressed\nwith carking cares about our outward condition in the world, when, like\nChrist\u2019s disciples, we are immoderately thoughtful _what we shall eat,\nwhat we shall drink, or wherewithal we shall be clothed_, Matth. vi. 31.\nor how we shall be able to conflict with the difficulties that lie\nbefore us: our great relief against all this solicitude is to be derived\nfrom the faithfulness of God; for since godliness has the promise\nannexed to it, of _the life that now is_, as well as of _that which is\nto come_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. this promise shall have its accomplishment, so\nfar as shall most redound to God\u2019s glory, and our real advantage.\n(5.) The consideration of the faithfulness of God should be improved, to\nhumble, and fill us with shame and confusion of face, when we consider\nhow treacherously we have dealt with him, how unsteadfast we have been\nin his covenant, how often we have broke our own promises and\nresolutions that we would walk more closely with him, how frequently we\nhave backslidden from him, contrary to all the engagements which we have\nbeen laid under. Have we found any unfaithfulness in him? Has he, in the\nleast instance, been worse than his word? as God says, when he reproves\nhis people, _What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are\ngone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?_\nJer. ii. 5.\nFootnote 48:\n  His ideas are not the effects, but causes of things. Vide post p. 124,\nFootnote 49:\n  There is not succession in His ideas, but he exists in every point of\n  time.\nFootnote 50:\n  Effects spring from _power_, not _laws_, and prove a _virtual_, or\n  influential, revelation, an _essential_ ubiquity.\nFootnote 51:\n  Quest. xv. and xviii.\nFootnote 52:\n  Quest. lxvii.\nFootnote 53:\n  Vide Edwards on Free-will, part I. sect. IV.\nFootnote 54:\n  The Divine knowledge is as undeniable as the Divine existence, and as\n  certain as human knowledge. \u201cHe that formed the eye doth he not see?\n  He that planted the ear doth he not hear? He that teacheth man\n  knowledge doth he not know?\u201d But though human knowledge proves the\n  Divine, as the effect does its cause, it by no means follows, that\n  they are similar. Our knowledge principally consists of the images of\n  things in the mind, or springs from them; but if the Divine knowledge\n  were such, it would result that things were prior to his knowledge,\n  and so that he is not the Creator of them; all things must therefore\n  be the representations of his ideas, as an edifice represents the plan\n  of the skilful architect. On this account our knowledge is\n  superficial, extending only to the external appearances of things; but\n  their intimate natures are known to him, who made them conformed to\n  his original ideas. Our knowledge is circumscribed, extending only to\n  the things which are the objects of our senses, or which have been\n  described to us; but the universe, with all its parts, the greatest\n  and the smallest things, are all known to him, who called them into\n  existence, and moulded them according to his own plan. Our knowledge\n  embraces only the things which are, or have been; with respect to the\n  future, we can know nothing, except as he, upon whom it depends, shall\n  reveal it to us; or as we may draw inferences from his course of\n  action in former instances. But the Creator knows not only the past\n  and the present, but the future. He knows the future, because it\n  wholly depends on him; and nothing can take place without him,\n  otherwise it is independent of God, but this is incompatible with his\n  supremacy. If he know not the future, his knowledge is imperfect; if\n  he is to know hereafter what he does not now know, he is increasing in\n  knowledge, this would argue imperfection; if his knowledge be\n  imperfect, he is imperfect; and if he be imperfect, he is not God.\u2014But\n  all things to come are to be what he designs they shall be; there\n  accompanies his knowledge of the future, also a purpose, that the\n  thing designed shall be effectuated; and his wisdom and power being\n  infinite guarantee the accomplishment of his purposes.\n  To be the subjects of foreknowledge, such as has been mentioned,\n  implies the absolute certainty of the things, or occurrences, thus\n  foreknown. A failure in their production, would not less prove\n  imperfection, than a defect of the foreknowledge of them. Contingency\n  belongs not to the things in futurity, but to the defective knowledge\n  of imperfect beings, and is always proportional to our ignorance.\n  That the future is categorically certain with God, appears by the\n  invariable succession of effects to their causes in the natural world;\n  miracles themselves may not be exceptions; but would always, it is\n  probable, flow from the same causes, which are occult from us. The\n  voluntary actions of moral agents, how uncertain soever to themselves,\n  are also not exceptions from the Divine knowledge and purposes; \u201cHe\n  doth his will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the\n  earth\u201d; \u201cThe wrath of man praises him, and the remainder he doth\n  restrain.\u201d Every prophecy, which has been fulfilled, so far as it was\n  accomplished by the voluntary actions of men, proves the certainty of\n  the divine foreknowledge, the absolute certainty of the then future\n  event, and that the will of man is among the various means, which God\n  is pleased to make use of to accomplish his purposes.\n  If there be such certainty in God\u2019s foreknowledge, and in the events\n  themselves in the Kingdom of Providence, we may reasonably expect his\n  conduct will be similar in the Kingdom of Grace; and the more\n  especially if man\u2019s salvation from first to last springs from, and is\n  carried on, and accomplished by him.\nFootnote 55:\n  As knowledge is a faculty of which wisdom is the due exercise, the\n  proofs of divine wisdom are so many evidences of the knowledge of God.\n  Wisdom consists in the choice of the best ends, and the selection of\n  means most suitable to attain them. The testimonies of the wisdom of\n  God must therefore be as numerous and various, as the works of his\n  creation. The mutual relations and subserviency of one thing to\n  another; as the heat of the sun, to produce rain; both, to produce\n  vegetation; and all, to sustain life; ensation, digestion, muscular\n  motion, the circulation of the fluids, and, still more, intelligence,\n  and above all, the moral faculty, or power of distinguishing good and\n  evil, are unequivocal proofs of the wisdom, and consequently of the\n  knowledge, of God.\u2014_He that formed the eye, doth he not see: he that\n  planted the ear, &c._\n  Mortal artificers are deemed to understand their own work, though\n  ignorant of the formation of the materials and instruments they use:\n  but the Creator uses no mean or material which he has not formed. He\n  therefore knows, from the globe to the particle of dust or fluid, and\n  from the largest living creature to the smallest insect. He has\n  knowledge equally of the other worlds of this system, and every\n  system; of all things in heaven, earth, and hell.\n  Our knowledge is conversant about his works; he knows all things which\n  are known to us, and those things which have not come to our\n  knowledge.\n  He formed and sustains the human mind, and knows the thoughts: this is\n  necessary to him as our Judge. He knows equally all spiritual\n  creatures, and sustains his holy spirits in holiness.\n  Our knowledge springs from things; but things spring from his\n  purposes: they are, because he knows them; otherwise they existed\n  before his knowledge, and so independently of him.\n  We know but the external appearances, he the intimate nature of\n  things. We inquire into the properties of things by our senses, by\n  comparing them, by analizing, &c: but nothing possesses a property\n  which he did not purpose and give; otherwise his hands have wrought\n  more than he intended. We look up through effects unto their causes:\n  he looks down through intermediate causes, and sees them all to be\n  effects from him.\n  We are furnished with memories to bring up ideas, being only able to\n  contemplate a part at a time; but his comprehension embraces all\n  things.\n  He never changes; his purposes of the future embrace eternity: all\n  things that are really future are certain, because his purposes cannot\n  fail of accomplishment. But all future things to us are contingent,\n  except as he has revealed their certainty. That the future is known to\n  him, also appears by the accomplishment of every prophecy.\n  But man\u2019s sin receives hereby no apology. He gives the brutal creation\n  the capacity of deriving pleasure from gratification of sense, and\n  provides for such appetites. He offers to man, pleasures which are\n  intellectual: he has tendered him the means, and requires man to seek\n  his spiritual happiness in God. When he refuses and withholds his\n  return of service from God, man is alone to blame. And the more\n  numerous and powerful the motives which he resists, the guilt is the\n  greater. The divine foreknowledge of this is no excuse for man. When\n  the Lord overpowers man\u2019s evil with good, the glory of man\u2019s salvation\n  belongs to God.\nFootnote 56:\n  _See Ray\u2019s Wisdom of God in the Works of Creation, and Derham\u2019s\n  Physico-Theology._ See also Fenelon, Newenlyle, Paley, and Adams\u2019s\n  Philosophy.\nFootnote 57:\n  See Page 46.\nFootnote 58:\n  See Quest. clvi. and clvii.\nFootnote 59:\n  _Quest. xvi. xvii. xxi. and xxx._\nFootnote 60:\n  _The Quest. xliv. and lxxi._\nFootnote 61:\n  _Quest. xxix. and lxxix._\nFootnote 62:\n  All the good which we behold in Creation, Providence, and redemption,\n  flows from goodness in God, and are the proofs of this attribute. If\n  all the evil, which we discover, springs from the liberty given to\n  creatures to conform, or not, to the revealed will; or if all moral\n  evil be productive of good, _the remainder being restrained_; then the\n  evil, which exists, is no exception to the proofs of Divine goodness.\n  What Deity now is, he always was; he has not derived his goodness; he\n  is not a compounded being; his goodness therefore belongs to his\n  essence. His goodness has been distinguished into _immanent_ and\n  _communicative_. The latter discovers to us the former, but his\n  communicative goodness, though flowing in ten thousand streams, and\n  incalculable, is less than his immanent, which is an eternal fountain\n  of excellency.\n  Infinite knowledge discerns things as they are, and a perfect being\n  will esteem that to be best, which is so; God therefore discerns, and\n  esteems his own immanent goodness as infinitely exceeding all the\n  good, which appears in his works, for the excellency in these is but\n  an imperfect representation of himself. The happiness of Deity must\n  consist consequently in his own self-complacency; _he made all things\n  for his pleasure, or glory_, but they are only so far pleasing, as\n  they reflect his own picture to himself. Yet when we suppose Deity to\n  be the subject of motives, we are ever in danger of erring.\n  Divine communicative goodness has been termed _benevolence_ when in\n  intention, _beneficence_ when carried into effect. This is nearly the\n  same as _moral rectitude_, because the government of the Universe\n  must, that it may produce the good of the whole, be administered in\n  righteousness. The correct administration of justice in rewarding\n  every good, if there be merit in a creature, and punishing every evil\n  is no less an effect of benevolence, than the conferring of benefits,\n  which are purely gratuitous. In like manner the punishment of\n  offenders in civil society has for its object general utility, whether\n  we imagine the power which judges and inflicts, to spring from the\n  social compact, or to have been ordained of God.\n  The cutting off of flagrant offenders, as by the deluge, the\n  destruction of Sodom, &c. has been obviously designed to prevent the\n  spreading contagion of sin. But there is a time appointed, unto which\n  all things are tending, and unto which men generally refer the wrongs\n  they sustain, in which perfect justice shall be administered. Some\n  attributes of Deity seem to be ground of terror, and others of love;\n  but God is one; he is subject to no perturbation of mind; his wrath\n  and indignation are but other terms for his steady and unchangeable\n  goodness, bearing down the evil, which sinful creatures oppose to his\n  purposes of general advantage. Those acts of justice which are\n  accounted by the guilty to be unnecessary severity, are deemed, by\n  glorified saints and angels, the effects of that goodness, which they\n  make the subject of their Hallelujahs. Thus the highest proof of God\u2019s\n  goodness consisted in his not sparing his own Son, nor abating any\n  thing from the demands of his law. After this all hopes that Divine\n  goodness shall favour the finally impenitent must be utterly vain.\nFootnote 63:\n  \u201cMark iii. 11, v. 7; Luke viii. 28; and Mat. viii. 29. These\n  extraordinary personages in the New Testament, are not called\n  _devils_, \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, in the original; that word never occurring in the\n  Christian scriptures, but in the singular number, and as applied to\n  one Being alone. They are called _d\u00e6mons_, \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 or \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1. Yet\n  they are plainly devils in fact; being called Unclean Spirits, though\n  sometimes only Spirits (Mark ix. 20; and Luke x. 20;) and showing\n  themselves to be devils, by their whole history. In Mat. xii. 24 and\n  26 particularly, the Pharisees say \u2018our Saviour casts out devils,\n  (d\u00e6mons) by Beelzebub the prince of the devils (d\u00e6mons);\u2019 and our\n  Saviour replies, that then \u2018Satan casts out Satan.\u2019 See also Luke x.\n  17-18; where the apostles rejoicing declare, \u2018even the devils (d\u00e6mons)\n  are subject unto us;\u2019 and our Saviour says unto them, \u2018I beheld Satan\n  as lightning fall from heaven.\u2019 So very false in itself, and directly\n  contradicted by the very words of our Saviour, is that hypothesis of\n  Dr. Campbell\u2019s in his new translation of the Gospels; which asserts\n  these possessions of the New Testament to be nowhere attributed to the\n  devil, and which avers the dominion or authority of the devil to be\n  nowhere ascribed to the d\u00e6mons! Beelzebub is expressly called the\n  _prince_ of the d\u00e6mons, the d\u00e6mons are expressly denominated _Satan_\n  with him, and these are only inferior devils subordinate to the great\n  one. And though the word _d\u00e6mons_ (as Dr. Campbell urges) might\n  critically be more exact in a translation; yet the word _devils_\n  better accords, with the usages of our language and the course of our\n  ideas. Exactness therefore has been properly sacrificed to utility.\u201d\n  WHITAKER.\nFootnote 64:\n  _See Quest. xx._\n    QUEST. VIII. _Are there more Gods than one?_\n    ANSW. There is but one only, the living and true God.\nI. In this answer, God is described as the living and true God. As life\nis the greatest excellency belonging to the nature of any finite being,\nupon which account some have concluded that the lowest degree thereof\nrenders a creature more excellent in itself, than the most glorious\ncreatures that are without it; and inasmuch as intelligent creatures\nhave a superior excellency to all others, because that which gives life\nto them, or the principle by which they act as such, is most excellent;\nso the life of God is that whereby he infinitely excels all finite\nbeings; therefore, when he is called the living God, this is not one\nsingle perfection of the divine nature, but it is expressive of all his\ndivine perfections. Thus when God represents himself, in scripture, as\ngiving his people the highest assurance of any thing which he designs to\ndo, he useth the form of an oath, and sweareth by his life, _As I live_;\nor, _as truly as I live_, Isa. xlix. 18. and Numb. xiv. 21. which\nimports the same thing, as when he says, _I have sworn by myself_, Gen.\nxxii. 16. so that when he is called the living God, his glory is set\nforth, as a God of infinite perfection: but this has been considered\nunder the last answer.\nTherefore we may farther observe, that when God is styled the living\nGod, it connotes the display of all his perfections, as life is a\nprinciple of action; and hereby he is distinguished from lifeless idols,\nwho were reputed gods by their stupid and profane worshippers. Thus the\napostle lays down both the terms of opposition, when he speaks to some,\nas having _turned from idols_, or false gods, _to serve the living and\ntrue God_, 1 Thess. i. 9. Here we might consider the origin and progress\nof idolatry, as men were inclined to _worship the creature more than the\nCreator_, Rom. i. 25. or _to do service to them, who, by nature, are no\ngods_, Gal. iv. 8. and shew how some seemed to have been destitute of\ncommon sense, as they were of true religion, when they not only\nworshipped God by idols, of their own making, but prayed to them, and\nsaid, _Deliver us, for ye are our gods_; this the prophet takes notice\nof, Isa. xliv. 17. and exposes their unaccountable stupidity, by\nobserving to them that these gods were first growing among the trees of\nthe forest, then cut down with their own hands, and fashioned into their\ndesigned form, and part thereof cast into the fire, as destined for\ncommon uses. These were lifeless gods, without a metaphor, and their\nsenseless worshippers but one remove from them, as the Psalmist says,\n_They that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that\ntrusteth in them_, Psal. cxv. 8. But this we shall have occasion to\ninsist on in a following part of this work[65], and therefore shall pass\nit over at present, and consider,\nII. The unity of the Godhead. Scripture is very express in asserting\nthis: thus it is said, _The Lord our God is one Lord_, Deut. vi. 4. and,\n_I, even I, am he; and there is no God with me_, chap. xxxii. 39. and,\n_The Lord he is God; there is none else besides him_, chap. iv. 35. and\nelsewhere, _Thou art God alone_, Psal. lxxxvi. 10. And this is a truth,\nnot barely founded on a few places of scripture that expressly assert\nit, but it may be deduced from every part thereof; yea, it is instamped\non the very nature of man, and may be as plainly proved, from the light\nof nature, as that there is a God; and every one of the divine\nperfections, which were particularly considered under the last answer,\nwill supply us with arguments to confirm our faith therein: but that\nthis may farther appear, let it be considered,\n1. That the idea of a God implies that he is the first cause of all\nthings, in which respect he is opposed to the creature; it follows,\ntherefore, that he was from all eternity. Now there can be no more than\none being, who is without beginning, and who gave being to all other\nthings, which appears from the very nature of the thing; for if there\nare more Gods, then they must derive their being from him, and then they\nare a part of his creation, and consequently not gods, for God and the\ncreature are infinitely opposed to each other: and since there is but\none independent being, who is in and of himself, and derives his\nperfections from no other, therefore there can be but one God.\n2. There is but one being, who is the ultimate end of all things, which\nnecessarily follows from his being their Creator; for he that produced\nthem out of nothing must be supposed to have designed some valuable end\nhereby, which, ultimately considered, cannot be any thing short of\nhimself, for that is inconsistent with the wisdom and sovereignty that\nis contained in the idea of a Creator; therefore he is said to have\n_made all things for himself_, Prov. xvi. 4. and consequently the glory\nthat results from thence is unalienable, and so cannot be ascribed to\nany other God; therefore to suppose that there are other gods, is to\nascribe a divine nature to them, divested of that glory which is\nessential to it. And to this we may add, that if God be the ultimate end\nof all things, he is to be glorified as such, and all worship is to\nterminate in him; and we must proclaim him to be our chief good, and\nonly portion and happiness, which is plainly inconsistent with a\nplurality of gods. Besides, he that is the object of adoration must be\nworshipped, and _loved with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind_,\nLuke x. 27. our affections must not be divided between him and any\nother. Therefore since man is under a natural obligation to give supreme\nworship to him, it follows that there is no other God that has a right\nto it, and therefore that he is the only true God.\n3. Infinite perfection being implied in the idea of a God, as has been\nproved under the last answer, it is certain that it cannot belong to\nmore than one; for as it implies that this perfection is boundless, so\nit denotes that he sets bounds to the perfections of all others;\ntherefore, if there are more Gods than one, their perfections must be\nlimited, and consequently that which is not infinite is not God. And as\ninfinite perfection implies in it all perfection, so it cannot be\ndivided among many, for then no being, that has only a part thereof,\ncould be said to be thus perfect; therefore, since there is but one that\nis so, it follows that there is no other God besides him.\n4. Since omnipotency is a divine attribute, there can be but one\nalmighty being, and therefore but one God; which will farther appear, if\nwe consider, that if there were more Gods than one, all of them must be\nsaid to be able to do all things, and then the same individual power,\nthat is exerted by one, must be exerted by another, than which nothing\nis more absurd. And it will also follow, that he, who cannot do that\nwhich is said to be done by another, is not almighty, or able to do all\nthings, and consequently that he is not God.\n5. There is but one being, who has an absolute sovereign will, who,\nthough he can controul all others, is himself subject to no controul;\nwho has a natural right to give laws to all who are his subjects, but is\nsubject to none himself; for absolute dominion and subjection are as\nopposite as light and darkness. Two persons may as well be said to give\nbeing to each other, as to have a right to give laws to each other.\nMoreover, if there were more Gods than one, then there would be a\nconfusion in the government of the world; for whatever one decrees,\nanother may reverse; or whatever is done by one, the contrary might be\ndone by the other, for that is the consequence from a sovereignty of\nwill. And as there might be opposite things commanded, or forbidden,\npursuant to the different wills of a plurality of gods, so the same\nthing, with respect to those who are under an obligation to yield\nobedience, would be both a sin and a duty, and the same persons would be\nboth condemned and justified for the same action.\n6. There is but one being, who is, as God is often said to be, the best\nand the greatest; therefore, if there were more Gods than one, either\none must be supposed to be more excellent than another, or both equally\nexcellent. If we suppose the former of these, then he, who is not the\nmost excellent, is not God; and if the latter, that their excellencies\nare equal, then infinite perfection would be divided, which is contrary\nto the idea thereof, as was before hinted; as well as to what is\nexpressly said by God, _To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal?\nsaith the Holy One_, Isa. xl. 25. From these, and several other\narguments to the same purpose, which might have been taken from every\none of the divine attributes, and from all essential and relative glory\nwhich belongs to him, the unity of the divine essence appears, even to a\ndemonstration. And indeed to assert that there are more Gods than one\nis, in effect, to say that there is no God; so the apostle deems it,\nwhen he tells the church at Ephesus, that, before their conversion, when\nthey worshipped other gods, _they were without God in the world_, which\nimplies as much as that they were atheists therein, as the words \u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9 may, with equal propriety, be rendered.[66]\nHaving considered the unity of the Godhead, not only as evinced from\nscripture, but as it may be demonstrated by the light of nature, it will\nbe necessary that we obviate an objection that may be brought against\nthis latter method of proving it, _viz._\n_Object._ If the unity of the Godhead might be known by the dictates of\nnature, or demonstrated by other arguments, besides those which are\nmatter of pure revelation, how comes it to pass that the heathen owned,\nand worshipped, a plurality of gods? and as it was not one particular\nsect among them that did so, but this abominable practice universally\nobtained, where revealed religion was not known, therefore, though this\nbe an undoubted truth, yet it is not founded in the light of nature.\n_Answ._ That they did so is beyond dispute, especially after idolatry\nhad continued a few ages in the world, and so had extinguished those\nprinciples of revealed religion, which mankind, before this, were\nfavoured with; yet it must be considered, that though the ignorant and\nunthinking multitude, among them, believed every thing to be a God,\nwhich the custom of the countries where they lived had induced them to\npay divine adoration to, yet the wiser sort of them, however guilty of\nidolatry, by paying a lower kind of worship to them, have,\nnotwithstanding, maintained the unity of the Godhead, or that there is\none God superior to them all, whom they often call the father of gods\nand men; to whom probably the Athenians erected that altar, as the\napostle Paul observes, with this inscription, To THE UNKNOWN GOD;\nbecause he says, in the words immediately following, _Whom therefore ye\nignorantly worship, him declare I unto you_, Acts xvii. 23.\nThis appears from what they assert to the same purpose, whereby they\nplainly discover their belief of but one supreme God, who has all the\nincommunicable perfections of the divine nature, however, in other\ninstances, their conduct seemed to run counter to their method of\nreasoning: thus it appears, by their writings, that many of them assert\nthat there is a God, who is the first cause, or beginning, of all\nthings; and that he was from eternity, or in the beginning, and that\ntime took its rise from him; that he is the living God, the fountain of\nlife, and the best of all beings[67]: Also, that this God is\nself-sufficient, and therefore it is absurd to suppose that he stands in\nneed of, or can receive advantage from, any one[68]; and that he is the\nchief good, or contains in himself whatever is good, and that by him all\nthings consist; and that no one hath enough in himself to secure his own\nsafety and happiness, which is to be derived from him[69].\nAnd there are others also, who plainly assert the unity of God in as\nstrong terms, as though they had learned it from divine revelation,\ncalling him, the beginning, the end, and author of all things; who was\nbefore, and is above all things, the Lord of all, the fountain of life,\nlight, and all good, yea, goodness itself; the most excellent being; and\nmany other expressions to the like purpose. I could multiply quotations\nfor the proof of this, from Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblicus, Plotinus,\nPlutarch, Epictetus, and several others; but this has been already done\nby other hands[70]; by which it appears, that though they mention other\ngods, they suppose them to be little more than titular or honorary gods;\nor at least persons, who were the peculiar favourites of God, and\nadmitted to the participation of divine honours, as well as employed in\nsome part of the government of the world. They frequently speak of them\nas having derived their being from God, whom they call the cause of\ncauses, the God of gods. Some of them speak of God in the singular\nnumber, throughout the greatest part of their writings, and only make\nmention of the gods occasionally, especially when they treat of those\nworks that become a God, or the greatest honours that are due to him;\nthus Seneca and Plato, and, in particular, the latter of them says,\nconcerning himself[71], that when he wrote any thing in a grave and\nserious manner, his custom was, to preface his epistles with the mention\nof one God; though, it is true, when he wrote otherwise, he used the\ncommon mode of speaking, and talked of other gods; and it is observed,\nin his writings, that he sometimes uses this phrase; If it please God,\nor by the help of God, not the gods.\nBut, notwithstanding this, they were all idolaters, for they joined in\nthe rites of worship performed to the false gods of their respective\ncountries; yea, Socrates himself, who fell under the displeasure of the\nAthenians, for asserting the unity of the Godhead, which cost him his\nlife, did not refuse to pay some religious honour to the heathen gods.\nSo that it is plain they paid some religious worship to them, but it was\nof an inferior and subordinate nature, not much unlike to that which the\nPapists give to saints and angels: but they are far from setting them\nupon a level with God; for they confess they were but men, who formerly\nlived in this world; they give an account of their birth and parentage;\nwhere they lived and died; write the history of their lives, and what\nprocured them the honour they suppose them after death advanced to[72];\nhow some of them obtained it, as the reward of virtue, or in\ncommemoration of the good they had done to the world in their life: as\nsome were advanced to this honour, who were the inventors of arts,\nbeneficial to mankind, or were successful in wars, or a public blessing\nto the country where they lived, others had this honour conferred upon\nthem, especially among the Romans, at the request of their surviving\nfriends; and this was done after Julius C\u00e6sar\u2019s time, by the decree of\nthe senate, who, at the same time, when they ranked them among the\nnumber of their gods, appointed also the rites of worship that should be\npaid to them; and some of the Roman emperors obliged the senate to deify\nthem while they were alive. These things are very largely insisted on,\nby many ancient and modern writers[73]; so that, upon the whole, it\nplainly appears, that, whatever they say of a plurality of gods, the\nwiser sort among the heathen did not deny the unity of the divine\nessence, in the highest and most proper sense; and, inasmuch as they\nreceived the knowledge hereof from the light of nature, we may from\nhence conclude that this truth might be known that way, as well as by\ndivine revelation.\nWe shall conclude with some practical inferences from the doctrine\ncontained in this answer.\n1. Since he, who is the object of our worship, is the living God; this\nreproves that lifeless formal way, in which many address themselves to\nhim, in the performance of religious duties, without that reverence and\ndue regard to the divine perfections, which are contained in this\ncharacter of the Godhead. It is also a very great aggravation, not only\nof apostacy, but of any degree of backsliding, in those who have made a\nprofession of religion; that it is a _departure from the living God_,\nHeb. iii. 12. Is he the God and giver of life, and shall we forsake him,\nwho _has the words of eternal life_, John vi. 68. whose sovereign will\nhas the sole disposal thereof?\nAgain, this consideration, of his being the living God, renders his\njudgments most terrible, and his wrath insupportable; as the apostle\nsays, _It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God_,\n2. From his being the true God, we infer, that all hypocrisy, both in\nheart and life, is to be avoided; and we should draw nigh to him with a\ntrue heart and faith unfeigned; and not like those whom the prophet\nreproves, when he says, God was _near in their mouth, and far from their\nreins_, Jer. xii. 2.\nMoreover, let us take heed that we do not set up an idol in our hearts,\nin opposition to him as the true God: whatever has a greater share in\nour affections than God, or is set up in competition with him, that is,\nto us, a god, and is therefore inconsistent with our paying that regard\nwhich is due to him; as our Saviour says, _Ye cannot serve God and\nmammon_, Mat. vi. 24. and, upon this account, covetousness is styled\nidolatry, Col. iii. 5. as the world is loved more than him; and we read\nof some _whose God is their belly_, Phil. iii. 19. who make provision\nfor the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, as though this was their\nchief good. And when we confide in any thing below him, in a religious\nway, or expect that from the creature which is only to be found in him;\nor when we esteem men as lords of our faith; or when his sovereignty, or\nright to govern us, is called in question, while we presumptuously, or\nwilfully, rebel against him; this is, in effect, a dethroning, or\ndenying him to be the true God: but more of this when we consider the\nsins forbidden in the first commandment[74].\n3. From the unity of the Godhead, we may infer, that we ought to take\nheed that we do not entertain any conceptions of the divine Being, which\nare inconsistent herewith; therefore, as we are not to assert a\nplurality of gods, so we are not to think or speak of God in such a way\nas tends to overthrow the simplicity of the divine nature; therefore we\nmust not conceive that it is compounded of various parts, all which,\nbeing taken together, tend to constitute the divine essence; which gives\noccasion to that known aphorism, generally laid down by those who treat\nof this subject, that _whatever is in God, is God_; which we must reckon\nas one of the incomprehensibles of the divine Being, which when we\nattempt to speak of, we only give an evident proof of the imperfection\nof our finite understandings, and that we cannot order our words, by\nreason of darkness: however, it is necessary, when we lay down this\nproposition, that we signify what we intend hereby, that so we may not\nbe supposed to use words without ideas; and especially that we may, in\nsome measure, account for those modes of speaking, which are agreeable\nto scripture, which so often describes God as having a plurality of\nperfections, and those, in some respects, distinct; and yet, at the same\ntime, that we may not hereby be led to infer a plurality of gods. Here\nlet it be considered,\n(1.) That we have not the least similitude, or resemblance, of this in\nany finite being. Every thing below God is composed of parts, some of\nwhich we call integral, as all the parts of matter taken together\nconstitute the whole; others are called essential, as when we say an\nintelligent being has various powers or properties which are essential\nto it; so that it would not be complete without every one of them; and\nthat these are all of them distinct, so that we cannot say whatever is\nin the soul of man is the soul, but every one of those powers, or\nproperties, taken together, constitute the man; but this is by no means\nto be applied to the divine Being; therefore,\n(2.) When we conceive of God, as holy, powerful, just, good, &c. we must\nnot suppose that these perfections are so many ingredients in the divine\nBeing, or that, when taken together, they constitute it, as the whole is\nconstituted of its parts; for then every one of them would have no other\nthan a partial perfection, and consequently the essential glory of one\nof those attributes would not be equal to the glory of the divine Being,\nwhich is supposed to consist of them all; and therefore there would be\nsomething in God less than God, or a divine perfection less than all the\ndivine perfections taken together, which we are not to suppose. These\nare the properties of composition; and therefore, when we speak of God\nas a simple or uncompounded Being, we cannot forbear to mention them as\nwhat are inconsistent with his perfection as such.\nNeither are the divine perfections distinct or different from one\nanother, as the various parts of which the whole is constituted are said\nto be distinct; which follows from the former, since the divine essence\nhas no parts; therefore we are not to suppose, that the divine\nattributes, considered as they are in God, are so distinguished, as one\nthing, or being, is from another; or as wisdom, power, justice, mercy,\n&c. are in men; for that would be to suppose the divine Being as having\nseveral distinct, infinitely perfect beings contained in it, which is\ncontrary to its simplicity or unity; or, at least, if we call it one, it\nwould be only so by participation and dependence, as a general or\ncomplex idea is said to be one, which partakes of, and depends on, all\nthose particular or simple ideas that are contained in it; or, to\nillustrate it by numbers, as one hundred is one, as it contains such a\nnumber of units in it, as are, all taken together, equal to a hundred;\nthis is not what we mean, when we say God is one.\nMoreover, when we speak of the divine perfections, as being in God, we\nsuppose them all essential to him, as opposed to what is accidental. Now\nan accident is generally described, as what belongs, or is superadded,\nto a being or subject, which it might have existed without, or have been\ndestitute of, and yet sustained no loss of that perfection, which is\nessential to it: thus, wisdom, holiness, justice, faithfulness, are\naccidents in men; so that they who have them not, do not cease to be\nmen, or to have the essential perfection of the human nature: but this\nis by no means to be applied to the divine Being and attributes; for to\nsuppose God to be destitute of any of them, is as much as to say that he\nis not infinitely perfect, or that he is not God. This, I think, is\ngenerally intended, when it is said, _whatever is in God, is God_;\nwhich, because it may be reckoned by some to be a metaphysical\nspeculation, I should have avoided to mention, had it not been, in some\nrespects, necessary, since the unity of God cannot well be conceived of,\nunless his simplicity be defended; and I do not see how that can be\nmaintained, if this proposition be not duly considered. If I have used\nmore words than are needful, or repeated the same ideas too often, in\nattempting to explain it, I have done it to avoid some scholastic modes\nof speaking, or with a design to render what has been said more\nintelligible; but to this we may add,\n(3.) That when we speak of the divine perfections as many, or distinct\nfrom one another, as we often do, and have scripture warrant to justify\nus therein, namely, when we speak of the justice of God, as different\nfrom his mercy, or these, from his power, wisdom, faithfulness, &c. this\nmust not be deemed inconsistent with what has been said concerning the\ndivine simplicity: and therefore let it be considered, that the nature\nand perfections of God are incomprehensible; and therefore all the ideas\nwhich we have of them are taken from our comparing them with some small\nresemblance that there is thereof in intelligent creatures, and, at the\nsame time, separating from them whatever argues imperfection.\nAnd from hence it follows, that we are not supposed to know, or be able\nto describe, what God is in himself, and, as I humbly conceive, never\nshall: such knowledge as this is too great for any but a divine person;\ntherefore our conceptions of him are taken from and conformed to those\nvarious ways, by which he condescends to make himself visible, or known\nto us, namely, by various acts conversant about certain objects, in\nwhich he is said to manifest his perfections: thus, when an effect is\nproduced, we call that perfection that produces it his power; or as the\ndivine acts are otherwise distinguished with respect to the objects, or\nthe manner of his glorifying himself therein, these we call his wisdom,\njustice, goodness, &c. And this is what we mean, when we speak of\nvarious perfections in God; though some suppose that they express\nthemselves more agreeably to the nature of the subject, or to the\nsimplicity of God, in that, whenever they speak of any of the divine\nperfections, they speak of them in such a way, as that they are\ndenominated from the effect thereof; as when they take occasion to\nmention the power of God, they call it God acting powerfully; or of his\njustice or faithfulness, they express those perfections by, God acting\njustly or faithfully[75]. But however we express ourselves, when we\nspeak of the distinct perfections of the divine nature, this is what we\nprincipally intend thereby: and here our thoughts must stop, and make\nwhat is too great for a finite mind to conceive of the subject of our\nadmiration, and adore what we cannot comprehend: such knowledge is too\nwonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain to it.\nFootnote 65:\n  _See Quest._ cv.\nFootnote 66:\n  \u201cAs gravity is the common quality of all bodies, arising not from the\n  nature and properties of matter, nor to be explained without the\n  agency of a foreign cause, yet producing numberless uniform effects in\n  the corporeal system, it is in all reason to be attributed to one\n  contrivance, rather than the different designs of two or more partial\n  independent causes. What a vast variety of appearances in nature\n  depend on this one? The self-balanced earth hangs upon its centre; the\n  mountains are set fast; there is a perpetual flux and reflux of the\n  sea; vapours continually arise; the clouds are balanced till by their\n  own weight they descend in rain; animals breathe and move; the\n  heavenly bodies hold their stations, and go on in their constant\n  course, by the force of gravity, after the _ordinance_ of that wisdom\n  which appointed them this law. Now when we see a multitude of effects\n  proceeding from one Cause, effects so various in their kind and so\n  important, a Cause simple and unvaried in all the diversity produced\n  by it, can we avoid ascribing this to an unity of intelligence, if\n  there be intelligence in it all? For could we suppose different\n  independent beings, acting with different designs, and by distinct\n  operations to have formed the several parts of the world, and the\n  several species of creatures which are in it, what reason can be\n  imagined why they should all be governed by, and all necessarily\n  depend upon, one law? The Maker of the sun, or, if a partial cause of\n  nature could be supposed to have an understanding large enough for it,\n  the Contriver of the whole visible heavens, must, one would think,\n  have finished his scheme independently on any other, without borrowing\n  aid from the work of another God. In like manner the Gods of the seas\n  and of the dry land, and the Creator of animals, would have completed\n  their several systems, each by itself, not depending on any other for\n  its order and preservation. Whereas, on the contrary, we see in fact\n  they are none of them independent, but all held together by the common\n  bond of gravity. The heavens and the earth continue in their\n  situations at a proper distance from each other by the force of this\n  law; the sea keeps within its channels; and animals live and move by\n  it. All which lead us to acknowledge one directing Counsel in the\n  whole frame. For what but an understanding which comprehends the whole\n  extent of nature, reaching from the utmost circuit of heaven to the\n  centre of the earth, could have fixed such a common law, so necessary\n  to all its parts, that without it not one of them could subsist, nor\n  the harmony of the whole be preserved? The strict cohesion of the\n  parts which constitute particular bodies requires a peculiar cement,\n  different from that of the gravitating force; and as it can never be\n  explained by the nature and properties of matter itself, and is\n  absolutely necessary to the forms and the uses of bodies in the\n  several far distant regions of the world, it must in like manner be\n  attributed to the contrivance of an understanding, and the agency of a\n  power, which takes in the whole corporeal system, not to a partial\n  cause, limited in its intelligence and operation.\n  \u201c_2dly_, The beautiful order and harmony of the universe, since it\n  must be acknowledged to be the work of understanding, has all the\n  appearance which is necessary to satisfy any fair inquirer, of its\n  being formed under the direction of one governing wisdom. Disconcerted\n  counsels can never produce harmony. If a plurality of intelligent\n  causes pursue each his separate design, disunion will continually\n  cleave to their works; but when we see an intire piece made up of many\n  parts, all corresponding to each other, and conspiring together so as\n  to answer one common end, we naturally conclude unity of design. As a\n  work of art is formed according to the preconceived idea of a\n  designing artificer, without which it has not its necessary intireness\n  and uniformity, the same may be observed in the works of nature. A\n  tree is as much one as a house; an animal as complete a system in it\n  self, (only much more curiously framed,) as a clock. If we carry our\n  views farther into nature, and take in whole regions of the universe,\n  with all their contents, the same characters of unity are still\n  visible. The earth itself is not a confused mass, or a medley of\n  incoherent and unrelated parts, but a well contrived fabric, fitted\n  and plainly designed for use. If we consider what a multitude of\n  living creatures are in it, of different kinds and degrees of\n  perfection, each sort having proper apartments assigned them, where\n  they dwell conveniently together, with suitable provision made for\n  them, and instincts directing them to the use of it; if we consider\n  the interests of the several kinds, not interfering in the main, but\n  rather serviceable to each other, furnished with necessary defences\n  against the inconveniences to which they are liable, either by the\n  preventing care of nature, which without any thought of their own has\n  provided for their safety, by the appointed advantages of their\n  situation, or by an implanted wisdom directing them to find out the\n  means of it; and if we consider the constant interposition of the same\n  liberal intelligent nature, appearing by the daily new productions\n  from the same fertile womb of the earth, whereby the returning wants\n  of animals are relieved with fresh supplies, all the species of living\n  things having the common benefit of the air, without which they could\n  not subsist, and the light of the sun, which cannot at once illuminate\n  the whole globe, being dispensed among them with so good \u0153conomy, that\n  they have every one what is sufficient to guide them in the exercise\n  of their proper functions, that they may fulfil the purposes of their\n  beings;\u2014when we consider all this, can we doubt but the earth is\n  disposed and governed by one intending Cause? If in a large house,\n  wherein are many mansions, and a vast variety of inhabitants, there\n  appears exact order, all from the highest to the lowest continually\n  attending their proper business, and all lodged and constantly\n  provided for suitably to their several conditions, we find ourselves\n  obliged to acknowledge one wise \u0153conomy. And if in a great city or\n  commonwealth there be a perfectly regular administration, so that not\n  only the whole society enjoys an undisturbed peace, but every member\n  has the station assigned him which he is best qualified to fill; the\n  unenvied chiefs constantly attend their more important cares, served\n  by the busy inferiors, who have all a suitable accommodation, and food\n  convenient for them, the very meanest ministering to the public\n  utility and protected by the public care; if, I say, in such a\n  community we must conclude there is a ruling Counsel, which if not\n  naturally, yet is politically one, and, unless united, could not\n  produce such harmony and order, much more have we reason to recognize\n  one governing Intelligence in the earth, in which there are so many\n  ranks of beings disposed of in the most convenient manner, having all\n  their several provinces appointed to them, and their several kinds and\n  degrees of enjoyment liberally provided for, without encroaching upon,\n  but rather being mutually useful to each other, according to a settled\n  and obvious subordination. What else can account for this but a\n  sovereign Wisdom, a common provident nature, presiding over, and\n  caring for the whole?\n  \u201cBut the earth, as great as it appears to us, complicated in its\n  frame, and having such a variety in its constitution, sustaining and\n  nourishing so many tribes of animals, yet is not an intire system by\n  itself, but has a relation to, and dependence on, other parts of the\n  universe, as well as the beings it contains have upon it. It owes its\n  stability to the common law of gravitation; it derives its light and\n  its heat from the sun, by which it is rendered fruitful and commodious\n  to its inhabitants. In short, a bond of union runs through the whole\n  circle of being, as far as human knowledge reaches; and we have reason\n  to make the same judgment concerning the parts of the world which we\n  do not know, and to conclude that they all together compose one great\n  whole, which naturally leads us to acknowledge one supreme uniting\n  Intelligence. To object against this the possibility of wild confusion\n  reigning in worlds unknown is to feign, and not to argue; and to\n  suppose disorder prevalent in an infinity of being which we are\n  unacquainted with, which is the _Atheistic_ hypothesis, is to take\n  away all rational foundation for regularity any where, though we see\n  it actually obtains every where, as far as our observation can reach.\n  But confining our speculations on this subject within the compass of\n  known existence, as we ought to do in a fair inquiry, the apparent\n  order of the effects is a strong evidence of unity in the Cause. For\n  if different independent causes produced, each, a part, why are there\n  no footsteps of this in the whole extent of nature? Why does not so\n  much as one piece appear, as the separate monument of its author\u2019s\n  power and wisdom? From divided counsels one would naturally expect\n  interfering schemes; but, on the contrary, we see an universal\n  harmony. Men indeed from a sense of their indigence, and by the\n  direction of instincts, which must be attributed to the designing\n  author of their constitution, join in societies; which, though\n  composed of many, are governed by one counsel: but that is only an\n  artificial union, a submission to the majority, or to those who have\n  the supreme power delegated to them, rather than an agreement in\n  design. But this cannot be the case of independent beings,\n  self-existent, and each complete in itself, without relation to any\n  other. And yet we see in nature a perfect harmony, from whence it is\n  plain there must be an agreement at least in counsel and design, if we\n  could suppose a plurality of independent causes. But whence comes this\n  agreement? To say by chance, is _atheistically_, and very\n  unreasonably, to attribute the most perfect of all effects, universal\n  order, to no cause at all. If we say by design, it must be one\n  comprehensive design forming the whole scheme of nature and\n  providence, which directly brings us to what we are looking for, one\n  sovereign commanding Intelligence in the universe, or one God. This\n  was the argument by which some of the ancient philosophers proved that\n  there is one only eternal and independent Principle, the Fountain of\n  being and the Author of all things. _Pythagoras_ called it a _Monad_;\n  and _Aristotle_ argued from the ph\u00e6nomena that all things are plainly\n  co-ordered, to one, the whole world conspiring into agreeing harmony:\n  Whereas, if there were many independent principles, the system of the\n  world must needs have been incoherent and inconspiring; like an\n  ill-agreeing _drama_, botched up of many impertinent _intersertions_.\n  And he concludes that things are well administered, which they could\n  not be under the government of many, alluding to the verse in _Homer_,\n  \u039f\u03c5\u03ba \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b7, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9.\n  \u201c_3dly_, The condition and order of inferior, derived, and evidently\n  dependent intelligent agents shew not only intelligence, but unity of\n  intelligence, in the Cause of them. Every man, a single active\n  conscious self, is the image of his Maker. There is in him one\n  undivided animating principle, which in its perceptions and operations\n  runs through the whole system of matter that it inhabits; it perceives\n  for all the most distant parts of the body; it cares for all, and\n  governs all, leading us, as a resemblance, to form an idea of the one\n  great quickening Spirit, which presides over the whole frame of\n  nature, the spring of motion and all operation in it, understanding\n  and active in all the parts of the universe, not as its soul indeed,\n  but as its Lord, by whose vital directing influence it is, though so\n  vast a bulk, and consisting of so many parts, united into one regular\n  fabric. Again, the general apparent likeness which there is among all\n  the individuals of the human kind is a strong evidence of their being\n  the children of one Father. I do not mean principally the similitude\n  of the exterior form, (though even that, in reason, should be\n  attributed to the direction of one intelligent Cause,) but that\n  whereby we are especially God\u2019s offspring, our intellectual\n  capacities, which as far as we can judge are very nearly alike. A\n  great difference there may be, no doubt there is, in the improvement\n  of them; but the powers themselves, and all the original modes of\n  perception, in the different individuals of mankind, seem to resemble\n  each other, as much as any real distinct things in nature. Now from a\n  multitude, or a constant series of similar effects which do not arise\n  from necessity, we infer unity of design in the Cause. So great a\n  number of rational beings as the whole human race, disposed of in the\n  same manner, endued with like faculties and affections, having many,\n  and those principal things in their condition, common, provided for\n  out of the same fund, and made for the same purposes, may reasonably\n  be supposed to belong to one family, to be derived from the same\n  origin, and still under the same paternal care.\n  \u201cAbove all, the moral capacity of mankind, which is a most important\n  part of their constitution, tending to the highest perfection of their\n  nature, and the principal bond of regular society among them, as it\n  proceeds from a wise intending Cause, shews unity of wisdom in the\n  Cause; and the government over the moral, as well as the natural,\n  world evidently appears to be a monarchy.\u201d\n  ABERNETHY\nFootnote 67:\n  _See Arist. Metaphys. Lib. I. Cap. 2. & Lib. XII. Cap. 7._\nFootnote 68:\n  _Vid. ejus. Mag. Moral. Lib. II. Cap. 15._\nFootnote 69:\n  _Vid. ejus. De Moribus, Lib. IX. Cap. 4. & De Mundo, Cap. 6._\nFootnote 70:\n  _Vid. Morn\u00e6i de Verit. Relig. Christ. cap. 3._\nFootnote 71:\n  _Epist. XIII. ad Dionys_.\nFootnote 72:\n  _See Cicero de Natura Deorum._\nFootnote 73:\n  _See Tertull. Apol. Lactant. de falsa Relig. Arnob. contra Gentes;\n  Minut. Fel. Herodian. Hist. Lib. IV. See also Mede\u2019s apostasy of the\n  latter times, chap. 3, 4._\nFootnote 74:\n  _Quest. cv._\nFootnote 75:\n  _See de Vries Exercitat. Rational._\n    QUEST. IX. _How many persons are there in the Godhead?_\n    ANSW. There be three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son,\n    and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, true, eternal God, the\n    same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished\n    by their personal properties.\n    QUEST. X. _What are the personal properties of the three Persons in\n    the Godhead?_\n    ANSW. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to\n    be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the\n    Father and the Son from all eternity.\n    QUEST. XI. _How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are\n    God equal with the Father?_\n    ANSW. The scriptures manifest, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are\n    God equal with the Father; ascribing unto them such names,\n    attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.\nIn these three answers is contained the doctrine of the ever blessed\nTrinity, which is a subject of pure revelation;[76] and, because it is\nso much contested in the age in which we live, we are obliged to be more\nlarge and particular, in laying down the reasons of our belief of it,\nand in our defence thereof, against those that deny it. It is a doctrine\nthat has been defended by some of the most judicious writers, both in\nour own and other nations; whereof some have proved that it was\nmaintained by the church in the purest ages thereof, which therefore\nrenders it less necessary for us to enter into that part of the\ncontroversy; but we shall principally insist on it as founded on the\nsacred writings: and whereas others have rendered some parts of this\ndoctrine more obscure, by confining themselves to the scholastic ways of\nspeaking, we shall endeavour to avoid them, that so it may be better\nunderstood by private Christians; and the method we shall pursue in\ntreating of it shall be,\nI. To premise some things which are necessary to be considered, with\nrelation to it in general.\nII. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the words\n_Trinity_, and _Persons in the Godhead_, and in what respect the divine\nPersons are said to be One.\nIII. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have distinct\npersonal properties, and therefore that we have sufficient reason to\ncall them Persons, in the Godhead, as they are in the first of these\nanswers; and under this head shall consider what is generally understood\nby what is contained in the second of them, which respects the eternal\ngeneration of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and what\ncautions we are to use, lest, by mistaking the sense thereof, we be led\ninto any error, derogatory to, or subversive of the doctrine of the\nTrinity; and also shall endeavour to explain those scriptures, which are\ngenerally brought to establish that doctrine.\nIV. We shall endeavour to prove that these three Persons, especially the\nSon and Holy Ghost, are truly divine, or that they have all the\nperfections of the divine nature; and therefore that they are, in the\nmost proper sense, the one only living and true God.[77]\nI. We shall premise some things which are necessary to be considered,\nwith relation to the doctrine of the Trinity in general. And,\n1. It is a doctrine of the highest importance, and necessary to be\nbelieved by all Christians, who pay a just deference to revealed\nreligion. It may probably be reckoned an error in method to speak of the\nimportance of this doctrine, before we attempt to prove the truth\nthereof: however, it is not altogether unjustifiable, since we address\nourselves to those who believe it, hoping thereby to offer some farther\nconviction, or establishment, to their faith therein, as well as to\nothers who deny it; we may therefore be allowed to consider it as an\nimportant doctrine, that we may be excited to a more diligent enquiry\ninto the force of some of those arguments, which are generally brought\nin its defence.\nNow to determine a doctrine to be of the highest importance, we must\nconsider the belief thereof as connected with salvation, or subservient\nto that true religion, which is ordained by God, as a necessary means\nleading to it, without which we have no warrant to expect it: and such\ndoctrines are sometimes called fundamental, as being the basis and\nfoundation on which our hope is built. Here, I think, it will be\nallowed, by all whose sentiments do not savour of scepticism, that there\nare some doctrines of religion necessary to be believed to salvation.\nThere are some, it is true, who plead for the innocency of error, or, at\nleast, of those who are sincere enquirers after truth, who, in the end,\nwill appear to have been very remote from it, as though their endeavours\nwould entitle them to salvation, without the knowledge of those things,\nwhich others conclude to be necessarily subservient to it. All that we\nshall say concerning this is, that it is not the sincerity of our\nenquiries after important truths, but the success thereof, that is to be\nregarded in this, as well as other means, that are to be used to obtain\nso valuable an end. We may as well suppose that our sincere endeavours\nto obtain many of those graces that accompany salvation, such as faith,\nlove to God, and evangelical obedience, will supply, or atone for, the\nwant of them; as assert that our unsuccessful enquiries after the great\ndoctrines of religion will excuse our ignorance thereof; especially when\nwe consider, that blindness of mind, as well as hardness of heart; is\nincluded among those spiritual judgments, which are the consequence of\nour fallen state; and also that God displays the sovereignty of his\ngrace as much, in leading the soul into all necessary truth, as he does\nin any other things that relate to salvation. However, it is not our\nbusiness to determine the final state of men; or how far they make\nadvances to, or recede from, the knowledge of such important doctrines;\nor what will be the issue thereof; but rather to desire of God, that so\nfar as we, or others, are destitute of this privilege, he would grant us\nand them _repentance, to the acknowledgment of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii.\n25. And here we cannot but observe, that the question relating to\nimportant or fundamental articles of faith is not whether any doctrines\nmay be so called? but what those doctrines are: in determining of which,\nmany make provision for their own particular scheme of doctrine: and\naccordingly some, as the Papists in particular, assert several doctrines\nto be fundamental, without scripture warrant; yea, such as are directly\ncontrary thereunto; and others allow no doctrine to be so, but what\nwill, if adhered to, open a door of salvation to all mankind, and these\nset aside the necessity of divine revelation; and others, who desire not\nto run such lengths, will allow, that some scripture-doctrines are\nnecessary to be believed to salvation: but these are only such as may\ninclude those who are in their way of thinking; thus they who deny the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, are obliged in conformity to their own\nsentiments, to deny also that it is an important article of faith. These\nmay justly demand a convincing proof of the truth thereof, before they\nbelieve it to be of any importance, especially to themselves; and\ntherefore it would be a vain thing to tell them, that the belief thereof\nis connected with salvation; or that it is necessary, inasmuch as divine\nworship is so, which supposes the belief of the divinity of the Persons,\nwhom we adore; without first proving that the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, are divine Persons: and it would be as little to their\nedification to say that there are several doctrines necessary to be\nbelieved; such as that of Christ\u2019s satisfaction, and our justification,\ndepending thereon, and that of regeneration and sanctification, as the\neffects of the divine power of the Holy Ghost; all which suppose the\nbelief of their being divine Persons; unless we first give some\nconvincing proof of the truth of these doctrines, which are supposed to\nstand or fall with it; for it would be immediately replied, that one is\nfalse, and consequently far from being of any importance; therefore so\nis the other.\nBut inasmuch as we reserve the consideration of these things to their\nproper place; we shall only observe at present, that there are some who\ndo not appear to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather the\nimportance of it; and express themselves with very great indifference\nabout it, and blame all attempts to defend it, as needless, or\nlitigious, as though it were only a contest about words: thus they say,\nthough we hold it ourselves, others who deny it, may have as much to say\nin defence of their own cause as we have, and therefore that these\ndisputes ought to be wholly laid aside. Now, with respect to these, what\nwe have hinted, concerning the importance of this doctrine, may not be\naltogether misapplied; therefore we have taken occasion to mention it in\nthis place, that we may not be supposed to plead a cause which is not\nworth defending, as though the doctrine of the Trinity were no other\nthan an empty speculation; but as that which we are bound to esteem a\ndoctrine of the highest importance.\n2. We are next to consider what degree of knowledge of this doctrine is\nnecessary to, or connected with salvation. It cannot be supposed that\nthis includes in it the knowledge of every thing that is commonly laid\ndown in those writings, wherein it is attempted to be explained; for\nwhen we speak of this, as a doctrine of the highest importance, we mean\nthe scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. This is what we are to assent to,\nand to use our utmost endeavours to defend; but as for those\nexplications, which are merely human, they are not to be reckoned of\nequal importance; especially every private Christian is not to be\ncensured as a stranger to this doctrine, who cannot define personality\nin a scholastic way, or understand all the terms used in explaining it,\nor several modes of speaking, which some writers tenaciously adhere to;\nsuch as hypostasis, subsistence, consubstantiality, the modal\ndistinction of the Persons in the Godhead, filiation, or the\ncommunication of the divine essence by generation, or its being farther\ncommunicated by procession; some of which rather embarrass the minds of\nmen, than add any farther light to the sense of those scriptures, in\nwhich this doctrine is contained.\nBut when we consider how far the doctrine of the Trinity is to be known,\nand believed to salvation, we must not exclude the weakest Christian\nfrom a possibility of knowing it, by supposing it necessary for him to\nunderstand some hard words, which he doth not find in his Bible; and if\nhe meets with them elsewhere, will not be much edified by them. That\nknowledge, therefore, which is necessary to salvation, is more plain and\neasy, and to be found in every part of scripture: accordingly, every\nChristian knows, that the word _God_ signifies a being that has all\nthose divine perfections, which are so frequently attributed to him\ntherein, and are displayed and glorified in all his works of common\nprovidence and grace; and that this God is one. To which we may also\nadd, that he learns from his Bible, and therefore firmly believes that\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are possessed of these divine\nperfections, and consequently that they are this one God; and that they\nare distinguished, as we often find in scripture, by such characters and\nproperties, which we generally call personal, and so apply the word\n_Person_ to each of them, and conclude that the divine glory attributed\nto them is the same, though their personal properties, or characters,\nare distinct; which is the substance of what is contained in the first\nof those answers, under our present consideration. And he that believes\nthis, need not entertain any doubt as though he wanted some ideas of\nthis sacred doctrine, which are necessary to salvation; since such a\ndegree of knowledge, attended with a firm belief thereof, is sufficient\nto warrant all those acts of divine worship, which we are obliged to\nascribe to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and is consistent with all those\nother doctrines, which are founded on, or suppose the belief thereof, as\nwas before observed under our last head.\n3. We shall consider this doctrine as a great mystery, such as cannot be\ncomprehended by a finite mind; and therefore we shall first enquire what\nwe are to understand by the word _Mystery_, as it is used in scripture.\nThis word sometimes denotes a doctrine\u2019s having been kept secret, or, at\nleast, revealed more obscurely, upon which account it was not so clearly\nknown before; in which sense, the gospel is called, _The mystery which\nhath been hid from ages, and from generations, but now is made manifest\nto his saints_ Col. i. 26. It was covered with the ceremonial law, as\nwith a vail, which, many of the people, through the blindness of their\nminds, did not so fully understand; and accordingly, when persons are\nled into a farther degree of knowledge thereof, it is said, as our\nSaviour tells his disciples, that to them it is given _to know the\nmysteries of the kingdom of heaven_, Matt. xiii. 11. or when something\nis revealed in scripture, which the world was not in the least apprised\nof before; this is, by way of eminence, called a mystery, as the apostle\nsays, speaking concerning the change that shall be passed on those that\nshall be found alive at the last day; _Behold, I shew you a mystery; we\nshall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the\ntwinkling of an eye_, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.\nBut to this we may add, that there is also another idea affixed to the\nword _Mystery_, namely, that though it be revealed, yet it cannot be\nfully comprehended; and it is in this sense that we call the doctrine of\nthe Trinity a _Mystery_. Both these ideas seem to be contained in the\nword, in some scriptures, particularly where the apostle says, _Unto me,\nwho am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I\nshould preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and\nto make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which, from\nthe beginning of the world, hath been hid in God_, Eph. iii. 8, 9. where\nhe speaks of the gospel, not only as hid, but unsearchable; and he\nspeaks of _the mystery of God, even the Father, and of Christ, in whom\nare hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge_, Col. ii. 3. where\nthe word mystery seems to contain both these ideas; for few will deny,\nthat the glory of the Father, who is here spoken of, as well as Christ,\nis incomprehensible by a finite mind; and if it be said, that the gospel\nis hereby intended, and so that the words ought to be rendered, _in\nwhich_ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; this must be\nsupposed to be incomprehensible, as well as formerly less known,\notherwise this character of it would be too great.\nBut suppose the word _Mystery_ were always used to signify a doctrine,\nnot before revealed, without the other idea of its being\nincomprehensible contained in it; this would not overthrow our argument\nin general, since we can prove it to be incomprehensible from other\narguments, which we shall endeavour to do.\nAnd that we may prepare our way for this, let it be considered, that\nthere are some finite things, which we cannot now comprehend, by reason\nof the imperfection of our present state, which are not incomprehensible\nin themselves. How little do we know of some things, which may be called\nmysteries in nature; such as the reason of the growth and variety of\ncolours and shapes of plants; the various instinct of brute creatures;\nyea, how little do we know comparatively of ourselves, the nature of our\nsouls, any otherwise, than as it is observed by their actions, and the\neffects they produce; the reason of their union with our bodies, or of\ntheir acting by them, as the inspired writer observes; so that it may\nwell be said, _Thou knowest not the way of the spirit, nor how the bones\ndo grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not\nthe works of God, who maketh all things_, Eccles. xi. 5. and Elihu,\ntogether with some of the other wonderful works of nature, which he\nchallengeth Job to give an account of, speaks of this in particular.\n_Dost thou know how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth,\nby the south wind?_ Job xxxvii. 17, &c. which not only signifies that we\ncannot account for the winds producing heat or cold, as blowing from\nvarious quarters of heaven; but that we know not the reason of the vital\nheat, which is preserved for so many years, in the bodies of men, the\ninseparable concomitant and sign of life; or what gives the first motion\nto the blood and spirits, or fits the organized body to perform its\nvarious functions. These things cannot be comprehended by us.\nBut if we speak of that which is infinite, we must conclude it to be\nincomprehensible, not only because of the imperfection of our present\nstate, but because, as has been before observed, of the infinite\ndisproportion that there is between the object and our finite\ncapacities. In this respect we have before shewn that the perfections of\nthe divine nature cannot be comprehended, such as the immensity,\neternity, omnipresence, and simplicity of God; yet we are to believe\nthat he is thus infinitely perfect. And it seems equally reasonable to\nsuppose the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible; for the\nmutual relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, to each other, and their\ndistinct personality, are not the result of the divine will; these are\npersonal perfections, and therefore they are necessary, and their glory\ninfinite, as well as that of his essential perfections; and if we are\nbound to believe one to be incomprehensible, why should we not as well\nsuppose the other to be so? or if there are some things which the light\nof nature gives us some ideas of, concerning which we are\nnotwithstanding bound to confess that we know but little of them, for\nthe reason but now mentioned, why should it be thought strange, that\nthis doctrine, though the subject of pure revelation, should be equally\nincomprehensible? This consequence appears so evident, that some of\nthem, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible, do\nnot stick to deny the perfections of the divine nature to be so, when\nthey maintain that there is nothing which is the object of faith but\nwhat may be comprehended by us, which is to run such lengths in the\ndefence of their cause, as no one who hath the least degree of that\nhumility, which becomes a finite creature, should venture to do. But\nthey proceed yet farther, as the cause they defend seems to require it,\nand say, that every doctrine which we cannot comprehend is to be\nrejected by us, as though our understandings were to set bounds to the\ntruth and credibility of all things.\nThis, I think, is the true state of the question about mysteries in\nChristianity: it is not whether the word _Mystery_ is never used in\nscripture to signify what is incomprehensible; for if that could be\nsufficiently proved, which I think hath not yet been done, we would\nassert the doctrine of the Trinity to be more than a mystery, namely, an\nincomprehensible doctrine; and the proof thereof seems absolutely\nnecessary, since the Antitrinitarians, and some of them with an air of\ninsult, conclude this to be our last resort, which we betake ourselves\nto when they have beaten us out of all our other strong holds; and\ntherefore we may suppose, that this would be opposed with the greatest\nwarmth, but I do not find that it has hitherto been overthrown: and\nindeed when they call it one of our most plausible pretences, as though\nwe laid the whole stress of the controversy upon it, it might be\nexpected that it should be attacked with stronger arguments than it\ngenerally is. Sometimes they bend their force principally against the\nsense of the word _Mystery_; and here they talk not only with an air of\ninsult, but profaneness, when they compare it with the abominable\nmysteries of the heathen, which were not to be divulged to any but those\nof them who were in the secret; and the doctrine of the Trinity, and\nthat of transubstantiation, are compared together, so that they are to\nbe reckoned equally mysterious, that is, according to their application\nof the word, absurd and nonsensical. And this way of arguing has so far\nprevailed among them, that no one must apply the word to any doctrines\nof religion without exposing himself to scorn and ridicule; but this\nwill do no service to their cause, nor prejudice to our doctrine, in the\nopinion of those who enquire into the truth thereof, with that\nseriousness and impartiality, that the importance of the doctrine calls\nThe question therefore in controversy is; whether any doctrines of\nreligion may be deemed incomprehensible, that is, such as we can have no\nadequate ideas of, because of the disproportion between them and our\nfinite minds? and whether the incommunicable perfections of God are not\nto be reckoned among these incomprehensible doctrines? if they are not,\nthen it will be reasonable to demand that every thing relating to them\nbe particularly accounted for, and reduced to the standard of a finite\ncapacity; and if this cannot be done, but some things must be allowed to\nbe incomprehensible in religion, then it will be farther enquired, Why\nshould the doctrine of the Trinity be rejected, because we cannot\naccount for every thing that relates to the personal glory of God, any\nmore than we can for those things that respect his essential glory? or\nmay not some things, that are matter of pure revelation, be supposed to\nexceed our capacities, and yet we be bound to believe them, as well as\nother things which appear to be true, and at the same time,\nincomprehensible, by the light of nature? But, that we may enter a\nlittle more particularly into this argument, we shall consider the most\nmaterial objections that are brought against it, and what may be replied\nto them.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected that we take up with the bare sound of\nwords, without any manner of ideas affixed to them. And,\n2. That it is unbecoming the divine wisdom and goodness to suppose that\nGod should give a revelation, and demand our belief thereof, as\nnecessary to salvation, when, at the same time, it is impossible for our\nunderstandings to yield an assent to it, since nothing that is\nunintelligible can be the object of faith.\n3. That practical religion is designed to be promoted in the world\nhereby, and therefore the will of man must follow the dictates of the\nunderstanding, and not blindly embrace, and be conversant about we know\nnot what, which is to act unbecoming our own character as intelligent\ncreatures.\n4. That the design of divine revelation is to improve our\nunderstandings, and render our ideas of things more clear, and not to\nentangle and perplex them.\n_Answ._ 1. As to our using words without ideas, there is no Christian,\nthat I know of, who thinks there is any religion in the sound of words,\nor that it is sufficient for us to take up with the word Trinity, or\nPersons in the Godhead, without determining, in some measure, what we\nunderstand thereby. We will therefore allow that faith supposes some\nideas of the object, namely, that we have some knowledge of what we\nbelieve it to be: now our knowledge of things admits of various degrees;\nsome of which we only know that they are what they are determined, or\nproved to be; if we proceed farther in our enquiries, and would know how\nevery thing is to be accounted for, that may justly be affirmed\nconcerning them, here our ideas are at a stand; yet this is not in the\nleast inconsistent with the belief of what we conclude them to be. For\nthe illustrating of which, let it be considered that we believe that\nGod\u2019s eternity is without succession, his immensity without extension;\nthis we know and believe, because to assert the contrary would be to\nascribe imperfection to him. In this respect, our faith extends as far\nas our ideas: but as for what exceeds them, we are bound to believe that\nthere is something in God, which exceeds the reach of a finite mind,\nthough we cannot comprehend, or fully describe it, as though it was not\ninfinite. And to apply this to the doctrine of the Trinity; it is one\nthing, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have the perfections of\nthe divine nature attributed to them in scripture, as well as distinct\npersonal characters and properties, and because the Godhead is but one,\nthat therefore these three are one, which we firmly believe, inasmuch as\nit is so clearly revealed in scripture; and another thing, to say, that\nwe can fully describe all the properties of their divine personality,\nwhich, though we cannot do, yet we believe that they subsist in an\nincomprehensible manner. And while we compare them with finite persons,\nas we do the perfections of God with those of the creature, we separate\nfrom the one, as well as the other, whatever savours of imperfection.\n2. As to the unintelligibleness of divine revelation, and its being\nunbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God to communicate those doctrines\nthat are so, it may be replied, that we must distinguish between the\nrendering a doctrine, which would be otherwise easy to be understood,\nunintelligible, by the perplexity or difficulty of the style in which it\nis delivered, and the imparting a doctrine which none can comprehend;\nthe former of these cannot be charged on any part of scripture, and it\nis only a revelation, which is liable to such a charge, that could be\nreckoned inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God. As to the\nlatter, the design of revelation is not to make us comprehend what is in\nitself incomprehensible: as, for instance, God did not design, when he\nmade known his perfections in his word, to give us such a perfect\ndiscovery of himself, that we might be said hereby to find him out unto\nperfection, or that we should know as much of his glory as is possible\nto be known, or as much as he knows of it himself; for that is to\nsuppose the understanding of man infinitely more perfect than it is.\nWhatever is received, is received in proportion to the measure of that\nwhich contains it; the whole ocean can communicate no more water than\nwhat will fill the vessel, that is to contain it. Thus the infinite\nperfections of God being such as cannot be contained in a finite mind,\nwe are not to suppose that our comprehending them was the design of\ndivine revelation; God, indeed, designed hereby that we should apprehend\nsome things of himself, namely, as much as should be subservient to the\ngreat ends of religion; but not so much as might be inconsistent with\nour humble confession, that _we are but of yesterday, and know,\ncomparatively, nothing_, Job viii. 9.\nAnd this is applicable, not only to the essential, but the personal,\nglory of God, _Who hath ascended into heaven, or descended? Who hath\ngathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment?\nWho hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and\nwhat is his Son\u2019s name, if thou canst tell?_ Prov. xxx. 4. Our Saviour,\nindeed, speaks of his having _ascended into heaven_, John iii. 13. as\nhaving a comprehensive knowledge of all divine truths; but this he\naffirms concerning himself as a divine person, exclusively of all\ncreatures.\nMoreover, when it is said, in this objection, that God makes the\ncomprehensive knowledge of these things a term of salvation, this we\nmust take leave to deny; and we need not add any more as to that head,\nsince we have already considered what degree of knowledge is necessary\nthereunto, namely, such as is subservient to religion, which teaches us\nto adore what we apprehend to be the object thereof, though we cannot\ncomprehend it.\nAs to that part of the objection, that which is unintelligible, is not\nthe object of faith, we must distinguish before we grant or deny it;\ntherefore, since the object of faith is some proposition laid down, it\nis one thing to say that a proposition cannot be assented to, when we\nhave no ideas of what is affirmed or denied in it; and another thing to\nsay that it is not believed, when we have ideas of several things\ncontained therein, of which some are affirmed, and others denied; as,\nfor instance, when we say God is an infinite Spirit, there is a positive\nidea contained in that proposition, or some things affirmed therein,\n_viz._ that he is able to put forth actions suitable to an intelligent\nbeing; and there is something denied concerning him, to wit, his being\ncorporeal; and in concluding him to be an infinite Spirit, we deny that\nthey are limits of his understanding; all this we may truly be said to\nunderstand and believe: but if we proceed farther, and enquire what it\nis to have such an understanding, or will? this is not a proposition,\nand consequently not the object of faith, as well as exceeds the reach\nof our understanding. So as to the doctrine of the Trinity, when we\naffirm that there is one God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have\nall the perfections of the Godhead; and that these perfections, and the\npersonality of each of them, are infinitely greater than what can be\nfound in the creature, this we yield our assent to; but if it be\nenquired how far does God herein exceed all the ideas which we have of\nfinite perfections, or personality, here our understandings are at a\nloss; but so far as this does not contain the form of a proposition, it\ncannot, according to our common acceptation of the word, be said to be\nthe object of faith.\n3. As to what concerns practical religion, the ideas we have of things\nsubservient to it are of two sorts; either such as engage our obedience,\nor excite our adoration and admiration: as to the former of these, we\nknow what we are commanded to do; what it is to act, as becomes those\nwho are subject to a divine person, though we cannot comprehend those\ninfinite perfections, which lay us under the highest obligation to obey\nhim: as to the latter, the incomprehensibleness of the divine\npersonality, or perfections, has a direct tendency to excite our\nadmiration, and the infiniteness thereof our adoration. And, since all\nreligion may be reduced to these two heads, the subject matter of divine\nrevelation is so far from being inconsistent with it, that it tends to\npromote it. Things commanded are not, as such, incomprehensible, as was\nbut now observed, and therefore not inconsistent with that obedience, or\nsubjection, which is contained in one branch thereof; and things\nincomprehensible do not contain the form of a command, but rather excite\nour admiration, and therefore they are not only consistent with, but\nadapted to promote the other branch thereof. Is it not an instance of\nreligion to adore and magnify God, when we behold the display of his\nperfections in his works? And is he less to be adored, or admired,\nbecause we cannot comprehend them? Or should we not rather look upon\nthem with a greater degree of astonishment, than if they did not exceed\nthe reach of a finite mind? Must a person be able to measure the water\nof the ocean, or number all the particles of matter that are contained\nin the world; or can our ideas be no ways directed to shew forth the\nCreator\u2019s praise? Or must we be able to account for every thing that is\na mystery in nature; or can we not improve it to promote some of the\nends of practical religion, that we are engaged to thereby? May we not\nsay, with wonder, _O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast\nthou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches?_ Psal. civ. 24. So\nwhen we behold the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as\ndisplayed in the work of redemption, or as contained in scripture, which\nis therein said to be an instance of his _manifold wisdom_, Eph. iii.\n10. should we not admire it the more, inasmuch as it is, as the apostle\ncalls it, unsearchable? Therefore practical religion, as founded on\ndivine revelation, is not, in all the branches thereof, inconsistent\nwith the incomprehensibleness of those things, which are, some in one\nrespect, and others in another, the objects thereof.\nAnd as to what is farther contained in this objection, concerning the\nwill\u2019s following the dictates of the understanding, and practical\nreligion\u2019s being seated therein, I own, that we must first know what we\nare to do in matters of religion, before we can act; thus we must first\nknow what it is to worship, love, and obey, the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nas also that these three divine persons are the object of worship, love,\nand obedience, and then the will follows the dictates of the\nunderstanding; but it is one thing to know these things, and another\nthing to be able to comprehend the divine, essential, or personal glory,\nwhich belongs to them, and is the foundation of these acts of religious\nworship.\n4. As to what is farther objected, concerning the design of divine\nrevelation\u2019s being to improve our understanding; or, as it is sometimes\nexpressed, that it is an improvement upon the light of nature; this\nseems to have a double aspect, or tendency, _viz._ to advance, or\ndepreciate, divine revelation.\n1. If we take it in the former view, we freely own,\n(1.) That it is a very great improvement upon the light of nature, and\nthat, either as we are led hereby, not only into the knowledge of many\nthings which could not be discovered by it, namely, the doctrine of the\nTrinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, and that infinite\nsatisfaction which was given by him to the justice of God, in order to\nour discharge from condemnation, as also that communion which believers\nhave with the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore, since the light of\nnature gives us no discovery of these doctrines, divine revelation, and\nparticularly the gospel, makes a very great addition to those ideas\nwhich we are led into by the light of nature. It is true, they both take\ntheir rise from God, yet one excels the other, as much as the light of\nthe sun does that of a star; and is, as the Psalmist says, when\ncomparing them together, _perfect, converting the soul_; and _sure,\nmaking wise the simple_, Psal. xix. 7.\n(2.) That when the same truths are discovered by the light of nature,\nand by divine revelation, the latter tends very much to improve our\nideas: thus when the light of nature leads us into the knowledge of the\nbeing and perfections of God, his wisdom, power, and goodness, as\nillustrated in the works of nature and providence, we have not so clear\nideas thereof, as we receive from the additional discoveries of them in\ndivine revelation; and in this respect one does not cloud or darken\nthose ideas which the other gives. But neither of these are designed by\nthose who bring this objection against the doctrine of the Trinity:\ntherefore we must suppose,\n2. That they intend hereby to depreciate divine revelation, and then the\nsense thereof is this; that though the light of nature leads mankind\ninto such a degree of the knowledge of divine truths, as is sufficient,\nin its kind to salvation; so that they, who are destitute of divine\nrevelation, may thereby understand the terms of acceptance with God, and\nthe way which, if duly improved, would lead to heaven; yet God was\npleased to give some farther discovery of the same things by his word,\nand, in this sense, the one is only an improvement upon the other, as it\nmakes the same truths, which were known, in some degree, without it more\nclear, and frees them from those corruptions, or false glosses, which\nthe perverse reasonings of men have set upon them; whereas we, by\ninsisting on inexplicable mysteries, which we pretend to be founded on\ndivine revelation, though, in reality, they are not contained in it,\ncloud and darken that light, and so make the way of salvation more\ndifficult, than it would otherwise be; and this certainly tends to\ndepreciate divine revelation, how plausible soever the words, at first\nview, may appear to be; for it supposes those doctrines but now\nmentioned, and many others of the like nature, not necessary to\nsalvation; so that this objection takes its first rise from the Deists,\nhowever it may be applied, by the Anti-trinitarians, in militating\nagainst the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, since it is principally\ndesigned to overthrow this doctrine, by supposing it to be\nunintelligible, and consequently, according to their method of\nreasoning, in no sense the object of faith, the only reply which need be\nmade to it is, that the discoveries of the glory of God, by the light of\nnature, are, in some respects, as incomprehensible as the doctrine of\nthe Trinity; which we are not, for that reason, obliged to disbelieve,\nor reject; and therefore there is no advantage gained against our\nargument, by supposing that the light of nature contains a discovery of\ntruths, plain, easy, and intelligible by all, in the full extent\nthereof, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is otherwise, and\nconsequently must not be contained in divine revelation, and, as such,\ncannot be defended by us.\n4. Another thing that may be premised, before we enter on the proof of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, is, that it is not contrary to reason,\nthough it be above it; neither are our reasoning powers, when directed\nby scripture-revelation, altogether useless, in order to our attaining\nsuch a degree of the knowledge thereof, as is necessary, and ought to be\nendeavoured after. When a doctrine may be said to be above reason, has\nbeen already considered, as well as that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nso; and now we are obliged to obviate an objection, which is the most\npopular one of any that is brought against it, namely, that it is an\nabsurd and irrational doctrine; and that they who maintain it must first\nlay aside their reason, before they can be induced to believe it, for it\nis as much as to say that three are equal to one; which is contrary to\nthe common sense of all mankind, or else, that we maintain a plurality\nof gods, which is contrary to the very first principles of the light of\nnature. And here we are reflected on, as though we demanded that our\nantagonists should lay aside their reason, before we argue with them,\nand then it is easy to determine on which side the argument will turn;\ntherefore, to make way for what might be said in defence of the doctrine\nof the Trinity, we shall, under this head, consider,\n(1.) When a doctrine may be said to be contrary to reason.\n(2.) Shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so.\n(3.) What is the use of reason, in establishing it, or any other\ndoctrines, which are the subject of pure revelation.\n(1.) When we may conclude, that a doctrine is contrary to reason. This\nit may be said to be, when it is contrary to the methods of reasoning\nmade use of by particular persons, which are not always just, and\ntherefore it does not follow, from hence, that it is false or absurd,\nbecause our reasoning about it is so, but rather the contrary; so that\nwhen they, on the other side of the question, tell us, with an air of\nboasting, that if the doctrine we are maintaining could have been\naccounted for, how comes it to pass that so many men of sense and\nlearning, as are to be found among the Anti-trinitarians, have not been\nable to do it? But this is nothing to our present argument; therefore we\nsuppose that a doctrine is contrary to reason, when it contradicts some\nof the first principles, which the mind of man cannot but yield its\nassent to, as soon as ever it takes in the sense of the words which\ncontain them, without demanding any proof thereof; as that the whole is\ngreater than the part; and that a thing can be, and not be, at the same\ntime; or that two is more than one, &c. or when we can prove a thing to\nbe true to a demonstration, and yet suppose that a contradictory\nproposition, in which the words are taken in the same sense, may be\nequally true.[80]\n(2.) That the doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason. This\nappears, inasmuch as we do not say that the three Persons in the Godhead\nare one Person, or that the one divine Being is three divine Beings.\n_Object._ But it is objected, that it is contrary to reason, which\nestablishes and proves the unity of the Godhead, to say that the divine\nnature may be predicated of more than one, inasmuch as that infers a\nplurality of Gods, and every distinct Person must be concluded to be a\ndistinct God; therefore the Trinitarian doctrine is down-right\nTritheism, and consequently contrary to reason; and here those words of\nthe Athanasian Creed are produced, as an instance hereof, namely, that\nthe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet there\nare not three Gods, but one God; so, that the Father is Eternal, the Son\nis Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, yet there are not three\nEternals, but one Eternal; and the Father Almighty, the Son Almighty,\nand the Holy Ghost Almighty, yet are there not three Almighties, but one\nAlmighty. This they suppose, though without ground, to be a plain\ncontradiction.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, that when we say the Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost, are God, we do not say they are distinct Gods, for the\ndistinction between them respects their personality, not their deity:\nand when we assert that they are all Eternal, or Almighty, we do not\nsuppose that their duration, or power, are distinct; and the same may be\nsaid of all other divine perfections that are attributed to them, the\nperfections are the same in all of them, though the persons are\ndistinct. So that the charge of Tritheism lies in a narrow compass: they\nsay that there is one divine Being, so do we; and to this they add, that\nthis divine Being is a divine person, since existence and personality\nare the same; therefore, if there are more divine Persons, there must be\nmore Gods; this consequence they maintain, but we deny. But how do they\nprove it? The proof amounts to no more than this; that there is no\ninstance in finite things, when we speak of angels or men, to whom alone\npersonality can be applied, of any distinct persons, but at the same\ntime their beings are distinct; therefore it must be so with respect to\nthe divine persons. This we are bound to deny, since our ideas of\npersonality and existence are not the same; therefore, how inseparable\nsoever they may be in what respects creatures, we may have distinct\nideas of them, when we speak of the divine being and personality of the\nFather, Son, and Spirit. Here it will, doubtless, be demanded, that we\ndetermine wherein the difference consists; or, in particular, since\nevery distinct finite person is a distinct being, what there is in the\ndivine personality, that should exclude the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nfrom being distinct beings, because distinct persons; so that when we\nconclude that there is a small or faint resemblance between divine and\nhuman personality, we must be able to comprehend, and fully to describe,\nthat infinite disproportion that is between them, or else must be\ncharged with using words without any manner of ideas annexed to them,\nand so our cause must fall to the ground. If, indeed, the divine\npersonality were finite, like that of the creature, then it might be\nrequired that a finite mind should account for it: but since it is not\nso, but incomprehensible, we are bound to believe what we cannot\ncomprehend.\nBut have we no ideas at all of the distinct personality of the Father,\nSon, and Spirit? To this we may answer; that we have finite ideas\nthereof, and more than these we have not of any of the divine\nperfections. We are taught, by scripture, to say that they are distinct\npersons; and we know what those personal characters, or properties, from\nwhence our ideas take their rise, signify, when applied to men; but, at\nthe same time, abstract, in our thoughts, every thing from them that\nargues imperfection; or, in short, our conceptions hereof proceed in the\nsame way, as when we think of any of the perfections of the divine\nnature: these, as well as the divine personality, are equally\nincomprehensible; yet, while we say they are infinitely more than can be\nin any creature, we, notwithstanding, retain such ideas of them, as tend\nto answer those ends of religion, which suppose that we apprehend\nsomething of them that is conducive hereunto. We are now to consider,\n(3.) The use of reason in proving or defending the doctrine of the\nTrinity, or any other doctrines of pure revelation. They could not,\nindeed, have been at first discovered by reason, nor can every thing\nthat is revealed be comprehended by it, yet our reason is not to be laid\naside as useless; therefore some call it a servant to faith. Thus\nrevelation discovers what doctrines we are to believe, demands our\nassent to them, and reason offers a convincing proof that we are under\nan indispensable obligation to give it: it proves the doctrine to be\ntrue, and such as is worthy of God, as it is derived from him, the\nfountain of truth and wisdom; and this office of reason, or the\nsubserviency thereof to our faith, is certainly necessary, since what is\nfalse cannot be the object of faith in general; and nothing unworthy of\nGod can be the matter of divine revelation, nor consequently the object\nof a divine faith.\nNow, in order to reason\u2019s judging of the truth of things, it first\nconsiders the sense of words; what ideas are designed to be conveyed\nthereby, and whether they are contrary to the common sense of mankind;\nand if it appears that they are not, it proceeds to enquire into those\nevidences that may give conviction, and enforce our belief thereof; and\nleads us into the nature of the truths revealed, receives them as\ninstamped with the authority of God, and considers them as agreeable to\nhis perfections, and farther leads us into his design of revealing them,\nand what we are to infer from them; and in doing this it connects things\ntogether, observes the dependence of one thing on another, what is the\nimportance thereof, and how they are to be improved to answer the best\npurposes.\nNow this may be applied particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity; for\nit contains in it no absurdity contradictory to reason, as has been\nalready proved; and the evidences on which our faith herein is founded\nwill be farther considered, when we prove it to be a scripture doctrine,\nby the express words thereof, agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost,\nor by just consequences deduced from it; by which it will farther\nappear, that it is necessary for us to use our reason in stating those\ndoctrines, which are neither founded on, nor can be comprehended by it.\n5. We are now to consider from whence the doctrine of the Trinity is to\nbe deduced, or where we are to search for that knowledge thereof, which\nwe are to acquiesce in. And here it must be observed, that it cannot be\nlearnt from the light of nature, for then we should certainly be able to\nbehold some traces or footsteps thereof in the works of creation and\nprovidence, that so this might be understood thereby, as well as the\npower, wisdom, and goodness of God, as the cause is known by its effect;\nbut we should never have known that God made all things by his essential\nword, _without whom nothing was made, that was made_, as the evangelist\nspeaks, John i. 3. had we not received this doctrine from divine\nrevelation: likewise, we should never have known that the Spirit, as a\ndistinct Person from the Father, created all things, and performed\nseveral other works, by which his personal glory is demonstrated, had we\nnot received the account which we have thereof from scripture. The light\nof nature could discover to us, indeed, that God, who is a Spirit, or\nincorporeal Being, has produced many effects worthy of himself; but we\ncould not have known hereby, that the word Spirit signifies a distinct\nperson, which we are beholden to divine revelation for.\nAnd as for the work of our redemption, in which, more than in all the\nother divine works, the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit,\nis demonstrated, we could have known as little of that by the light of\nnature, as we do the persons to whom it is attributed. But I am sensible\nthat it will be objected to this,\n_Object._ 1. That our first parents knew the doctrine of the Trinity as\nsoon as they were created, otherwise they could not have given that\ndistinct glory to the Persons in the Godhead that is due to them; and if\nwe are required, not only to worship the divine Being, but to worship\nthe Father, Son, and Spirit; and, if this worship is due from us, as\ncreatures, and not merely as fallen and redeemed; then it will follow\nfrom hence, that our first parents must know the doctrine of the\nTrinity: but this they did not know by divine revelation; therefore they\nknew it by the light of nature.\n_Answ._ We will allow every thing contained in this objection, excepting\nthat they did not know this by divine revelation; for certainly they had\nsome ideas conveyed this way at first, otherwise they could not have\nknown any thing that related to instituted worship, which, it is plain,\nthey did. And shall it be reckoned any absurdity to suppose that they\nreceived this doctrine of the Trinity by divine revelation, though we\nhave no particular account thereof, in that short history which Moses\ngives us of things relating to the state of innocency? It is therefore\nsufficient to our purpose, to suppose that it was agreeable to the\nwisdom and goodness of God to make known to them this important truth,\nand consequently that he did so, though not by the light of nature.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that the heathen knew something of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, as appears by their writings, though they\nwere unacquainted with scripture. To support this objection, they refer\nto several mystical expressions in the works of Plato, which seem to\nlook that way, when he speaks of three principles; one whereof he calls\ngoodness, or a being that is good; the second he calls his word, or\nreason; and the third a spirit, which diffuses its influence throughout\nthe whole system of beings, and calls him sometimes the soul of the\nworld; and in other places, he speaks of them as having a distinct\nsovereignty.[81] And he supposes the first of these to be the cause of\nthings most great and excellent; the second, the cause of things of an\ninferior nature; the third, of things yet more inferior; and some of his\nfollowers plainly call them three hypostases; and sometimes, Father,\nWord, and Spirit.\n_Answ._ The account which Plato and his followers seem to have given of\nthe doctrine of the Trinity does not appear to have been taken from the\nlight of nature, and therefore this makes nothing to the objection. We\nhave sufficient ground to conclude that Plato travelled into Egypt, with\na design to make improvements in knowledge; and some suppose, that there\nhe saw some translation of a part of the Bible into Greek,[82] more\nancient than that which is commonly attributed to the LXX, which was not\ncompiled till an hundred years after his time. But whether he did this,\nor no, is uncertain: it is true, he used several expressions, which are\ncontained in the books of Moses, and took the plan of his laws from\nthence; upon which account some have called him a second Moses, speaking\nGreek: but whether he received his notions more immediately from\nscripture, or by conversation with the Jews, of whom a great number\nsettled in Egypt, after Gedaliah\u2019s death, is not material; however, it\nis sufficiently evident, that he had not all of them, in a way of\nreasoning, from the light of nature: and as for his followers, such as\nPlotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and others, they lived in those ages, when\nChristianity prevailed in the world, though none of them pretended to be\nChristians; and one of them was the most inveterate enemy to\nChristianity that lived; yet these might well be supposed to make their\nmaster Plato speak several things, as to this mystery, which he never\nintended, were it only to persuade the Christians to believe that he was\nnot inferior to Moses, or any other recorded in scripture.\nThus having answered the objections, we shall take leave to consider how\nunwarily some divines, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity,\nhave not only asserted that Plato understood a great a deal of it, but\nhave made use of this, as an answer to the Anti-trinitarian objection\nbefore mentioned, that the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible;\nand they have taken a great deal of pleasure in accounting for this\ndoctrine in such a way as these philosophers have done:[83] and some of\nthem have taken notice of a few dark hints, which they have met with in\nsome of the poetical fictions, and from thence concluded that there was\nsomething of the Trinity known, even by the Heathen in general: thus\nwhen the word three is mentioned by them, and applied to some things,\nwhich they relate concerning their gods; or when they speak of gods\ndelighting in an unequal number, or in the number three. But this is too\ngross to be particularly mentioned, lest it should give us an unbecoming\nidea of this divine mystery, or of those who have better arguments than\nthese to defend it.\nThe reflection which I would make on this is, that what they call an\nadvantage to the doctrine has been certainly very detrimental to it;\nand, as a late learned divine observes, has tended only to pervert the\nsimplicity of the Christian faith with mixtures of philosophy and vain\ndeceit.[84] And I doubt not but the apostle had an eye to this, among\nother corruptions, which they who were attached to the Heathen\nphilosophy began to bring into their scheme of divinity, and would\nnotoriously do in after ages, which he purposely fences against, when he\nsays, _Beware, lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain\ndeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,\nand not after Christ_, Col. ii. 8. And this corruption so much\nprevailed, that it has given occasion to some of the Anti-trinitarians,\nto reproach the doctrine of the Trinity, as though it were a system of\nPlatonism. And it is their being too fond of using Plato\u2019s words, in\nexplaining the doctrine of the Trinity, that has given occasion to some\nof the fathers to be suspected, as though they were less favourable to\nthe scripture account thereof; by which means the adversaries have laid\nclaim to them as their own; and produced some unwary expressions out of\nJustin Martyr, and others, supposing them to be in the Arian scheme,\nwho, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote from it.[85]\nAnd this leads us to consider the method which some divines have taken,\nin using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, which, at\nbest, tend only to illustrate, and not to prove a doctrine: and we can\nhardly make use of this method of illustrating this doctrine, without\nconveying some ideas, which are unbecoming, if not subversive thereof;\nand while we pretend to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we\ndo no service to the truth.\nI shall here give a short specimen of this matter, that hereby we may\nsee how some have unwarily weakened the cause which they have been\nmaintaining. Some have taken a similitude from three of the divine\nperfections, _viz._ that there are three invisibles of God; power,\nwisdom, and goodness. Power creates, wisdom governs, and goodness\nconserves; and so they have gone on to explain this doctrine, till they\nhad almost given it into the hands of the Sabellians: and, indeed, they\nmight have instanced in more divine perfections than three, had it been\nto their purpose.\nAgain, others have explained this doctrine by some resemblance which\nthey apprehend to be of it in man; and so they speak of the soul as a\nprinciple of a threefold life, rational, sensitive, and vegetative.\nOthers speak of three causes concurring to produce the same effect; such\nas the efficient, constitutive and final cause. Others have taken their\nsimilitude from inanimate things; as the sun, in which there is light,\nheat, and motion, which are inseparably connected together, and tend to\nproduce the same effects.\nMoreover, others illustrate it by a similitude, taken from a fountain,\nin which there is the spring in the bowels of the earth, the water\nbubbling out of the earth, and the stream diffusing itself in a\nperpetual course, receiving all it communicates from the fountain. I am\nsorry there is occasion to caution any against this method of explaining\nthe doctrine of the Trinity. But these, and many other similitudes of\nthe like nature, we find in the writings of some, who consider not what\na handle they give to the common enemy. There are, indeed, in most of\nthem, three things, which are said, in different respects, to be one;\nbut we may observe, that all these similitudes, and others of the like\nnature, brought to illustrate this doctrine, lead us to think of the\nwhole divided into those parts, of which they consist, whereof they take\nnotice of the number three; or they speak of three properties of the\nsame thing; and if their wit and fancy saw it needful to speak of more\nthan three, the same method of illustrating would serve their purpose,\nas much as it does the end for which they bring it. Therefore I would\nconclude this head, by using the words of God to Job, _Who is this that\ndarkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?_ Job xxxviii. 2. Who are\nthese, that, by pretending to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity by\nsimilitudes, do that, which, though very foreign to their design, tends\nto pervert it?\n6. We shall now consider what general rules may be observed for our\nunderstanding those scriptures, on which our faith, with respect to the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, is founded; and since it is a doctrine of pure\nrevelation, as has been before observed, we must keep close to\nscripture, even to the words thereof, where they are express and\ndistinct, as to this matter; and to consequences deduced from it, so far\nas they are just, and self-evident; and, at the same time, while we are\nsensible that we cannot comprehend this mystery, we must take care that\nwe pretend not to be wise above what is revealed. Now there are some\nrules, which may be of use to us, in our enquiries into the sense of\nscripture concerning this doctrine; as,\n(1.) We must not suppose that the words of scripture, relating\nthereunto, are to be taken in a sense, which can be known by none but\ncriticks, as though it were designed only for them to understand; or\nthat the unlearned part of the world should be left in the dark, or led\nastray, as to several things contained in this important doctrine. Thus\nwe are not to suppose that we are at a loss as to the proper sense of\nthe word God; or could hardly know how to direct our faith and worship,\nfounded thereon, without the help of criticism; or, for want of being\nacquainted with some distinctions, concerning one that may be called God\nby nature, or the supreme God, and others who may be called gods by\noffice, or subordinate gods, we should be led to ascribe divine honour\nwhere it is not due; or else we must be able to distinguish also\nconcerning worship, and, instead of honouring the Son as we honour the\nFather, must give him an inferior kind of divine worship, short of what\nis due to the Father. This we have no scripture warrant for; neither are\nwe led by the scriptures to have any notion of a middle being between\nGod and the creature, or one that is not properly God, so as the Father\nis, and yet more than a creature, as though there were a medium between\nfinite and infinite; neither are we led, by scripture, to conceive of\nany being, that has an eternal duration, whose eternity is supposed to\nbe before time, and yet not the same with the eternal duration of the\nFather. These things we shall have occasion to mention in their proper\nplace, and therefore need make no farther use of them at present, but\nonly to observe, from hence, how intelligible the scripture would be in\nwhat relates to this doctrine, if the words thereof had not a plain and\ndeterminate sense; but we must make use of these methods of reasoning,\nif we would arrive to the meaning thereof.\n(2.) If some divine perfections are attributed in scripture to the Son\nand Spirit, all the perfections of the divine nature, may, by a just\nconsequence from thence, be proved to belong to them, by reason of the\nsimplicity and unity thereof: therefore, if we can prove, from\nscripture, that they have some perfections ascribed to them, which, I\nhope, it will not be a difficult matter to do, we are not to suppose\nthat our argument is defective, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nnot sufficiently maintained, if we cannot produce a scripture to prove\nevery perfection of the divine nature to be ascribed to them.\n(3.) When any thing is mentioned in scripture, concerning our Saviour,\nor the Holy Spirit, which argues an inferiority to the Father, this is\nto be understood consistently with other scriptures, which speak of\ntheir having the same divine nature; since scripture does not, in the\nleast, contradict itself; and how this may be done, will be farther\nconsidered under a following head.\n(4.) If we have sufficient arguments to convince us of the truth of this\ndoctrine, our faith ought not to be shaken, though we cannot fully\nunderstand the sense of some scriptures, which are brought to support\nthe contrary; not that we are to suppose that the scripture gives\ncountenance to two opposite doctrines: but a person may be fully\nsatisfied concerning the sense of those scriptures that contain the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, and yet not be supposed perfectly to understand\nthe meaning of every word or phrase used in scripture, or of some\nparticular texts, which are sometimes brought to support the contrary\ndoctrine; so that objections may be brought, which he is not able\nreadily to reply to. Shall he therefore deny the truth, because he\ncannot remove all the difficulties that seem to lie in the way of it?\nThat would be to part with it at too easy a rate, which, when he has\ndone, he will find greater difficulties attending the contrary scheme of\ndoctrine. Do they object, that we believe things contrary to reason,\nbecause we assert the incomprehensibleness of divine mysteries? or that\nwe are Tritheists, because we believe that there are three Persons in\nthe Godhead, and cannot exactly determine the difference between divine\nand human personality? We could, on the other hand, point at some\ndifficulties, that they cannot easily surmount. What shall we think of\nthe head of giving divine worship to our Saviour, when, at the same\ntime, they deny him to have those perfections, that denominate him God\nin the same sense as the Father is so called? The Socinians found it\nvery difficult, when the matter was disputed among themselves, to\nreconcile their practice with their sentiments, when they worshipped\nhim, whose Deity they denied. And the Arians will find that this\nobjection equally affects their scheme; and it will be no less difficult\nfor them to reconcile Christ\u2019s character, as Redeemer, Governor of the\nworld, Judge of quick and dead, with their low ideas of him, when\ndenying his proper Deity. These things we only mention occasionally at\npresent, that it may not be thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is\nexposed to greater difficulties than the contrary doctrine, to the end\nthat they who are not furnished with all those qualifications, which are\nnecessary for its defence, may not reckon those arguments, by which they\nhave been convinced of the truth thereof, less valid, because they are\nnot able, at present, to answer all the objections that may be brought\nagainst them.\n(5.) The weight of several arguments, taken from scripture, to prove\nthis doctrine, is to be considered, as well as the arguments themselves;\nwe do not pretend that every one of them is equally conclusive; there\nare some, which are oftentimes brought to support it, which we can lay\nno great stress upon, and therefore shall omit to mention them, among\nother arguments brought to that purpose, lest we should give occasion to\nthe adversary to insult, or conclude that we take any thing for an\nargument that has been brought as such to prove this doctrine. Therefore\nwe will not pretend to prove, or peremptorily to determine, that the\ndoctrine of the Trinity is contained in those words of the Psalmist,\nPsal. xxxiii. 6. _By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all\nthe Hosts of them by the breath of his mouth._ Nor will we pretend to\nprove this doctrine from the threefold repetition of the word Jehovah,\nin the form of benediction to be used by the high priest, Numb. vi. 24,\n25, 26. _The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to\nshine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his\ncountenance upon thee, and give thee peace._ Nor do we lay any stress on\nthe three-fold repetition of the word _Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of\nHosts_, Isa. vi. 3. though we shall shew, in its proper place, that\nthere are several things in this chapter, which prove this doctrine.\nHowever, if at any time, together with arguments that are more\nconclusive, we bring some that are less so; this use may be made of it,\nto shew how the scripture way of speaking is consistent therewith in\nthose places that do not so directly prove it. This we thought proper to\nmention, because it is a very common thing for those, who cannot answer\nthe most weighty arguments that are brought to support a doctrine, to\nbend their greatest force against those which have the least strength;\nand then to triumph, as though they had gained the victory, when they\nhave only done it in what respects that which is less material.\nII. We shall now consider in what sense we are to understand the words\n_Trinity_ and _Persons_ in the Godhead; and in what respect the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, are said to be one. It is true, the word _Trinity_\nis not to be found in scripture, but what we understand by it is plainly\ncontained therein; therefore we use the word, as agreeable thereunto:\nthus we read of the _three that bear record in heaven_, _viz._ _the\nFather, the Word, and the Holy Ghost_, and that _these three are one_, 1\nJohn v. 7. These three here mentioned are Persons, because they are\ndescribed by personal characters; and we shall take occasion elsewhere,\nwhen we prove the Deity of the Son and Spirit, to consider their being\none, that is, having the same divine nature, which we shall therefore\nwave at present, being only considering the sense of words commonly used\nby us in treating of this doctrine. All contending parties, however they\nhave explained the word _Trinity_, according to their different ways of\nthinking, have notwithstanding, in compliance with custom, used the\nword, and so far explained it, as that we might understand that they\nintend hereby three, who are, in some respect one, though some have not\ncared to use the word _Person_; or if they have, it is without the most\nknown and proper idea contained in it. Thus the Sabellians, whenever\nthey use the word, intend nothing by it, but three relations, which may\nbe attributed to the same Person; as when the same Person may be called\na father, a son, and a brother, in different respects; or as when he\nthat, at one time, sustains the person of a judge, may, at another time,\nsustain that of an advocate: this is what some call a Trinity of names;\nand they might as well have declined to use the words altogether, as to\nexplain them in this sense.\nAgain, the Arians use the word _Person_; but these have run into another\nextreme, inasmuch as that, whilst they avoid Sabellianism, they would\nlay themselves open to the charge of Tritheism, did they not deny the\nproper Deity of the Son and Spirit; for they suppose that every distinct\nPerson is a distinct being, agreeable to the sense of personality, when\napplied to men; but this, as has been before considered, is to be\nabstracted from the idea of personality, when applied to the Persons in\nthe Godhead. These also understand the oneness of these divine Persons,\nin a sense agreeable to their own scheme, and different from ours, and\ntherefore they speak of them as one in will, consent, or design, in\nwhich respect God and the creature may be said to be one: accordingly\nArius, and his adherents, in the council at Nice, refused to allow that\nthe divine persons were \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 consubstantial, and, with a great many\nevasions and subterfuges, attempted to conceal their sentiments: all\nthat they could be brought to own was, that the Son was \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, or\n\u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which amounts to no more than this, that whatever likeness\nthere may be, in some respects, yet he has not the same proper divine\nnature with the Father and Holy Ghost.\nWhich leads us to consider the sense in which it is generally used by\nthose who defend what we think to be the scripture-doctrine of the\nTrinity. There are some, it is true, both among ancient and modern\nwriters, that attempt to explain what they mean by the word _Person_,\nwho are so unhappy as to leave the sense thereof more dark than they\nfound it, when they have given a definition thereof, agreeable to what\nis used by metaphysicians and schoolmen, to this effect, that it is a\n_suppositum_, endowed with reason; or that it is one entire, individual,\nincommunicable, rational subsistence: and when they define Personality,\nsome tell us, that it is a positive mode of a being terminating and\ncompleating its substantial nature, and giving incommunicability to it,\nwhich words need to be explained more than the thing defined thereby.\nAnd here I cannot but take notice of that warm debate which there was\nbetween the Greek and Latin church about the words _Hypostasis_ and\n_Persona_; the Latin, concluding that the word _Hypostasis_ signified\nsubstance or essence, thought, that to assert that there were three\ndivine _Hypostases_, was to say that there were three Gods: On the other\nhand, the Greek church thought that the word _Person_ did not\nsufficiently guard against the Sabellian notion of the same individual\nbeing sustaining three relations; whereupon each part of the church was\nready to brand the other with heresy, till by a free and mutual\nconference, in a synod at Alexandria, A. D. 362. they made it appear,\nthat it was but a mere contention about the grammatical sense of a word;\nand then it was allowed, by men of temper on both sides, that either of\nthe two words might be indifferently used.[86] But what signifies the\nuse of them, when perplexed with the scholastic explications thereof?\nThis has given occasion to some, whose sentiments have been very remote\nas to the doctrine of the Trinity, to express themselves with some\ndislike; on the one hand, the Socinians, and some among the\nRemonstrants, who made very great advances toward their scheme, _viz._\nCurcell\u00e6us, Episcopius, and others,[87] have complained of clouding this\ndoctrine with hard words; and the complaint is not altogether\ngroundless, though it may be their design herein was to substitute such\nwords in the room of them, as would make the remedy worse than the\ndisease. On the other hand, some, who have embraced the doctrine of the\nTrinity, would not have liked its advocates the worse, had they chose to\nhave defended it in a more plain intelligible manner. Thus Calvin\nhimself wishes, that some words, which are so warmly opposed and\ndefended on each side, were altogether laid aside, and buried, provided\nthat such might be retained as express our faith in the doctrine of the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, being the one God, but distinguished by their\npersonal properties.[88] And this is that plain sense of the word, which\nI shall make use of, in what I shall farther attempt to lay down in the\ndefence thereof. And accordingly,\n1. We never call any thing a person that is not endowed with\nunderstanding and will; and therefore the most glorious inanimate\ncreatures, either in heaven or earth, whatever excellencies they have,\nor how useful soever they are to the world, they are not persons. Thus,\nwhen the sun is described as though it were a person, and is compared to\n_a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoicing as a strong man\nto run a race_, Psal. xix. 5. the words are never understood in any\nother but a metaphorical sense; so Behemoth and the Leviathan, mentioned\nin Job, being no other than brute creatures, are described with personal\ncharacters, in the same figurative way of speaking; therefore we suppose\na person to have an understanding and will.\n2. Whenever _I_, _thou_, or _he_, are applied to such a subject, they\nalways connote a person; _I_, a person speaking; _thou_, a person spoken\nto; and _he_, or _him_, a person spoken of; and when such modes of\nspeaking are sometimes applied to things that are destitute of reason,\nor to any moral virtues or principles of acting, which, from the nature\nof the thing, cannot be denominated persons, such expressions are very\neasily understood in a figurative sense, which may without any\ndifficulty be distinguished from the proper one, whereby those who are\nso described are denominated persons.\nThere are some characters which always denote persons, and some works\nperformed which are properly personal, which can be performed by none\nbut persons. Thus the character of a father, or a son; so a Creator, a\nRedeemer, a benefactor, a Mediator, an advocate, a surety, a judge, a\nlord, a law-giver, and many others of the like nature, are all of them\npersonal characters. So that whoever acts with design, and has such-like\ncharacters attributed to him, according to the proper acceptation of the\nword, him we call a person; and these characters we shall endeavour to\napply to the Persons in the Godhead, to prove their distinct\npersonality.\nBut since we are at present only considering the acceptation of words,\nwe shall briefly observe the difference between a divine and a human\nperson, when some personal properties, characters, or works, are\nattributed to each of them. And,\n(1.) Human persons are separated one from the other: thus, for instance,\nPeter, James, and John, were three persons, but they were separated one\nfrom the other; whereas the Persons in the Godhead, however\ndistinguished by their characters and properties, are never separated,\nas having the same divine essence or nature. As for human persons, one\nof them might have had a being and personality, had the other never\nexisted, because it exists by the will of God; but the divine persons\nhave a necessary existence and personality, as being, in all respects,\nindependent, so that as they could not but be God, they could not but be\ndivine Persons; the personality of the Son and Spirit are equally\nindependent with that of the Father, and as much independent as their\nbeing and divine perfections.\n(2.) Human persons have only the same kind of nature, which is generally\ncalled a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with\nanother person; so that though every man has a nature like that of the\nrest of mankind, yet the human nature, as attributed to one person, is\nnot the same individual human nature that is attributed to another, for\nthen the power and understanding, or the ideas that there are in one\nman, would be the same individual power and ideas, that are in another,\nwhich they are not. Whereas, when we speak of the Persons in the\nGodhead, as having the divine nature and perfections, we say that this\nnature is the same individual nature in all of them, though the persons\nare distinct, otherwise the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, could not be\nsaid to be truly and properly God, and to have the same understanding,\nwill, and other perfections of the divine nature.\n(3.) When we speak of human persons, we say, that as many persons as\nthere are, so many beings there are; every human person has its own\nproper being, distinct from all other persons or beings; but we do not\nsay so with respect to the divine Persons, for the divine Being is but\none, and therefore the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is\nthe very same; which is what we understand when we say, that though\nthere are three Persons in the Godhead, yet they are the same in\nsubstance, or the one only living and true God.\nThis leads us to consider in what respect the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, are said to be one; by which we mean, that the Son and Holy Ghost\nhave all the perfections of the divine nature, in the same sense as the\nFather has; to say less than this, is to assert no more than what our\nadversaries will allow; for they will not deny them perfections, nor\nwould they be thought to deny them to have divine perfections; yea, many\nof them will not stick to say, that they are truly and properly God; by\nwhich they mean, that whatever deity is attributed to them in scripture,\nby the appointment of the Father, that is, whatever divine authority\nthey have, this properly belongs to them: but, I think, they will none\nof them allow that they have the divine nature in the same sense in\nwhich the Father is said to have it. This is what we shall endeavour to\nprove; and more need not be said concerning them, in order to establish\nthat supreme worship which is due to them, as well as the Father; and,\nin order hereto, we shall consider the force of those arguments\ncontained in one of these answers, and, together with them, the sense of\nthat scripture, John x. 30. in which our Saviour says, _I and my Father\nare one_; as also that other scripture, 1 John v. 7. that _the Father,\nthe Word, and the Holy Ghost, who bear record in heaven, are one_; the\nconsideration whereof we shall reserve to a following head.\nAnd inasmuch as they are said to be equal in power and glory, we may\nobserve, that there are two expressions, which we often use, to set\nforth the deity of the Son and Spirit; sometimes we say they are God,\nequal with the Father; at other times, that they have the same essential\nperfections. To which, it may be, some will reply, that if they are\nequal, they cannot be the same; or, on the other hand, if they are the\nsame, they cannot be equal. For the understanding what we mean by\nsuch-like expressions, let it be observed, that when we consider them as\nhaving the divine essence, or any of the perfections thereof, we do not\nchuse to describe them as equal, but the same; we do not say that the\nwisdom, power, holiness, &c. of the Son and Spirit are equal to the same\nperfections, as ascribed to the Father: but when we speak of them as\ndistinct Persons, then we consider them as equal: the essential glory of\nthe Father, Son, and Spirit, is the same; but their personal glory is\nequal; and in this sense we would be understood, when we say the Son and\nHoly Ghost are each of them God, or divine Persons, equal with the\nFather.[89]\nIII. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are distinct\npersons in the Godhead, by applying what has been but now observed, by\nwhich any one may, by our common mode of speaking, be denominated a\nperson; and to this we shall add something concerning those personal\nproperties, mentioned in one of the answers we are explaining, with\nrespect to the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the\nHoly Ghost. And,\n1. To prove the personality of the Son. If this be reckoned needless,\ninasmuch as the Arians and Socinians never yet called it in question, we\nown that it is not necessary, when we dispute with them, to prove it:\nbut inasmuch as the Sabellians deny it, as a late writer[90] has done,\nwho plainly gives in to that scheme, and concludes the Son of God to be\nno other than the eternal reason of God; and so he renders that text,\nJohn i. 1. _In the beginning was the word_, that is, _reason, and by\nhim_, that is, _by it, were all things made_; and when it is objected,\nthat this mode of speaking signifies nothing more than a quality in God,\nthe only answer he gives to it, is, that it signifies no more a quality,\nthan if we should translate it, _The word_, as it is generally done: I\nsay, if persons, whether they pretend to be Sabellians or no, express\nthemselves in such a manner, it is certainly necessary for us to prove\nthe personality of the Son.\nIt appears, therefore, that the Son is a distinct Person from the\nFather,\n(1.) Inasmuch as we often read, in scripture, of two divine Persons\nspeaking to, or of, one another, the distinguishing personal characters,\n_I_, _thou_, and _he_, being applied to them: thus it is said, Psal. cx.\n1. _The Lord_, that is the Father, _said unto my Lord_, namely the Son,\n_sit thou at my right-hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool_:\nthis may be observed throughout the whole Psalm; thus, ver. 3. _Thy\npeople shall be willing_; and ver. 6. _He_, meaning the Son, _shall\njudge among the heathen_; and ver. 7. _He shall drink of the brook in\nthe way_; so Psal. xlv. 2. speaking of the Son, _Thou art fairer than\nthe children of men_; and ver. 6. _Thy throne, O God, is for ever and\never_. The places of scripture, which have such modes of speaking\nconcerning the Son, are almost innumerable; and therefore we proceed to\nconsider,\n(2.) Other personal characters given him; thus, when he is called the\nSon of God, whatever we are to understand by that relation or character,\nof which more under a following head, it certainly denotes him a Person\ndistinct from the Father; so does his being sent into the world by the\nFather, which expression is frequently used in the New Testament; now a\nquality, relation or property, cannot be said to be sent as the Son is.\nSo when he is described as a Redeemer, a Mediator, a Surety, a Creator;\nand when he is styled, by the prophet, _the everlasting Father_; and\noften described as a prophet, priest, or king; or _Lord of all_, or the\n_Prince of peace_, or the _Prince of the kings of the earth_; all these\ncharacters sufficiently prove his personality; and all those works which\nhe performs, as sustaining these relations or characters, are properly\npersonal; and some of them are never ascribed to any other person. Thus\nthe Father, or Holy Ghost, are never said to assume the human nature, or\nto become sureties for the salvation of men, or to execute mediatorial\noffices, subservient thereunto; from all which it evidently appears,\nthat the Son is a distinct Person: that he is a divine Person, will be\nproved under a following head: we shall therefore proceed,\n2. To prove the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. This is denied,\nnot only by the Sabellians, but by some of the Socinians; yea, even by\nSocinus himself; who describes the Holy Ghost as the power of God,\nintending hereby, as his mode of speaking seems to denote, the energy of\nthe divine nature, or that whereby the Father, who is the only one, to\nwhom, according to him, the divine nature is attributed, produces those\neffects which require infinite power; so that they call the Spirit the\npower of God essentially considered; these set aside all those proofs,\nthat may be produced from scripture, to evince his personality, which\nare so plain and evident, that many of them have dissented from Socinus\nherein, and owned the Spirit to be a person. Accordingly some of them\nhave described him as the chief of created spirits, or the head of the\nangels, because they deny his divine nature. Thus a bold writer\nexpresses himself; \u201cI believe that there is one principal minister of\nGod and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven, to sanctify the church,\nwho, by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God, is singled out of\nthe number of other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the\nholy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of\nGod and Christ is the Holy Spirit.[91]\u201d\nNow we shall prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, by considering\nsome personal characters ascribed to, and works performed by him. Thus\nthere are several such characters, by which he is denominated a person;\nparticularly when he is called a Sanctifier, a Reprover, a Witness, a\nComforter, it evidently appears from hence that he is a person: thus\nwhen it is said, in John xvi. 8. that _when he_, to wit, _the Comforter\nis come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and\njudgment_; and also, that _he will guide you into all truth; he shall\nshew you things to come_, &c. And in John xiv. 16, 17. there is the\ndistinct personality of the three persons, and particularly of the Holy\nGhost, asserted; _I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another\nComforter, even the Spirit of truth_; and also in ver. 26. _The\nComforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my\nname, he shall teach you all things._[92]\nIt is certain, that to be said to teach, or to instruct, is a personal\ncharacter; so it is to speak, or to dictate, to another what he should\nsay; but this he is said to do, as our Saviour says to his disciples,\n_Whatever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not\nyou that speak, but the Holy Ghost_, Mark xiii. 11.\nMoreover, to witness, or testify, is a personal character; especially\nwhen the testimony is not merely objective, as when Job calls his\n_wrinkles and his leanness a witness_ against him, Job xvi. 8. But when\nthere is a formal testimony given, he that gives it is, according to our\ncommon way of speaking, generally considered as a person; and thus the\nHoly Ghost is described, Acts v. 32. _We are his witnesses of these\nthings, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey\nhim._ Here the Holy Ghost\u2019s being a witness is as much a personal\ncharacter, as their being witnesses; and, Acts xx. 23. it is said, _The\nHoly Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions abide\nme_.\nAgain, dwelling is a personal character; no one ever supposes that any\nthing that is in a house dwells there, excepting persons; but the Holy\nGhost is said to dwell in believers, John xiv. 17. and alluding hereto,\nas also connoting his divine personality, it is said, 1 Cor. vi. 19.\n_Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost_; as a house is the\ndwelling-place of a person, so a temple is the dwelling-place of a\ndivine person.\nAgain, to send any one is a personal character; but this is attributed\nto the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 4. _The apostles being sent forth by the\nHoly Ghost, departed._\nAgain, acting with a sovereign will and pleasure is what belongs only to\na person; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 28. _It seemed\ngood to the Holy Ghost and to us._\nAgain, prohibiting, or forbidding, a person to act, is a personal\ncharacter; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xvi. 6. _The\napostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia._\nAgain, to constitute, or appoint, any one to execute an office is a\npersonal character; but this the Holy Ghost is said to do, Acts xx. 28.\nhe is said to have _made them overseers_. There are several other\npersonal works and characters, which might have been mentioned; but\nthese are, I humbly conceive, sufficient to prove the thing intended,\nthat the Holy Ghost is a person. I have no more than mentioned the\nscriptures, which contain these personal characters, because I shall\nhave occasion under a following head, to refer to some of them for the\nproof of his deity.[93]\n_Object._ It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the\nSabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down, to prove\nthe personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not Sufficient to answer\nthat end; inasmuch as they are oftentimes applied, in a metaphorical\nway, to those things which no one supposes to be persons, and therefore\nthat they may be taken in this sense, when applied to the Son and\nSpirit. To support this objection, they produce several instances out of\nthe book of Job, and some other parts of scripture, where things are\ndescribed with personal characters, which are not really persons. Thus\nJob xxxix. 11, 12. speaking concerning the unicorn, it is said; _Wilt\nthou trust him? Wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe\nhim, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?_ So\nconcerning the horse, it is said, as though he acted with design, as an\nintelligent creature, ver. 21. &c. _He goeth on to meet the armed men;\nhe mocketh at fear; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the\ntrumpet; he saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha!_ And concerning the eagle,\nver. 28. _She dwelleth in the rock._ And concerning the leviathan, chap.\nxli. 3. &c. _Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft\nwords unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? He esteemeth iron as\nstraw, and brass as rotten wood. Darts are counted as stubble; he\nlaugheth at the shaking of the spear._ And ver. 34. _He beholdeth all\nhigh things; he is a king over all the children of pride._ There are\nmany other personal characters given to brute creatures, which are taken\nin a metaphorical sense; and sometimes they are applied to inanimate\ncreatures. Thus Job xxxviii. 28, &c. _Hath the rain a father? and who\nhath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the\nhoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? Canst thou bind the sweet\ninfluences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring\nforth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his\nsons?_ By which nothing is intended but the signs in the Zodiack, or\nsome of the constellations, together with the particular stars of which\nthey consist; yet these are described, as though they were persons. So\nver. 35. _Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto\nthee, here we are?_ Again, the powers and faculties of the soul of man\nhave sometimes personal characters ascribed to them. Thus, conscience is\nsaid _to bear witness_, Rom. ix. 1. And some instances may be brought\nfrom scripture of a person\u2019s speaking to himself; yet this doth not\nconnote two persons in man, one speaking, and the other spoken to. It is\ntherefore inferred from hence, that we cannot prove the personality of\nthe Son and Holy Ghost from those personal characters ascribed to them,\nwhich may be taken in a metaphorical sense, as well as in the instances\nbut now mentioned.\n_Answ._ In answer to this objection, several things may be considered.\n1. Though the scripture often uses figurative, and particularly\nmetaphorical, ways of speaking, yet these may be easily distinguished\nfrom the like phrases used elsewhere, concerning which we have\nsufficient ground to conclude that they are to be taken in a proper\nsense; therefore, though it is true that there are personal characters\ngiven to things which are not persons, yet we are not to conclude from\nhence, that whenever the same modes of speaking are used, and applied to\nthose who are capable of performing personal actions, that therefore\nthese must be taken in a metaphorical sense; which is a known exception\nfrom the common idea contained in the same words.\n2. Most of those passages of scripture, where personal characters are\nattributed to things which are not persons, in a metaphorical sense, are\nin the poetical books thereof; or in some particular places, where there\nis a peculiar beautiful mode of speaking taken from thence; will it\ntherefore follow, that these personal characters are used in other parts\nof scripture, in which the Holy Ghost does not think fit to express\nhimself in such an elegancy of style? Now it is certain, that the\npersonal characters before mentioned are given to the Son and Holy\nGhost, throughout the whole scripture, without designing to use a lofty,\nfigurative, or uncommon way of speaking, as in the instances before\nmentioned.\n3. We must not suppose that the Holy Ghost uses any figurative ways of\nspeaking, so as to cast a veil on plain truths, or to endanger our being\nled hereby out of the way, as we should certainly be, if so many hundred\nplaces of scripture, in which these personal characters are applied to\nthe Son and Spirit, were to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without\nany intimation given in the context that they are so to be understood.\nAnd it will be certainly very difficult to find out any place in\nscripture, that may serve to direct us in our application of these\ncharacters, _viz._ when they are to be taken in a metaphorical sense,\nwhen applied to the Persons in the Godhead, and when not.\n4. Though we find many metaphors in scripture, yet we observe that the\nmost important truths are laid down in the plainest manner; so that the\ninjudicious and unlearned reader, who understands nothing of the art of\nrhetoric, or criticism, may be instructed thereby; at least they are not\nuniversally wrapt up in such figurative ways of speaking; and it would\nbe strange, if the account we have of the Personality of the Son and\nHoly Ghost, which is a doctrine of the highest importance, and such as\nrenders them distinct objects of worship, should be expressed in such a\nway, as that we should be at the greatest uncertainty whether they are\npersons or not.\n5. If these personal characters are not metaphorical, when applied to\nmen or angels, who are subjects capable of having personality attributed\nto them, why should they be reckoned metaphorical, when applied to the\nSon and Spirit, who, though they are not distinct beings, yet they have\na divine understanding and will, and therefore are not rendered\nincapable of having personality ascribed to them, as signified by these\ncharacters.\n6. The asserting that personal characters attributed to the Son and\nSpirit are always to be understood in a metaphorical sense, would give\nequal ground to conclude that they are to be so taken, when applied to\nthe Father; and accordingly, while we militate against the Personality\nof these, we should, at the same time, overthrow his Personality: and\nwhile we deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, we should, in\neffect, suppose that there are no Persons in the Godhead, any otherwise\nthan as the Godhead, which is common to be Father, Son, and Spirit, is\noften described as though it were a Person; and if ever _Personality_ is\nused or applied in a metaphorical sense, it must be when the Godhead is\ndescribed as though it were a Person.\n7. Though some personal characters are occasionally applied, in a\nmetaphorical sense, to things that are not persons, yet it is not usual\nfor them to be described as performing personal works, and these not\noccasionally hinted at, and joined with other metaphorical ways of\nspeaking, but a long series of action referred to, and variety of works\nperformed, which must certainly be taken in a most proper sense. Thus,\nwhen the Son and Spirit are set forth in scripture as performing those\nworks, which are expressive of their personal glory; the one in what\nrespects the purchase of redemption; and the other in the application\nthereof: and when each of them is described as standing in those\nrelations to men, which are founded in the performance of these works\nfor them; certainly this must be taken in a most proper sense; and we\nmust take heed, lest, while we attempt to prove that the Persons in the\nGodhead are to be taken in a figurative sense, we do not give occasion\nto any to think that the great benefits, which we receive from them, are\nto be understood in the same sense.\nWe shall now take notice of some other personal properties, whereby the\nSon and Spirit are distinguished from one another, and from the Father;\nparticularly, as they are expressed in one of the answers under our\npresent consideration; it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, or,\nas it is sometimes expressed, to be unbegotten; and to the Son, to be\nbegotten of the Father; and to the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the\nFather and the Son, from all eternity. This is certainly one of the most\ndifficult heads of divinity that can be insisted on; and some have made\nit more so, by their attempting to explain it. I have sometimes thought\nthat it would be the safest and most eligible way, to pass it over, as a\ndoctrine less necessary to be understood; but since there are several\nscripture-expressions, on which it is founded, which we ought to pay the\ngreatest deference to, much more than to those explications which are\nmerely human; and inasmuch as these properties plainly prove the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, to be distinct Persons, therefore we must humbly\nenquire into the meaning of those scriptures, wherein they are\ncontained; and so to speak something as to what is generally called the\neternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and\nI hope, through divine assistance, we shall advance no doctrine that is\neither subversive of our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we\nare endeavouring to maintain, derogatory to the essential or personal\nglory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or altogether contrary to the\nsense, in which many Christians, who are unacquainted with those modes\nof speaking, used by the fathers and schoolmen, understand those\nscriptures upon which this doctrine is founded.\nAnd here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehend to be the\ncommonly received sentiments of divines, who, in their writings, have\nstrenuously maintained, and judiciously defended, the doctrine of the\nTrinity, concerning the eternal generation of the Son, and the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost; which I shall endeavour to do with the\ngreatest deference to those who have treated of these subjects, as well\nas with the greatest impartiality; and shall take occasion to shew how\nfar the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet how\nlittle reason they have to insult us upon this head.\n(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained\nin this manner; the Father is called, by some, the fountain of the\nGodhead, an expression taken from some of the fathers, who defended the\nNicene faith: but others of late, have rather chose to call the Father\nthe fountain of the Trinity; and he is said to be of himself; or\nunbegotten; which they lay down as his distinct Personal character, from\nthat of the Son.\nOn the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally\ndescribed as being from the Father, and many chuse to express themselves\nabout this mystery in these terms; that the Father communicated the\ndivine essence to the Son, which is the most common mode of speaking,\nthough others think it safer to say, that he communicated the divine\nPersonality to him; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable.\nBut when I find others calling it the Father\u2019s giving the divine essence\nto the Son, their mode of speaking being founded, as they apprehend, on\nthat scripture, John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in himself so hath\nhe given to the Son to have life in himself_, I cannot but think it an\nunguarded expression, and foreign to the design of the Holy Ghost in\nthat scripture, as will be hereafter considered. The Arians are ready to\ninsult us upon such modes of speaking, and suppose that we conclude that\nthe Son receives his divine perfections, and therefore cannot be God\nequal with the Father: but, however, none of them, who use this\nexpression, suppose that the Son\u2019s Deity is founded on the arbitrary\nwill of the Father; for they all assert that the divine nature is\ncommunicated necessarily, and from all eternity, as the sun communicates\nits rays necessarily, which are of equal duration with it; so that while\nthey make use of a word, which, according to its most known acceptation,\nseems subversive of the truth, they happily, for truth\u2019s sake, explain\naway the proper sense thereof; so that all they can be blamed for\nherein, by the adversary, is impropriety of expression.\nAgain, others speak a little more exceptionally, when, explaining the\neternal generation of the Son, they say that the Father produced him:\nbut this idea they also happily explain away; and therefore say it is\nnot such a production, where the cause produces the effect, though some\nof the fathers, who have been in the Trinitarian scheme, have unwarily\ncalled the Father the cause of the Son; yet our modern divines seldom,\nor never, use that expression, or if they speak of an eternal\nproduction, they suppose it vastly differs from the production of all\ncreatures, or from that sense in which the Arians suppose the Son to be\nproduced by him; but certainly this expression had better be laid aside,\nlest it should be thought that we conclude the Son not equally\nnecessary, and, from all eternity, co-existent with the Father, which\nour divines, how unwarily soever in other respects they may express\nthemselves, are very far from denying.\n(2.) We shall now proceed to consider how some divines express\nthemselves, concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, which they\ngenerally do in this manner, as though the divine essence were\ncommunicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost; and so they\nsuppose that the Holy Ghost, at least as he is a divine Person, or has\nthe divine nature communicated to him, cannot be said to be, any more\nthan the Son, of himself, but from the Father and the Son, from whom he\nproceeds, or receives, as some express it, the divine nature, and others\nthe divine personality.\nOthers speak of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which they suppose to\nbe the same with his procession; but the world is much at a loss to\nunderstand what they mean by the word _Spiration_: it seems to be a mere\nmetaphorical expression, as when they call him the breath of the Father\nand the Son, and, if so, then it will not prove his proper personality:\nbut since we are pretty much in the dark about the reason of this mode\nof speaking, it would be much better to lay it aside, as many modern\nwriters have done.\nAs to the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost, there was, about\nthe eighth and ninth centuries, a very warm dispute between the Greek\nand Latin church; whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, or\nfrom the Father and the Son; and the controversy arose to such a height,\nthat they charged one another with heresy and schism, when neither side\nwell understood what they contended about; and if they had agreed to the\nhealing expedient, afterwards proposed, that they should mutually\nacknowledge that the Holy Ghost was from the Father by the Son, the\nmatter would have been left as much in the dark as it was before.\nSome speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as though he was\nproduced by the Father and the Son, as the Son, as was before observed,\nis said, in his eternal generation, to have been produced by the Father;\nyet they suppose that neither of them were so produced, as that they may\nbe called effects; and they term it the production of a person in, and\nnot out of, the divine essence, for that would be to give away the cause\nwe contend for: but which way soever we take it, it contains such an\nimpropriety of expression, as can hardly be defended; and it is much\nbetter to explain away the proper and grammatical sense of words, than\nto corrupt the truth; however, I would not copy after them in this mode\nof speaking.\nMoreover, some have pretended to determine the difference between the\neternal generation of the Son and the Spirit\u2019s procession; to which they\nhave, with modesty, premised, that it is not to be explained; but, as\nfar as they enter into this matter, they suppose that they differ in\nthis; that in the eternal generation of the Son, the Father communicated\nthe divine essence, or, at least, personality to him, which is his act\nalone, and herewith he communicated a property, or power, to him, to\ncommunicate the same divine essence to the Holy Ghost; whereas, when the\nHoly Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, there is no\npower therewith conveyed to him to communicate the divine essence to any\nother, as a fourth person in the Godhead. These things may be observed\nin the writings of those who treat of this subject; but it is to be\nfeared, they enter too far into the explication of this unsearchable\nmystery; and some will be ready to conclude that they attempt to be wise\nabove what is written. And,\nIf I may be allowed to give my sense of the communication of the divine\nessence, though it will probably be thought that I do not say enough\nconcerning it, yet I hope that, in other respects, none will conclude\nthat I advance any thing subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity, when\nI assert that the divine essence is communicated, not by the Father to\nthe Son and Holy Ghost, as imparting or conveying it to them; but take\nthe word _communicate_ in another sense, namely, that all the\nperfections of the divine nature are communicated, that is, equally\nattributed to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; this sense\nof the word is what some intend when they say the human nature is\ncommunicated to every individual, upon which account they are\ndenominated men; and, as the word is used in this sense, sometimes, by\nlogicians and schoolmen, so it seems to be taken in the same sense, in\nHeb. ii. 14. where the Greek words, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which we render, the children were partakers of flesh and\nblood, might be rendered, as in the vulgar Latin version,\n_Communicaverunt carni & sanguini_, _i. e._ they have the human nature\ncommunicated to, and predicated of, them, or they are truly and properly\nmen. And it is in this sense that we use the word, when we say that the\ndifferent properties of the divine and human nature are communicated to,\nthat is, predicated of, the Person of Christ, which divines generally\ncall a communication of properties. In this sense I would be understood,\nwhen I say that the divine perfections are communicated to, or\npredicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and this all who maintain\nthe doctrine of the Trinity will allow of. The other sense of\ncommunication, _viz._ imparting, conveying, or giving the divine\nessence, I shall be very ready to fall in with, when the apparent\ndifficulties, which, to me, seem to lie in the way thereof, some of\nwhich have been already considered, are removed.\nAs to what concerns the farther explication of this mystery, we may\nobserve, that the more nice some have been in their speculations about\nit, the more they have seemed bewildered: thus, when some have enquired\nwhether the eternal generation is one single act, or an act continued;\nor whether, when it is said, This day have I begotten thee, the meaning\nis, that the divine nature was communicated at once, or whether it is\nperpetually communicating.[97] And the difficulties that attend their\nasserting either the one or the other of them, which they, who enquire\ninto these matters, take notice of, I shall entirely pass over, as\napprehending that this doctrine receives no advantage by such\ndisquisitions.\nNeither do I think it tends much to our edification to enquire, as some\nhave done, whether, in the eternal generation, the Father is considered\nas acting, and the Son as him on whom the action terminates, as the\nsubject thereof; which, when they suppose it does, they farther enquire,\nwhether, in this respect, he is said to be passive, which they are not\nwilling to assert.\nAnd I cannot but take notice of another nicety of inquiry, _viz._\nwhether, in the eternal generation, the Son is considered as co-existent\nwith the Father, or as having the divine essence, and hereby only\nderiving his Sonship from him, from all eternity; or whether he derives\nboth his Sonship and his essence; the former of which is the most\ngenerally received opinion. But I am not desirous to enter into this\nenquiry, especially without first determining what we mean by Sonship.\nThere is indeed one thing that must be enquired into, and that is,\nwhatever be the explication given of the eternal generation of the Son,\nand procession of the Holy Ghost, whether they are each of them\nself-existent, or, as some call it, \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2; and it is generally\ndetermined, that the Son and Holy Ghost have the same self-existent\ndivine nature: but with respect to their manner of having it, some say\nthe Son has his divine nature from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from\nthe Father and Son; or that the Father only is self-existent, as some\nspeak; or, as most others say, that he is self-subsistent; and that this\nis his personal property, as he is distinguished from the Son and Holy\nGhost, whom they conclude not to be self-subsistent, but the one to\nsubsist from the Father, and the other from the Father and the Son. This\nis a generally received opinion; notwithstanding I must confess myself\nto be at a loss to account for it: so that the principal thing, in which\nI am obliged, till I receive farther conviction, to differ from many\nothers, is, whether the Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived\nPersonality: this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient proof;\nfor I cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the\nFather, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and\nunderived, as the divine essence.\nThus we have considered how some have embarrassed this doctrine, by\nbeing too nice in their enquiries about it: we shall proceed to consider\nhow others have done prejudice to it, by pretending to explain it; and\nwhen they make use of similitudes to that purpose, have rather\nprejudiced the enemies of this doctrine against it, than given any\nconviction to them. I shall only mention what I have found in some of\ntheir writings, whom, in other respects, I cannot but exceedingly value,\nas having deserved well of the church of God, in defending this truth\nwith good success, yet, when they take this method to explain this\ndoctrine, to say the best of it, they have done but little service to\nthe cause which they have maintained: thus we find them expressing\nthemselves to this purpose; as the soul of man sometimes reflects on\nitself, and considers its own nature, powers, and faculties, or when it\nis conversant about itself, as its object, this produces an idea, which\ncontains the moral image of itself, and is like as when he sees his face\nin a glass, and beholds the image of himself; this, say they,\nillustrates the eternal generation of the Son, as God beholding himself,\nor his divine perfections, begets an image of himself, or has an eternal\nidea of his own perfections in his mind, which is called his internal\nword, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external; by this they\nexpress the generation of the Son, for which reason he is called, in\nHeb. i. 3. _The brightness of the Father\u2019s glory, and the express image\nof his person_, as the wax expresses the character or mark of the seal\nthat is impressed on it.\nAgain, they farther add, that there is a mutual love between the Father\nand the Son, which brings forth a third Person, or subsistence in the\nGodhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost; so that as there is in the divine\nessence an infinite understanding reflecting on itself, whereby it\nbegets, a Son, as was before observed, and an infinite will, which leads\nhim to reflect on himself, with love and delight, as the chief good,\nwhereby he brings forth a third Person in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy\nGhost, accordingly they describe this divine Person as being the result\nof the mutual joy and delight that there is between the Father and the\nSon: these explications many are at a loss to understand; and we humbly\nconceive it would be much better to let them alone, and confess this\ndoctrine to be an inexplicable mystery, or else some other way may be\nfound out, which is less liable to these exceptions, while we explain\nthose scriptures, which speak of the generation of the Son, and the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost.\nThe scriptures generally brought in defence of this doctrine are such as\nthese.\n1. To prove the eternal generation of the Son, there are several\nscriptures referred to, particularly that in which the Father is\nrepresented as speaking to him, in Psal. ii. 7. _Thou art my Son; this\nday have I begotten thee_; that is, say they, I have, in my eternal,\nunsuccessive duration, communicated, or imparted, the divine essence,\nor, at least, personality, to thee.\nAnother scripture brought to this purpose is that in Prov. viii. 22, 23,\n25. _The Lord possessed me_, speaking of his eternal Word, or Son, _in\nthe beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from\neverlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was; before the\nmountains were settled; before the hills was I brought forth._ Where\nthey suppose that God\u2019s possessing him, which is certainly to be taken\nin a different sense from his being the possessor of all creatures, is\nto be understood of his being God\u2019s proper Son by nature; and his being\nsaid to be brought forth, they suppose, proves his eternal generation.\nAnother scripture brought to the same purpose is that in Micah v. 2.\nspeaking of the Son, it is said, _His goings forth have been of old,\nfrom everlasting_; by which they attempt to prove his being begotten in\nthe divine essence: but how that can be called his going forth, I do not\nwell understand.\nMoreover, that scripture before mentioned, in Heb. i. 3. _Who being the\nbrightness of his glory, and the express image of his person._ And\nanother parallel scripture, in Col. i. 15. _Who is the image of the\ninvisible God, the first-born of every creature_; where, by first-born,\nthey understand, that he was begotten before all worlds: the divine\nessence, or, at least, personality, being communicated to him from\neternity.\nAnother scripture, which we before referred to, brought to prove this\ndoctrine, is John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath\ngiven to the Son to have life in himself_; that is, say some, as the\nFather hath all divine perfections in himself originally, so the Son\nhath these perfections, by communication from him; which they suppose\nnot to be an arbitrary, but a necessary, donation.\nAgain, this is farther proved, from John i. 17. where he is said to be\n_the only begotten Son of the Father_. And ver. 18. _The only begotten\nSon, who is in the bosom of the Father._ From the former of which\nscriptures they prove the eternal generation of the Son; and from the\nlatter, his being begotten in the divine essence, which distinguishes it\nfrom all finite productions, which are out of himself.\nMoreover, there are many other scriptures that speak of our Saviour as\nthe Son of God; and particularly in Matth. xvi. 16. he is called, _The\nSon of the living God_; and in Rom. viii. 32. _his own Son_, \u1f31\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\nwhich some render, _his proper Son_, that is, not only his Son, who has\nthe same divine nature with himself, but as implying also the manner of\nits communication; and in Mat. iii. 17. he is called his _beloved Son_.\n2. We shall now consider the scriptures that are generally brought to\nprove the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the sense before explained.\nThus he is said, in John xv. 26. to be _sent by the Son from the\nFather_; and _to proceed from the Father_; where they suppose that this\nproceeding from the Father signifies the communication of the divine\nessence, or, at least, his personality; and his being sent by the Son,\nimplies, that this communication is from him, as well as the Father. So\nin Gal. iv. 6. it is said, _God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son_;\nand, in John xvi. 7. our Saviour says, _I will send him unto you_, and\nver. 14. _He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you_; these\nscriptures, if not brought directly to prove this doctrine, are,\nnotwithstanding, supposed sufficient to evince the truth thereof,\ninasmuch as the Son could not send him, if he had not proceeded from\nhim; nor could he have received that which he shews to his people, if he\nhad not, from all eternity, received his divine essence, or personality,\nfrom him.\nThere is another scripture, brought by some very valuable divines, to\nprove the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which is so termed, either as\nsupposed to be expressive of the manner of his having his personality as\na Spirit, or else it is taken from those words of scripture, brought to\nprove this Spiration, John xx. 22. in which our Saviour is said to have\nbreathed on his disciples, saying, _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_; which\nexternal sign, or symbol, used in the act of conferring him on them in\ntime, proves his procession from him from eternity; as a temporal\nprocession supposes an eternal one.\nThese are the scriptures which are generally brought to prove this\ndoctrine. But we shall take occasion to enquire, whether there may not\nbe another sense given thereof, which is less liable to exception, as\nwell as more intelligible. It is to be owned, that they contain some of\nthe deep things of God; and therefore it is no wonder, if they are\nreckoned among those scriptures that are hard to be understood: but so\nfar as I have any light, either from the context of the respective\nscriptures, or the analogy of faith, I cannot but conclude that these,\nand all others of the like nature, that are brought to prove the eternal\ngeneration, or Sonship of Christ, respect him as God-man, Mediator;[98]\nand those other scriptures, that speak of the procession of the Holy\nGhost, respect the subserviency of his acting as a divine Person to the\nMediator\u2019s glory, in applying the work of redemption.\nAnd here we shall consider these scriptures in particular; and then\nanswer some objections that may be brought against this sense thereof,\nwhereby, I hope, it will appear, that we assert nothing but what tends\nto the glory of the Son and Spirit, establisheth the doctrine of the\never-blessed Trinity, and agrees with the commonly received faith, so\nfar as it is founded on scripture, without being tenacious of those\nmodes of speaking, which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and\nare supported by the reputation of those who have used them; though it\nmay be, those scriptures will be otherwise understood by them, who\nregard explications that are merely human, no farther than they are\ndefensible.\nThe first scripture before mentioned, which was brought to prove the\neternal generation of the Son, was Psal. ii. 7. _Thou art my Son, this\nday have I begotten thee._ This cannot, I humbly conceive, respect the\ncommunication of the divine nature, or personality to the Son, as\nappears from the words immediately foregoing, in which it is said, _I\nwill declare the decree_, or what I had before decreed, or determined.\nFar be it from us to suppose that the divine nature, or personality, of\nthe Son was the result of an act of the divine will: and, indeed, the\nwhole Psalm plainly speaks of Christ as Mediator; as such he is said,\nver. 6. _To be set as God\u2019s king, on his holy hill of Sion_, and, as\nsuch, he is said to intercede with, or ask of God; and, as the result\nhereof, the Father is said, ver. 8. to give him _the heathen for his\ninheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession_;\nand all this is spoken of him, as a farther explication of those words,\n_Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_. And the apostle, in\nHeb. i. 5. refers to this scripture, when speaking of him as Mediator,\nand as _having, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than the\nangels_; which he has done, as he is constituted heir of all things: and\nhe subjoins that promise, _I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to\nme a Son_, that is, he shall perform that obedience that is due from him\nas a Son; and I will give unto him those rewards, which are due from a\nFather, who has committed this work to him, with a promise of the\nconferring those revenues of Mediatorial glory on him, that should ensue\non his fulfilling it. Moreover, this scripture is referred to, by the\napostle, in Acts xiii. 32, 33. when he says, _That the promise, which\nwas made to the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their\nchildren, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the\nsecond Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_. So that\nit is plain the Psalmist speaks of him as having finished his work of\nredemption, at which time he was raised from the dead; and then, in the\nfullest sense, he had the _heathen for his inheritance_. And, upon this\naccount, he is also called, in Rev. i. 5. _The first begotten of the\ndead_; and, in Col. i. 18. _The first-born from the dead._\nThe next scripture brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son,\nin Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. refers to Christ, as Mediator; when God is\nsaid to _possess him in the beginning of his way_, the meaning is, that\nin his eternal design oi grace relating to the redemption of man, the\nFather possessed, or laid claim to him as his Son, or servant, appointed\nin the human nature, to bring about that great work; and accordingly it\nfollows, _I was set up from everlasting_, that is, fore-ordained of God,\nto be the Mediator and head of his elect: and this agrees very well with\nwhat follows, ver. 30, 31. _I was daily his delight_, that is, God the\nFather was well pleased with him, when foreseeing from all eternity what\nhe would do in time, to secure the glory of his perfections in the\nredemption of man, as God publicly testified his well-pleasedness in\nhim, when he was actually engaged in this work. And it is farther added,\n_That he was always rejoicing before him; rejoicing in the habitable\npart of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men_; which\nsignifies the great pleasure Christ had, in his eternal fore-sight of\nwhat he would do for the sons of men, whom he is elsewhere said to _have\nloved with an everlasting love_.\nThe next scripture is in Micah v. 2. where speaking of the Son, it is\nsaid, _Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting_. For the\nunderstanding of which scripture, let us consider, that God\u2019s goings are\nsometimes taken in scripture for what he does, whereby he renders\nhimself the object of his people\u2019s astonishment and praise; these are\nhis visible goings. Thus, Psal. lxvi. 24. _They have seen thy goings, O\nGod, even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary_; that is,\nthey shall see the great things which thou wilt do for man, in the work\nof redemption: so in this scripture, the sense whereof we are\nconsidering, we read of Christ\u2019s goings forth, his invisible goings, as\nwe may call them, or his secret purposes, or designs of grace, relating\nto the redemption of his people: _His goings forth were from\neverlasting_; that is, he did, from eternity, design to save them; the\noutgoings of his heart were towards them, and, as the result hereof, he\ncame into the world according to this prediction, and was born in\nBethlehem, as in the foregoing words.\nThe next scripture is in Heb. i. 3. where he is said to be _the\nbrightness of his_, that is, his Father\u2019s _glory, and the express image\nof his person_. By the former expression, I humbly conceive, is meant,\nthat the glory of the divine perfections shines forth most illustriously\nin Christ, our great Mediator, as the apostle expresses it elsewhere, 2\nCor. iv. 6. _God hath shined in our hearts, to give the knowledge of his\nglory, in the face of Jesus Christ._ By the latter expression, in which\nChrist is called _the express image of his Person_, I humbly conceive,\nis meant, that though his divine nature be the same with the Father\u2019s,\nyet his Personality is distinct; and therefore it is not said to be the\nsame, but the _image of his Father\u2019s_; and it also proves his proper\ndivine Personality, as being, in all respects, like that of the Father,\nthough not the same.\nThe next scripture is in John v. 26. _As the Father hath life in\nhimself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself._ We cannot\nthink that the Father\u2019s having _given to the Son to have life in\nhimself_ implies his giving him the divine perfections, for the\npropriety of that mode of speaking cannot be defended consistently with\nhis proper underived Deity. But I humbly conceive that the meaning of it\nis this; that _as the Father hath life in himself_, that is, as he has\neternal life, or that fulness of grace and glory, which his people are\nto be made partakers of, at his own disposal, and has designed to give\nit, in his eternal purpose; so hath he given to the Son, as Mediator, to\nhave life in himself, that is, that, as such, he should be the treasury\nof all this grace, and that he should have life in himself to dispense\nto them. This is very agreeable to his character and office, as\nMediator, and with what follows, ver. 24. where it is said; _Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him\nthat sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into\ncondemnation, but is passed from death unto life_; and ver. 27. it is\nfarther added, that He, to wit, the Father, _hath given him authority to\nexecute judgment also, because he is the Son of man_; which plainly\ndenotes, that this life, which he has received from the Father, is that\neternal life, which he is impowered or commissioned to bestow on his\npeople, as Mediator; this he has in himself, and accordingly he is said,\nJohn i. 14. to be _full of grace and truth_; and Col. i. 19. _It pleased\nthe Father that in him should all fulness dwell._\nThe next thing to be considered, is the sense of those many scriptures,\nin which our Saviour is described as the _Son of God_, or the _Son of\nthe living God_, or _his only begotten Son_, or _his own_ or _proper\nSon_, as distinguished from all others, which, I humbly conceive, sets\nforth his glory, as Mediator, which we shall endeavour to prove. But, to\nprepare our way for the prosecution of this argument, as well as to\nprevent any misconstruction that might give prejudice thereunto, we\nshall take leave to premise,\n1. That when we read of the Son of God, as dependent on the Father,\ninferior and obedient to him; and yet, as being equal with him, and\nhaving the same divine nature, we cannot conceive of any character which\nanswers to all these ideas of sonship, unless that of a Mediator. If we\nconsider the properties of sonship among men, every one who stands in\nthis relation to a Father is dependent on him. In this respect, the\nfather is the cause of his son, and it is not like other productions,\nfor no effect can, properly speaking, be called a son, but that which\nhath the same kind of nature with his father; and the relation of\nsonship always connotes inferiority, and an obligation to yield\nobedience. I do not apply this, in every respect, to the Sonship of\nChrist, which no similitude, taken from mere creatures, can sufficiently\nillustrate; but his character, as Mediator, seems to answer to it, more\nthan any thing else that can be said of him, since he has, as such, the\nsame individual nature with the Father, and also is inferior to, and\ndependent on him. As a son, among men, is inferior to, and dependent on,\nhis father, and, as the prophet speaks, Mal. i. 6. _Honoureth his\nfather_; so whatever Christ is, as Mediator, he receives it from the\nFather, and, in all that he does, he _honoureth his Father_, as he says,\nJohn viii. 49. As the whole work of redemption is referred to the\nFather\u2019s glory, and the commission, by which he acts as Mediator, is\nreceived from the Father, so, as a Son, he refers all the glory thereof\nto him.\n2. This account of Christ\u2019s Sonship does not take away any argument, by\nwhich we prove his Deity; for when we consider him as Mediator, we\nalways suppose him to be both God and man, which is what we intend when\nwe speak of the Person of Christ in this respect; so that, as God, he is\nequal with the Father, and has an equal right to divine adoration. This\nbelongs to him as much, when considered as Mediator, as it can be\nsupposed to do, if we consider his Sonship in any other respect.\n3. It does not take away any argument to prove his distinct Personality\nfrom the Father and Holy Ghost, or, at least, if it sets aside that\nwhich is taken from the dependence of his Personality on the Father, as\nreceived from him by communication, it substitutes another in the room\nof it, inasmuch as to be a Mediator is, without doubt, a personal\ncharacter; and because neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, can be\nsaid to be Mediators, it implies, that his Personality is distinct from\ntheirs; likewise his acting as Mediator from the Father; and the Holy\nSpirit\u2019s securing the glory which arises to him from hence, and applying\nthe redemption purchased by him, is a farther proof of this distinction\nof the Persons in the Godhead.\n4. Since we consider the Mediator as both God and man, in one Person, we\ndo not suppose that this character respects either of his two natures,\nconsidered separately.\n(1.) Not his divine nature. It is true, that his having the same nature\nwith the Father might be reckoned, by some, a character of Sonship, as\nit contains one ingredient in the common idea that we have among men.\nThey, as sons, are said to have the same kind of nature with their\nfathers; so our Saviour\u2019s having the same individual nature with the\nFather might give occasion to some to denominate him, for that reason,\nhis Son; but though this may be the foundation of his being called God\u2019s\n_proper Son_, \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, yet this is not his distinguishing character\nas a Son: for it would follow from hence, that the Holy Ghost, who has\nthe same nature with the Father, would, for that reason, be called his\nSon, which is contrary to the scripture-account given of him, as\nproceeding from the Father and the Son.\n(2.) This character of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, does not respect\nhis human nature, considered separately from his divine, nor any of\nthose peculiar honours conferred upon it, beyond what any mere creatures\nare made partakers of.\nThis leads us to consider the difference between this notion of his\nSonship, and that which was generally assigned, as the reason of his\nbeing so called, by the Socinians; these generally speak of Christ, as\nbeing denominated the Son of God, because of the extraordinary and\nmiraculous conception, or formation, of his human nature in the womb of\nthe Virgin; and for this they refer to that scripture in Luke i.\n35.[101] _The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nhighest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which\nshall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God_. The sense, in\nwhich they understand this text, is, that Christ is called the Son of\nGod, because of this extraordinary event: But we cannot think that a\nmiraculous production is a sufficient foundation to support this\ncharacter, and therefore must conclude, that the glory of Christ\u2019s\nSonship is infinitely greater than what arises from thence: therefore, I\nhumbly conceive that this scripture is to be understood, with a small\nvariation of the translation, in this sense, _The Holy Ghost shall come\nupon thee_, &c. _because that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee,\nshall be called_, as he really is, _the Son of God_; that is, he is as\nMediator, an extraordinary Person appointed to execute a glorious\noffice, the Godhead and the manhood being to be united together, upon\nwhich account he is called the Son of God: and therefore it is expedient\nthat the formation of his human nature should be in an extraordinary\nway, to wit, by the power of the Holy Ghost.\nAgain, there is a very wide difference between our account of Christ\u2019s\nSonship, as Mediator, and theirs, as taken from this scripture, in that\nthey suppose that his being called the Son of God, refers only to some\ndignities conferred upon him, whom they suppose to be no more than a\nman. This is infinitely below the glory, which we ascribe to him, as\nMediator, since their idea of him, as such, how extraordinary soever his\nconception was, argues him to be no more than a creature; but ours, as\nhas been before observed, proves him a divine Person, since we never\nspeak of him, as Mediator, without including both natures.\nHaving premised these things, to explain our sense of Christ\u2019s being\ncalled the Son of God, as Mediator, we proceed to prove this from\nscripture. And here we are not under a necessity of straining the sense\nof a few scriptures, to make them speak agreeably to this notion of\nChrist\u2019s Sonship; but, I think, we have the whole scripture, whenever it\nspeaks of Christ, as the Son of God, as giving countenance to this plain\nsense thereof; so that I cannot find one place, in the whole New\nTestament, in which Christ is called the Son of God, but it is, with\nsufficient evidence, proved, from the context, that it is applied to\nhim, as Mediator. Here we shall refer to several scriptures, in which he\nis so considered: thus that scripture before-mentioned, in Matth. xvi.\n16. where Peter confesses, _Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God_;\nin which, speaking of him as Christ, or the Mediator, that is, the\nPerson who was invested in the office, and came to perform the work of a\nMediator, he is, in this respect, _the Son of the living God_; so when\nthe high priest asked our Saviour, Matth. xxvi. 63. _Art thou the\nChrist, the Son of God?_ that is, art thou the Messiah, as thou art\nsupposed to be by thy followers? Our Saviour, in ver. 64. replied to\nhim, _Thou hast said_, that is, it is as thou hast said; and then he\ndescribes himself in another character, by which he is often\nrepresented, as Mediator, and speaks of the highest degree of his\nMediatorial glory to which he shall be advanced at his second coming,\nver. 64. _Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son\nof man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of\nheaven._ And, doubtless, the centurion, and they who were with him, when\nthey confessed that _he was the Son of God_, in Matth. xxvii. 54.\nunderstood by it, that he was the Messiah, or the Christ, which is a\ncharacter by which he was most known, and which had been supported by so\nmany miracles, and was now confirmed by this miracle of the earthquake,\nwhich gave him this conviction; also in Luke iv. 41. when the devils are\nrepresented as crying out, _Thou art Christ, the Son of God_, it\nfollows, _that they knew that he was Christ_; so that the commonly\nreceived notion of our Saviour\u2019s Sonship was, that he was the Christ.\nAnd in John xi. 3. when Jesus says concerning Lazarus, _that his\nsickness was not unto death_, that is, not such as that he should\ncontinue in the state of the dead, _but for the glory of God, that the\nSon of God might be glorified thereby_, the meaning is, that he might\ngive a proof of his being the Christ, by raising him from the dead;\ntherefore, when he speaks to Martha, with a design to try whether she\nbelieved he could raise her brother from the dead, and represents\nhimself to her as the object of faith, she replies, ver. 27. _I believe\nthat thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the\nworld._ Again, it is said, in Acts ix. 20. that Saul, when converted,\n_preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God_, that is,\nhe proved him to be the Messiah; and accordingly, ver. 22. when he was\nestablishing the same doctrine, it is said, that _he proved that he was\nthe very Christ_.\nMoreover, our Saviour is farther described, in scripture, as executing\nsome of his mediatorial offices, or as having received a commission to\nexecute them from the Father, or as having some branches of mediatorial\nglory conferred upon him, at the same time that he is called the Son of\nGod, which gives us ground to conclude, that this is the import of his\nSonship. Thus we read, Heb. iv. 14. that _we have a great High Priest\nthat is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God_; and in John i.\n29. John the Baptist gives a public testimony to him, as sustaining such\na character, which belongs to him, as Mediator, when he says, _Behold\nthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world_; and\nafterwards, referring to the same character, he says, ver. 34. _I saw,\nand bare record, that this is the Son of God_; and at another time he\ngives a noble testimony to him, as God-man, Mediator, John iii. 29, &c.\nwhen he calls him, _The Bridegroom which hath the bride_, that is, who\nis related to, and has a propriety, in his church, and that _he\ntestifies what he has seen and heard_, and that it is _he whom God hath\nsent, who speaks the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by\nmeasure unto him_; and then, as a farther explication hereof, he says,\nver. 35. _The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his\nhand._ This is, in effect, the same, as when he is called elsewhere,\n_his beloved Son_; and, in Heb. iii. 6. Christ is said to be _a Son over\nhis own house, whose house are we_; which denotes not only his propriety\nin his church, but his being the Head thereof, as Mediator; and the\napostle, 1 Thess. i. 10. speaks of him, as _the Son of God, whom we are\nto wait for from heaven; whom he has raised from the dead, even Jesus,\nwhich delivered us from the wrath to come_; and, Gal. ii. 20. he speaks\nof the Son of God, as one who _loved him, and gave himself for him_; and\nCol. i. 13. he is spoken of as _God\u2019s dear Son_, and, at the same time,\nas having a kingdom, into which his people are translated; and in the\nfollowing verse, as the person _in whom we have redemption, through his\nblood, who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every\ncreature_; which seems to be taken in the same sense as when he said,\nHeb. i. 2. to have been _appointed Heir of all things_, and so referring\nto him as God-man, Mediator.\nMoreover, when he is considered as a Son related to his Father; this\nappears, from the context, to be a description of him as Mediator. Thus,\nJohn xx. 17. he says, _I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my\nGod, and your God_; that is, my Father by whom I am constituted\nMediator, and your Father, namely, the God who loves you for my sake: he\nis first my God, as he has honoured, loved and glorified me; and then\nyour God, as he is reconciled to you for my sake; so the apostle says, 2\nCor. i. 3. _Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;\nthe Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort._\n_Object._ 1. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, there\nare two ideas contained; namely, one of our Saviour, as the Son of God,\nby eternal generation; the other of him, as Mediator; whereas we suppose\nthat one contains only an explication of the other.\n_Answ._ If Christ\u2019s Sonship, in the sense in which it is generally\nexplained, were sufficiently proved from other scriptures, which take no\nnotice of his mediatorial character, or works, or could be accounted\nfor, without being liable to the difficulties before-mentioned, and if\nhis character, as Mediator, did not contain in it an idea of\nPersonality, the objection would have more weight than otherwise it\nseems to have.\n_Object._ 2. It is said, Gal. iv. 4. _God sent forth his Son, made of a\nwoman, made under the law_; therefore he was the Son of God before he\nwas sent into the world, when made of a woman, and under the law, that\nis, his Son by eternal generation.\n_Answ._ The answer I would give to this objection is,\n1. It is not necessary to suppose that Christ had the character of a Son\nbefore he was sent, though he had that of a divine Person; since the\nwords may, without any strain, or force, upon the sense thereof, be\nunderstood thus; when the fulness of time was come, in which the Messiah\nwas expected, God sent him forth, or sent him into the world, with the\ncharacter of a Son, at which time he was made of a woman, made under the\nlaw; the end whereof was, that he might redeem them that were under the\nlaw.\n2. If we suppose Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent\ninto the world, it will not overthrow our argument: since he was, by the\nFather\u2019s designation, an eternal Mediator, and, in this respect, God\u2019s\neternal Son; and therefore, he who before was so by virtue of the\neternal decree, is now actually sent, that he might be, and do, what he\nwas from all eternity designed to be, and do: he was set up from\neverlasting, or appointed to be the Son of God; and now he is sent to\nperform the work which this character implies in it.\n_Object._ 3. It is farther objected, that his Sonship is distinct from\nhis being Mediator, inasmuch as it is said, Heb. v. 8. _Though he were a\nSon, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered._ Now it\ncannot, in propriety of speech, be said, though he were Mediator, yet he\nlearned obedience, since he was under an obligation to obey, and suffer\nas Mediator; therefore the meaning must be, though he were a Son by\neternal generation, yet he condescended to put himself into such a\ncapacity, as that he was obliged to obey, and suffer, as Mediator.\n_Answ._ The stress of the objection lies in the word which we render\n_though_, \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 &c. which may be rendered, with a small\nvariation, _though being a Son_, he learned obedience by the things he\nsuffered; _but being made perfect_, _viz._ after his sufferings, he\nbecame the author of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him; and\nthen it takes away the force of the objection. However, I see no\nabsurdity if it be rendered, as it is in the vulgar Latin version, _And,\nindeed, being a Son, he learned obedience_[102], and then it proves the\nargument we are endeavouring to defend, _q. d._ it is agreeable to the\ncharacter of a son to learn obedience; it was with this view that it was\nconferred upon him, and in performing obedience, and suffering as\nMediator, and thereby securing the glory of the divine perfections in\nbringing about the work of our redemption, he acted in pursuance of that\ncharacter.\n_Object._ 1. It will be farther objected, that what we have said\nconcerning the Sonship of Christ, as referred to his being Mediator, has\nsome consequences attending it, which seem derogatory to his Person;\nparticularly, it will follow from hence, that had not man fallen, and\nstood in need of a Mediator, our Saviour would not have had that\ncharacter, and therefore never have been described as the Son of God, or\nworshipped as such. And our first parents, while in the state of\ninnocency, knowing nothing of a Mediator, knew nothing of the Sonship of\nChrist, and therefore could not give him the glory, which is the result\nthereof. Moreover, as God might have prevented the fall of man, or, when\nfallen, he might have refused to have recovered him by a Mediator; so\nour Saviour might not have been the Son of God, that is, according to\nthe foregoing explication thereof, a Mediator between God and man.\n_Answ._ This objection may be very easily answered, and the charge, of\nChrist\u2019s mediatorial Sonship being derogatory to his glory, removed;\nwhich that we may do, let it be considered,\n1. That we allow, that had not man fallen, our Saviour would not have\nbeen a Mediator between God and man; and the commonly received notion is\ntrue, that his being a Mediator is, by divine ordination and\nappointment, according to the tenor of several scriptures relating\nthereunto; and I see no absurdity in asserting, that his character, as\nthe Son of God, or Mediator, is equally the result of the divine will,\nor decree. But this I hope, if duly considered, will not contain the\nleast diminution of his glory, when we farther assert,\n2. That though our Saviour had not sustained this character if man had\nnot fallen, or if God had not designed to bring about the work of\nredemption by him, yet he would have been no less a distinct Person in\nthe Godhead, and, as such, would have had a right to divine glory. This\nappears from what hath been before said, concerning his personality\nbeing equally necessary with his Deity, which, if it be not communicated\nto him, certainly it has not the least appearance of being the result of\nthe divine will; and, indeed, his divine personality is the only\nfoundation of his right to be adored, and not his being invested in an\noffice, which only draws forth, or occasions our adoration. When we\nspeak of Christ\u2019s being adored, as Mediator, it is his divine\npersonality, which is included in that character, that renders him the\nobject of adoration, and not his taking the human nature, or being, or\ndoing, what he was, or did, by divine appointment; and I question\nwhether they, who assert that he had the divine nature, or personality,\ncommunicated to him, will lay the stress of his right to divine\nadoration, on its being communicated, but on his having it, abstracting\nfrom his manner of having it; so when we speak of Christ as Mediator, it\nis his having the divine glory, or personality, which is included in\nthat character, that renders him the object of adoration; therefore, if\nman had not fallen, and Christ had not been Mediator, he would have had\na right to divine glory, as a Person in the Godhead. And I doubt not but\nthat our first parents, before they fell, had an intimation hereof, and\nadored him as such; so that if Christ had not been Mediator, it would\nonly follow from thence, that he would not have had the character of a\nSon, but he would, notwithstanding, have had the glory of a divine\nPerson; for though his sonship be the result of the divine will, his\npersonality is not so.[103]\nHaving enquired into the sense of those scriptures which treat of the\nSonship of Christ, we shall next consider those that are generally\nbrought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost; the principal of\nwhich, as has been before observed, are in John xiv. 26. and chap. xv.\n26. and xvi. 7. in which he is said _to proceed from the Father_, or to\nbe _sent by the Father in Christ\u2019s name_, or to be _sent by the Son_. We\nhave already considered the most commonly received sense hereof, as\nincluding in it an eternal procession, _viz._ the communication of the\ndivine essence, or personality to him, as distinguished from the eternal\ngeneration of the Son; but now we shall enquire whether there may not be\nanother sense given of these scriptures, agreeable to the analogy of\nfaith, that may be acquiesced in by those, who cannot so well\nunderstand, or account for, the common sense given thereof, which, I\nhumbly conceive, is this: that the Spirit is considered not with respect\nto the manner of his subsisting, but with respect to the subserviency of\nhis acting, to set forth the Mediator\u2019s glory, and that of the Father\nthat sent him. I chuse to call it a subserviency of acting, without\nconnoting any inferiority in the agent; or if we suppose that it argues\nany inferiority in the Holy Spirit, this is only an inferiority in\nacting, as the works that he does are subservient to the glory of the\nMediator, and of the Father, though his divine personality is, in all\nrespects, equal with theirs. This explication of these texts, is allowed\nof by many, if not by most, of those who defend the doctrine of the\nTrinity, notwithstanding their maintaining another notion of the\nSpirit\u2019s procession from the Father and the Son, from all eternity, in\nthe sense before considered. I need only refer to that explication which\na great and learned divine gives of these, and such like texts,\nnotwithstanding his adhering, in other respects, to the common mode of\nspeaking, relating to the eternal generation of the Son, and procession\nof the Holy Ghost. His words are these[106]: \u201cAll that discourse which\nwe have of the mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his\nproceeding and coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends\nspecified, John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 7, 13. concerns not at all\nthe eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to\nhis distinct personality and subsistance, but belongs to that \u0153conomy,\nor dispensation of the ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in,\nfor the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.\u201d\nNow if these scriptures, which are the chief in all the New Testament,\non which this doctrine is founded, are to be taken in this sense, how\nshall we find a sufficient proof, from other scriptures, of the\nprocession of the Holy Ghost in any other sense? Therefore, that we may\nfarther explain this doctrine, let us consider, that whatever the Son,\nas Mediator, has purchased, as being sent by the Father for that end, is\napplied by the Holy Ghost, who therefore acts in subserviency to them.\nThis is generally called, by divines, the \u0153conomy of persons in the\nGodhead, which, because it is a word that we often use, when we consider\nthe distinct works of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in their respective\nsubserviency to one another, we shall take occasion briefly to explain,\nand shew how it may be applied to them in that respect without inferring\nany inferiority as to what concerns their Personal glory. We shall say\nnothing concerning the derivation, or use, of the word \u0153conomy, though\nwe cannot forbear to mention, with indignation, the sense which some of\nthe opposers of the blessed Trinity have given of it, while laying aside\nall the rules of decency and reverence, which this sacred mystery calls\nfor, they represent us, as speaking of the family-government of the\ndivine Persons, which is the most invidious sense they could put upon\nthe word, and most remote from our design in the use of it. Now that we\nmay explain and apply it to our present purpose, let it be considered,\n1. That all those works, which are the effects of the divine power, or\nsovereign will, are performed by all the Persons in the Godhead, and\nattributed to them in scripture; the reason whereof is very evident,\nnamely, because the power and will of God, and all other divine\nperfections, belong equally, and alike, to the Father, Son, and Spirit:\nif therefore that which produces these effects belongs to them, then the\neffects produced must be equally ascribed to them; so that the Father is\nno more said to create and govern the world, or to be the author of all\ngrace, and the fountain of blessedness, than the Son and Spirit.\n2. Nevertheless, since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct\nPersons, and so have distinct personal considerations in acting, it is\nnecessary that their personal glory should be demonstrated, or made\nknown to us, that our faith and worship may be fixed on, and directed to\nthem, in a distinct manner, as founded thereon.\n3. This distinction of the Persons in the Godhead cannot be known, as\ntheir eternal power or Deity is said to be, by the works of creation and\nprovidence, it being a doctrine of pure revelation; therefore,\n4. We are given to understand, in scripture, when it treats of the great\nwork of our salvation, that it is attributed first to the Father, then\nto the Son, as Mediator, receiving a commission from him to redeem and\nsave his people, and then to the Holy Ghost, acting in subserviency\nthereunto; this is what we are to understand when we speak of the\ndistinct \u0153conomy of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I cannot better\nexpress than by considering of it as a divine determination, that the\npersonal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, should be demonstrated in\nsuch a way. Now, to instance in some particular acts, or works; when a\ndivine Person is represented in scripture as doing, or determining to\ndo, any thing relating to the work of our redemption, or salvation, by\nanother divine Person, who must, for that reason, be considered herein,\nas Mediator, it is to be understood of the Father, in this \u0153conomic\nsense, inasmuch as, by this means, he demonstrates his personal glory:\nthus it is said, Eph. i. 4, 5. _He_, _i. e._ the Father, _hath chosen us\nin him_, namely, the Son; and _he_ is said to have _predestinated us\nunto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ_. Though election and\npredestination are also applied to the Son and Spirit, when they have\nanother reference corresponding with the demonstration of their personal\nglory, yet, in this place, they are only applied to the Father. And\nthere are several other scriptures, in which things done are\nparticularly applied to the Father for the same reason. Thus, 2 Cor. v.\n18, 19. it is said, _God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_,\nand that _he was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself_; and, in 1\nCor. i. 30. it is said, _Of him_, namely the Father, _are ye in Christ\nJesus, who of God_, that is, the Father, _is made unto us wisdom_, &c.\nin which, and several other scriptures to the same purpose, the Father\nis, in a peculiar manner, intended, because considered, as no other\ndivine person is, as acting by the Mediator, or as glorifying the\nperfections of the divine nature, which belong to him, by what this\ngreat Mediator did by his appointment.\nMoreover when a divine Person is considered as acting in subserviency to\nthe Father\u2019s glory, or executing a commission relating to the work of\nredemption, which he had received from him, and accordingly performing\nany act of obedience in an human nature assumed by him for that purpose,\nthis is peculiarly applied to, and designed to demonstrate the Son\u2019s\nPersonal character, as belonging to no other Person in the Godhead but\nhim. Of this we have several instances in scripture; thus though to\njudge the world be a branch of the divine glory, which is common to all\nthe Persons in the Godhead; yet there are some circumstances in the\ncharacter of a divine Person in particular, who is denominated as Judge\nof quick and dead, that are applicable to none but the Son; and so we\nare to understand that scripture, John v. 22. _The Father judgeth no\nman, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son_; that is, the Son is\nthe only Person in the Godhead who displays his Mediatorial character\nand glory, as the Judge of the whole world; yet when there is another\npersonal character ascribed to God, as the Judge of all; or when he is\nsaid to _judge the world in righteousness, by that Man_, to wit, our\nLord Jesus, _whom he hath ordained_, as in Acts xvii. 31. then this\npersonal character determines it to belong to the Father.\nAgain, to give eternal life is a divine prerogative, and consequently\nbelongs to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when a divine Person is\nsaid to give eternal life to a people, that were given to him for that\npurpose, and to have received power, or authority, from another, to\nconfer this privilege as Mediator, then it is peculiarly applied to the\nSon: thus John xvii. 2. _Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that\nhe should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him._\nMoreover, when a divine Person is said to do any thing in subserviency\nto the Mediator; or, as it is said, in John xvi. 14. _He shall glorify\nme; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you_, this is\npeculiarly applied to the Spirit. So when he is said to give his\ntestimony to the mission, or work of the Mediator, by any divine works\nperformed by him, this is peculiarly applied to him; or when he is said\nto sanctify and comfort, or to seal and confirm believers unto the day\nof redemption. Though these being divine works, are, for that reason,\napplicable to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when he is said to\nperform them in a way of subserviency to Christ, as having purchased\nthem, then his distinct personal character, taken from thence, is\ndemonstrated, and so these works are especially applied to him. This is\nwhat we understand by that peculiar \u0153conomy, or dispensation, which\ndetermines us to give distinct personal glory to each of the Persons in\nthe Godhead.\nAnd now we are speaking of the Spirit, considered as acting, whereby he\nsets forth his Personal glory, we may observe, that, in compliance with\nthis way of speaking, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, are, by a\nmetonymy, called the _Spirit_, as in Acts xix. 2. when it is said, _Have\nye received the Holy Ghost? They said unto him, We have not so much as\nheard whether there be any Holy Ghost._ We are not to understand it as\nthough they had not heard whether there were such a Person as the Holy\nGhost; but they had not heard that there was such an extraordinary\ndispensation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on men; so John\nvii. 39. it is said, _The Holy Ghost was not yet given_, because Jesus\nwas not yet glorified; the word _given_ being supplied in our\ntranslation, and not in the original; it ought rather to be rendered,\n_The Holy Ghost was not as yet_; by which we are to understand the gifts\nof the Holy Ghost, and not his Personality, which was from all eternity.\nAnd here we may farther observe, that when the Holy Ghost is spoken of\nas a Person, that word which denotes his Personality, ought not to be\nrendered _It_, but _He_, as expressive of his Personal character; but\nwhen it is taken in a figurative sense, for the gifts or graces of the\nSpirit, then it should be translated _It_. This is sometimes observed in\nour translation of scripture; as in John xvi. 13. it is said of the\nSpirit, _He will guide you into all truth_, where the Personal character\nof the Spirit is expressly mentioned, as it ought to be: but it is not\nduly observed by our translators in every scripture; Rom. viii. 16. it\nis said, _The Spirit itself beareth witness_, which ought to have been\nrendered _Himself_; as also in ver. 26. _The Spirit itself maketh\nintercession for us._ The same ought to be observed in all other\nscriptures, whereby we may be led to put a just difference between the\nSpirit, considered as a divine Person; or as acting, or producing those\neffects, which are said to be wrought by him.\nThus concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of the Holy\nGhost. What I have said, in attempting to explain those scripture that\ntreat of the Person of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, and of his\ninferiority, in that respect, (or as he is said to sustain that\ncharacter) to the Father; as also those which speak of the subserviency\nof the Spirit, in acting, to the Father and the Son, does not, as I\napprehend, run counter to the common faith of those who have defended\nthe doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. Therefore I hope that when I\ncall one the Sonship of Christ, and the other the procession of the Holy\nGhost, this will not be deemed a new and strange doctrine. And I cannot\nbut persuade myself, that what I have said concerning the Mediator, as\nacting in obedience to the Father, and the Spirit, in subserviency to\nhim, will not be contested by those who defend the doctrine of the\nTrinity. And, if I have a little varied from the common way of speaking,\nI hope none will be offended at the acceptation of a word, especially\nsince I have endeavoured to defend my sense thereof, by referring to\nmany scriptures. And, if I cannot give into the common explication of\nthe eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost,\nI am well satisfied I do no more than what many Christians do, who have\nreceived the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, and are\nunacquainted with those modes of speaking which are used in the schools:\nthese appear as much to dislike them, when used in public discourses\nabout this doctrine, as any other can do, what has been attempted to\nexplain it in a different way.\nIV. We shall now proceed to consider the Godhead of the Son, and Holy\nGhost, as maintained in one of the answers we are explaining, by four\ngeneral heads of argument.\nI. From those divine names which are given to them, that are peculiar to\nGod alone.\nII. From their having the divine attributes ascribed to them, and\nconsequently the divine nature.\nIII. From their having manifested their divine glory, by those works\nthat none but God can perform.\nIV. From their having a right to divine worship, which none but God is\nworthy to receive.\nIf these things be made to appear, we have all that we need contend for;\nand it will be evident from thence, that the Son and Holy Ghost are God\nequal with the Father. These heads of argument we shall apply to them\ndistinctly; and,\n_First_, To the Son, who appears to be God equal with the Father,\nI. From those divine names given to him, that are peculiar to God alone.\nAnd here we shall premise something concerning the use of names given to\npersons, together with the design thereof. Names are given to persons,\nas well as things, with a twofold design.\n1. Sometimes nothing else is intended thereby, but to distinguish one\nfrom another, in which sense the names given are not in themselves\nsignificant, or expressive of any property, or quality, in those that\nare so described. Thus most of those names we read of in scripture,\nthough not all of them, are designed only to distinguish one man from\nanother, which is the most common use and design thereof;\nnotwithstanding,\n2. They are sometimes given to signify some property in those to whom\nthey are applied, _viz._ what they should be, or do. Thus we have many\ninstances, in scripture, of persons called by names, which have had some\nspecial signification annexed to them, assigned as a reason of their\nbeing so called. Thus Adam had that name given him, because made of\nearth; and Eve was so called, because she was the mother of all living.\nThe same may be said concerning Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,\nMoses, Joshua, Samuel, and several others, whose respective names have a\nsignification annexed to them, agreeable to the proper sense of the\nwords, and the design of their being so called.\nAnd, to apply this to our present purpose, we may conclude, that when\nnames are given to any divine Person, they are designed to express some\nexcellency and perfection belonging to him; and therefore we shall have\nsufficient reason to conclude the Son to be a divine Person, if we can\nmake it appear that he has those names given to him in scripture, which\nare proper to God alone. And,\n1. The name Jehovah is given to him, which is peculiar to God. Here we\nshall prove, _First_, that the name Jehovah is peculiar to God. And,\n_Secondly_, that it is ascribed to Christ.\n(1.) That the name Jehovah is peculiar to God, whereby he is\ndistinguished from all creatures: thus it is said, Isa. xlii. 8. _I am\nthe Lord_, or Jehovah, _that is my name, and my glory will I not give to\nanother_; or, as the text may be rendered, _I am Jehovah, that name of\nmine, and my glory_, which is signified thereby, _will I not give to\nanother_: therefore it follows, that it is an incommunicable name of\nGod: and when he says, _I will not give it to another_, it supposes that\nit necessarily belongs to him; and therefore that he cannot give it to\nanother, since that would be unbecoming himself; therefore this name,\nwhich is expressive of his glory in so peculiar a manner, is never given\nto any creature.\nThere are other scriptures to this purpose, in which the name Jehovah is\nrepresented, as peculiar to God. Thus when the prophet Amos had been\nspeaking of the glory of God, as displayed in the works of creation and\nprovidence, he adds, _that the Lord_, or Jehovah, _is his name_, chap.\nv. 8. So that those works, which are peculiar to God, might as well be\napplied to creatures, as that name Jehovah, which is agreeable\nthereunto. And in chap. ix. 6. the prophet gives another magnificent\ndescription of God, with respect to those works that are peculiar to\nhim, when he says, _It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven,\nand hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters\nof the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth_; and then\nhe adds, _the Lord_, or Jehovah, _is his name_.\nAgain, it is said, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. _That men may know, that thou,\nwhose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth._ This\nis never said of any other divine names, which are, in a limited sense,\nsometimes given to creatures; and, indeed, all creatures are expressly\nexcluded from having a right hereunto.\nAgain, there are other scriptures, in which this name Jehovah is applied\nto God, and an explication thereof subjoined, which argues that it is\npeculiar to him. Thus when Moses desired of God, that he would let him\nknow what _his name_ was for the encouragement of the faith of the\nIsraelites, to whom he sent him, Exod. iii. 13. _q. d._ he desires to\nknow what are those divine glories, that would render him the object of\nfaith and worship; or how he might describe him in such a way to the\nchildren of Israel, whereby they might express that reverence and regard\nto him, that was due to the great God, who sent him about so important\nan errand. In answer to which God says, ver. 14. _I AM THAT I AM. Thus\nshalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM_ hath sent me unto you;\nwhich description of him doth not set forth one single perfection, but\nall the perfections of the divine nature; as though he should say, I am\na God of infinite perfection; and then he adds, in the following verse,\n_Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The Lord_, or Jehovah, _the\nGod of your fathers hath sent me unto you_; where Jehovah signifies the\nsame with _I AM THAT I AM_. And he adds, _This is my memorial unto all\ngenerations_; therefore this glorious name is certainly peculiar to God.\nWhat has been already observed, under this head, is sufficient to prove\nthat the name Jehovah is proper to God alone. But we might hereunto add\nanother argument, of less weight, which, though we do not lay that\nstress upon, as though it was sufficient of itself to prove this matter;\nyet, being added to what has been already suggested, it may not be\nimproper to be mentioned, _viz._ that the word Jehovah has no plural\nnumber, as being never designed to signify any more than the one God;\nneither has it any emphatical particle affixed to it, as other words in\nthe Hebrew language have; and particularly several of the other names of\nGod, which distinguishes him from others; who have those names sometimes\napplied to them; and the reason of this is, because the name Jehovah is\nnever given to any creature.\nAnd to this we might add, that since the Jews best understood their own\nlanguage, they may, in some respects, be depended on, as to the sense\nthey give of the word Jehovah; and it is certain they paid the greatest\nregard to this name, even to superstition. Accordingly, they would never\npronounce it; but, instead thereof, use some other expressions, by which\nthey describe it. Sometimes they call it, _that name_, or _that glorious\nname_, or _that name that is not to be expressed_;[107] by which they\nmean, as Josephus says,[108] that it was not lawful for them to utter\nit, or, indeed, to write it, which, if any one presumed to do, they\nreckoned him not only guilty of profaneness, in an uncommon degree, but\neven of blasphemy; and therefore it is never found in any writings of\nhuman composure among them. The modern Jews, indeed, are not much to be\nregarded, as retaining the same veneration for this name; but Onkelos,\nthe author of the Chaldee paraphrase on some parts of scripture, who\nlived about fifty years after our Saviour\u2019s time, and Jonathan\nBen-Uzziel, who is supposed to have lived as many years before it, never\ninsert it in their writings; and, doubtless, they were not the first\nthat entertained these sentiments about it, but had other writings then\nextant, which gave occasion thereunto. Some critics conclude, from\nJewish writers, that it was never pronounced, even in the earliest ages\nof the church, except by the High Priest; and when he was obliged, by\nthe divine law, to pronounce it, in the form of benediction, the people\nalways expressed an uncommon degree of reverence, either by bowing, or\nprostration; but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Others\nthink it took its rise soon after their return from captivity, which is\nmore probable; however, the reason they assign for it is, because they\nreckoned it God\u2019s incommunicable name.\nAnd here I cannot but observe, that the translators of the Greek version\nof the Old Testament, commonly called the LXX. which, if it be not\naltogether the same with that mentioned by Arist\u00e6us, which was compiled\nalmost three hundred years before the Christian \u00c6ra, is, without doubt,\nof considerable antiquity; these never translate the word JEHOVAH, but,\ninstead thereof, put \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Lord;[109] and, even when it seems absurd\nnot to do it, as in Exod. vi. 3. when it is said, by my name, JEHOVAH,\nwas I not known, they render it, by my name, the LORD, was I not\nknown.[110]\nThis we take occasion to observe, not as supposing it is a sufficient\nproof of itself, of the argument we are maintaining, but as it\ncorresponds with the sense of those scriptures before mentioned, by\nwhich it appears that this is the proper, or incommunicable, name of\nGod.\n_Object._ It is objected, by the Anti-Trinitarians, that the name\nJehovah is sometimes given to creatures, and consequently that it is not\nGod\u2019s proper name; nor does it evince our Saviour\u2019s Deity, when given to\nhim. To prove that it is sometimes given to creatures, they refer to\nseveral scriptures; as Exod. xvii. 15. where the altar that Moses\nerected is called _Jehovah Nissi_, _i. e._ the Lord is my banner; and,\nin Judges vi. 22. another altar that Gideon built, is called _Jehovah\nShallom_; and Gen. xxii. 14. it is said, that Abraham called the name of\nthe place, in which he was ready to offer Isaac, _Jehovah Jireh_; and,\nin Ezek. xlviii. 35. it is said, that Jerusalem, from that day, should\nbe called _Jehovah Shammah_; they add also, that the Ark was called\n_Jehovah_, upon the occasion of its being carried up into the city of\nDavid, when it is said, Psal. xlvii. 5. _The Lord_, _i. e._ Jehovah _is\ngone up with a shout, even the Lord with the sound of a trumpet_, and\nalso on other occasions. And the name Jehovah is often, in the Old\nTestament, given to angels, and therefore not proper to God alone.\n_Answ._ 1. When they pretend that the name Jehovah was given to\ninanimate things, and in particular to altars, as in the instance\nmentioned in the objection, that one of the altars was indeed called\n_Jehovah Nissi_, it is very unreasonable to suppose, that the name and\nglory of God was put upon it; had it been a symbol of God\u2019s presence, it\nwould not have been called by this name, especially in the same sense in\nwhich our Saviour and the Holy Spirit have it applied to them; and\ntherefore the meaning of this scripture, as I apprehend, is nothing but\nthis, that there was an inscription written on the altar, containing\nthese words, _Jehovah Nissi_, the design whereof was to signify, to the\nfaith of those who came to worship there, that the Lord was their\nbanner: therefore this name, strictly speaking, was not given to the\naltar, but to God; upon which some, not without good reason, render the\nword; he built an altar, and called the name of it, the altar of\n_Jehovah Nissi_. The same may be said with respect to the altar erected\nby Gideon, which was called _Jehovah Shalom_, or the altar of _Jehovah\nShalom_, to the end that all who came to offer sacrifice upon it, might\nhereby be put in mind that God was a God of peace, or would give peace\nto them.\n2. As for the place to which Abraham went to offer Isaac, which is\ncalled Jehovah-Jireh, it was the mount Moriah; and it is certain that\nthis was not known by, or whenever spoken of, mentioned, as having that\nname; neither had Abraham any right to apply to it any branch of the\ndivine glory, as signified thereby; therefore when it is said, he called\nthe name of the place Jehovah-Jireh, it is as though he should have\nsaid, let all that travel over this mountain know, that the Lord was\nseen, or provided a ram instead of Isaac, who was ready to be offered\nup; let this place be remarkable, in future ages, for this amazing\ndispensation of providence, and let them glorify God for what was done\nhere, and let the memory hereof be an encouragement to their faith. Or\nelse we may farther consider him speaking as a prophet, and so the\nmeaning is, this place shall be very remarkable in future ages, as it\nshall be the mount of vision; here Jehovah will eminently appear in his\ntemple, which shall be built in this place. Or if you take the words in\nanother sense, _viz._ _God will provide_, it is as though he should say,\nas God has provided a ram to be offered instead of Isaac, so he will\nprovide the Lamb of God, who is to take away the sin of the world, which\nwas typified by Isaac\u2019s being offered. So that the place was not really\ncalled Jehovah; but Abraham takes occasion, from what was done here, to\nmagnify him, who appeared to him, and held his hand, whom alone he calls\nJehovah.\nAnd to this we may add, that when Jerusalem is called _Jehovah Shammah,\nthe Lord is there_, the meaning hereof is only this, that it shall\neminently be said in succeeding ages of the new Jerusalem, that _the\nLord is there_; the city, which was commonly known by the name\nJerusalem, is not called Jehovah, as though it had any character of\ndivine glory put upon it; but it implies, that the gospel church, which\nis signified thereby, should have the presence of God in an eminent\ndegree; or, as our Saviour promised to his disciples, Matth. xxviii. 20.\nthat _he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world_;\nand, as the result thereof, that _the gates of hell should not prevail\nagainst it_, Matth. xvi. 18.\n3. As for the _ark_; it was not called _Jehovah_, though the Psalmist\ntakes occasion, from its being carried up into the city of David, with a\njoyful solemnity, and an universal shout, with the sound of a trumpet,\nto foretel the triumphant and magnificent ascension of our Saviour into\nheaven, which was typified hereby; concerning whom he says, _Jehovah_ is\ngone up; or, speaking in a prophetic style, the present, or time past,\nbeing put for the time to come, it is as though he should say, the Lord,\nwhen he has completed the work of redemption on earth, will ascend into\nheaven, which shall be the foundation of universal joy to the church;\nand then he shall, as the Psalmist farther observes, _reign over the\nheathen_, and _sit on the throne of his holiness_.\nAgain, it does not appear that the ark was called _Jehovah_, in Exod.\nxvi. 33, 34. because, when Aaron is commanded _to lay the pot full of\nmanna before the testimony_, that is, _the ark_, this is called, a\nlaying it before Jehovah: but the reason of the expression is this;\n_viz._ God hath ordained that the mercy-seat over the ark should be the\nimmediate seat of his residence, from whence he would condescend to\nconverse with men, and accordingly he is said, elsewhere, to _dwell\nbetween the cherubims_; and, upon this account, that which was laid up\nbefore the ark, might be said to be laid up before the Lord.\nBut since none are so stupid to suppose that inanimate things can have\nthe divine perfections belonging to them, therefore the principal thing\ncontended for in this argument, is, that the ark was called Jehovah,\nbecause it was a sign and symbol of the divine presence; and from thence\nthey conclude, that the name of God may be applied to a person that has\nno right to the divine glory, as the sign is called by the name of the\nthing signified thereby.\nTo which it maybe answered, that the ark was not only a sacramental sign\nof God\u2019s presence, for that many other things relating to ceremonial\nworship were; but it was also the seat thereof: it was therefore the\ndivine Majesty who was called Jehovah, and not the place of his\nresidence; and it was he alone to whom the glory was ascribed that is\ndue to his name.\n4. When it is farther objected, that the name Jehovah is often applied\nto angels, the answer that may be given to this is; that it is never\nascribed to any but him, who is called, by way of eminence, the angel,\nor _Messenger of the covenant_, _viz._ our Saviour, Mal. iii. 1. And\nwhenever it is given to him, such glorious things are spoken of him, or\nsuch acts of divine worship demanded by and given to him, as argue him\nto be a divine Person; as will plainly appear, if we consider what the\nangel that appeared, in Exod. iii. says concerning himself, ver. 6. _I\nam the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the\nGod of Jacob_; and it is said, Moses _hid his face, for he was afraid to\nlook upon God_; and in verses 7, 8. _The Lord_, or Jehovah, _said, I\nhave surely seen the affliction of my people that are in Egypt, and I am\ncome down to deliver them_; and ver. 10. _I will send thee unto\nPharaoh_; and then, in the following verses, he makes mention of his\nname, as of the great _Jehovah_, the _I AM_, who sent him. And Jacob\ngives divine worship to him, when he says, Gen. xlviii. 16. _The Angel,\nthat redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads._ I might refer to many\nother scriptures, where the Angel of the Lord is said to appear, in\nwhich from the context, it is evident that it was a divine Person, and\nnot a created angel. The most ancient Jewish writers generally call him\nthe _Word_[111] of the Lord.\nBut this will not properly be deemed a sufficient answer to the\nobjection, inasmuch as it is not denied, that the Person, who so\nfrequently appeared in the form of an angel, made use of such\nexpressions, as can be applied to none but God; therefore they say that\nhe personated God, or spake after the manner of his representative, not\ndesigning that the glory of the divine perfections should be ascribed to\nhim, but to Jehovah, whom he represented.\nTo which it may be replied, that the angel appearing to Moses, in the\nscripture before mentioned, and to several others, doth not signify\nhimself to personate God, as doubtless he ought to have done, had he\nbeen only his representative, and not a divine Person; as an embassador,\nwhen he speaks in the name of the king, whom he represents, always uses\nsuch modes of speaking, as that he may be understood to apply what he\nsays when personating him, not to himself, but to him that sent him; and\nit would be reckoned an affront to him, whom he represents, should he\ngive occasion to any to ascribe the honour that belongs to his master to\nhimself. Now there is nothing, in those texts, which speak of this\nangel\u2019s appearing, that signifies his disclaiming divine honour, as what\ndid not belong to him, but to God; therefore we must not suppose that he\nspeaks in such a way as God doth, only as representing him: we read,\nindeed, in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. of a created angel appearing to John, who\nwas supposed by him, at the first, to be the same that appeared to the\nchurch of old, and accordingly John gave him divine honour; but he\nrefused to receive it, as knowing that this character, of being the\ndivine representative, would not be a sufficient warrant for him to\nassume it to himself; we must therefore from hence conclude, that the\nangel that appeared to the church of old, and is called Jehovah, was a\ndivine Person.\n2. Having considered that the name Jehovah is peculiarly applied to God,\nwe now proceed to prove that it is given to the Son, whereby his Deity\nwill appear; and the first scripture that we shall refer to is Isa. xl.\n3. _The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way\nof the Lord_, or Jehovah, _make Straight in the desert a highway for our\nGod_. Now if we can prove that this is a prophecy of John\u2019s preparing\nthe way of our Saviour, then it will appear that our Saviour, in this\nscripture, is called Jehovah. That it is a prediction of John\u2019s being\nChrist\u2019s fore-runner, appointed to prepare the Jews for his reception,\nand to give them an intimation, that he, whom they had long looked for,\nwould suddenly appear, is plain from those scriptures in the New\nTestament, which expressly refer to this prediction, and explain it in\nthis sense: thus Matth. iii. 3. _This is he that was spoken of by the\nprophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight_; therefore he\nwhose way John was to prepare, whom the prophet Isaias calls Jehovah, is\nour Saviour.\nAgain, it is said, in Isa. viii. 13. _Sanctify the Lord_, or Jehovah,\n_of hosts himself, and let him be your fear and your dread_; where he\nspeaks of a person, whom he not only calls Jehovah, the Lord of hosts,\nwhich alone would prove him to be a divine Person; but he farther\nconsiders him as the object of divine worship, _Sanctify him, and let\nhim be your fear and your dread_. Certainly, if we can prove this to be\nspoken of Christ, it will be a strong and convincing argument to evince\nhis proper Deity; now that it is spoken of him, is very evident, if we\ncompare it with the verse immediately following, _And he shall be for a\nsanctuary_, which I would chuse to render, _For he shall be for a\nsanctuary_, as the Hebrew particle _Vau_, which we render _And_, is\noften rendered elsewhere, and so it is assigned as a reason why we\nshould sanctify him; and then it follows, though we are obliged so to\ndo, yet the Jews will not give that glory to him, for he will be _to\nthem for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence_, as he shall\n_be for a sanctuary_ to those that are faithful. That this is spoken of\nChrist, not only appears from the subject matter hereof, as it is only\nhe that properly speaking, is said to be a rock of offence, or in whom\nthe world was offended, by reason of his appearing in a low condition\ntherein; but, by comparing it with other scriptures, and particularly\nIsa. xxviii. 16. _Behold, I lay in Sion, for a foundation, a stone, a\ntried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that\nbelieveth shall not make haste_, this will more evidently appear. In the\nlatter of these scriptures, he is styled, a foundation stone, the rock\non which his church is built; in the former a burthensome stone; and\nboth these scriptures are referred to, and applied to him, 1 Pet. ii. 6,\n8. _Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in\nSion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and a stone of stumbling,\nand a rock of offence to them that are disobedient_; where the apostle\nproves plainly, that our Saviour is the Person who is spoken of, in both\nthese texts, by the prophet Isaiah, and consequently that he is Jehovah,\nwhom we are to sanctify, and to make our fear and our dread.\nAgain, there is another scripture, which plainly proves this, _viz._\nNumb. xxi. 5, 6, 7. _And the people spake against God, and against\nMoses; and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit\nthe people, and much people of Israel died; therefore the people came to\nMoses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord_,\nor Jehovah, _and against thee_. He, who is called God, in ver. 5. whom\nthey spake against, is called Jehovah in ver. 7. who sent fiery serpents\namong them, that destroyed them, for their speaking against him; now\nthis is expressly applied to our Saviour by the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 9.\n_Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were\ndestroyed of serpents._\nAgain, the prophet Isaiah, having had a vision of the angels, adoring\nand ministering to that glorious Person, who is represented, as sitting\non a throne, in chap. vi. 1, 2. he reflects on what he had seen in ver.\n5. and expresses himself in these words, _Mine eyes have seen the King,\nthe Lord_, or Jehovah, _of hosts_. Now this is expressly applied to our\nSaviour, in John xii. 41. _These things said Esaias, when he saw his\nglory, and spake of him_; where it is plain that he intends this vision;\nas appears from the foregoing verse, which refers to a part thereof, in\nwhich God foretels that he would blind the eyes, and harden the hearts\nof the unbelieving Jews; from whence it is evident, that the Person who\nappeared to him, sitting on a throne, whom he calls Jehovah, was our\nSaviour.\nAgain, this may farther be argued, from what is said in Isa. xlv. 21. to\nthe end, _There is no God else besides me, a just God, and a Saviour,\nthere is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of\nthe earth; for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself,\nthe word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,\nthat unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely,\nshall one say, In the lord have I righteousness and strength; even to\nhim shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be\nashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and\nshall glory._ This is a glorious proof of our Saviour\u2019s Deity, not only\nfrom his being called Jehovah, but from several other divine characters\nascribed to him; thus the Person whom the prophet speaks of, styles\nhimself _Jehovah_, and adds, that there is no God besides me; and he is\nrepresented as swearing by himself, which none ought to do but a divine\nPerson; and he encourages all the ends of the earth to look to him for\nsalvation; so that if it can be made appear that this is spoken of our\nSaviour, it will be an undeniable proof of his proper Deity, since\nnothing more can be said to express the glory of the Father than this.\nNow that these words are spoken of our Saviour, must be allowed by every\none, who reads them impartially, for there are several things that agree\nwith his character as Mediator; as when all the ends of the earth are\ninvited to look to him for salvation. We have a parallel scripture,\nwhich is plainly applied to him, in Isa. xi. 10. _And in that day there\nshall be a root of Jesse_, that is, the Messiah, who should spring from\nthe root or stock of Jesse; _which shall stand for an ensign to the\npeople_, to _it_, or to _him_, _shall the Gentiles seek_, which is the\nsame thing as for the ends of the earth to look to him; and besides, the\nword looking to him is a metaphor, taken from a very remarkable type of\nthis matter, to wit, Israel\u2019s looking to the brazen serpent for healing;\nthus he, who is here spoken of, is represented as a Saviour, and as the\nobject of faith.\nAgain, he is represented as swearing by himself; and the subject matter\nof this oath is, _That unto him every knee should bow, and every tongue\nshould swear_; this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in the New\nTestament, as containing a prophecy of his being the judge of the world,\nRom. xiv. 10, 11, 12. _We shall all stand before the judgment seat of\nChrist; for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall\nbow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of\nus shall give an account of himself to God_. And the same words are\nused, with a little variation, in Phil. ii. 10, 11. _That at the name of\nJesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,\nand things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that\nJesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father._\nAgain, the person, of whom the prophet speaks, is one against whom the\nworld was incensed, which can be meant of none but Christ, as signifying\nthe opposition that he should meet with, and the rage and fury that\nshould be directed against him, when appearing in our nature.\nAgain, he is said to be one in whom we have _righteousness_, and in whom\nthe _seed of Israel shall be justified_; which very evidently agrees\nwith the account we have of him in the New Testament, as a person by\nwhose righteousness we are justified, or whose righteousness is imputed\nto us for that end.\nAnd this leads us to consider another scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6. in which\nit is said, _This is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord_, or\nJehovah, _our righteousness_. His being called our righteousness, as was\nbut now observed, implies, that the Messiah, our great Mediator, is the\nperson spoken of, who is called Jehovah. But this is farther evinced\nfrom the context, inasmuch as it is said, ver. 5. _Behold the days\ncome_, _viz._ the Gospel day, _that I will raise unto David a righteous\nbranch, and a king shall reign and prosper; and shall execute judgment\nand justice in the earth_; which any one, who judges impartially of the\nsense of Scripture, will conclude to be spoken concerning our Saviour\u2019s\nerecting the gospel-dispensation, and being the sole lord and governor\nof his church. How the exercise of his dominion over it proves his\nDeity, will be considered under a following head. All that we need to\nobserve at present is, that this description is very agreeable to his\ncharacter in Scripture, as Mediator; therefore he is called Jehovah in\nthis verse.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected, that the words may be otherwise translated,\n_viz._ _This is the name, whereby the Lord our righteousness_, namely,\nthe Father, _shall call him_.\n_Answ._ It may be replied, that the Father is never called in Scripture,\nour righteousness as was but now observed; this being a character\npeculiar to the Mediator, as it is fully explained in several places in\nthe New Testament. As to what may be farther said, in answer to this\nobjection, it is well known that the Hebrew word \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5 signifies either\nactively or passively, as it is differently pointed, the letters being\nthe same; and we shall not enter into a critical disquisition concerning\nthe origin, or authenticity of the Hebrew points, to prove that our\ntranslation is just, rather than that mentioned in the objection; but\nshall have recourse to the context to prove it. Accordingly it appears\nfrom thence, that if it were translated according to the sense of the\nobjectors, it would be little less than a tautology, _q. d._ _I will\nraise to David a righteous branch; and this is the name whereby Jehovah,\nour righteousness, shall call him_, _viz._ _the Branch_; so that at\nleast, the sense of our translation of the text, seems more natural, as\nwell as more agreeable to the grammatical construction observed in the\nHebrew language, in which the words of a sentence are not so transposed\nas they are in the Greek and Latin, which they are supposed to be, in\nthe sense of the text contained in this objection.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected; that though our translation of the\ntext were just, and Christ were called Jehovah, yet it will not prove\nhis Deity, since it is said, in Jer. xxxiii. 16. speaking concerning the\nchurch, _This is the name whereby she shall be called, The Lord_, or\nJehovah, _our righteousness_.\n_Answ._ It is evident from the context, that this is a parallel\nscripture with that before mentioned; the same person, to wit, the\nBranch, is spoken of and the same things predicted concerning the gospel\nchurch, that was to be governed by him. Therefore, though it is plain\nthat our translators understood this text, as spoken of the church of\nthe Jews or rather the Gospel-Church, as many others do, yet, if we\nconsider the sense of the Hebrew words here used \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4, it is very\nevident that they might, with equal, if not, with greater propriety,\nhave been rendered, _shall be called by her_; and so the sense is the\nsame with that of the other but now mentioned; the Branch, to wit, our\nSaviour, is to be called, The Lord our righteousness, and adored as such\nby the church.\nThere is another scripture, in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, in\nJoel ii. 27. _And ye shall know that I am the Lord_, _viz._ Jehovah,\n_your God, and none else_; compared with ver. 32. _And it shall come to\npass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord_, _viz._\nJehovah, _shall be delivered_. In both these verses, it is evident, that\nour Saviour is called Jehovah; for the person, who is so called, in the\nformer of them, is said, ver. 28. to _Pour out his Spirit on all flesh_;\n&c. which Scripture is expressly referred to him, in Acts ii. 16, 17.\nand this pouring out of his Spirit on all flesh here predicted is also\napplied, in ver. 33. to him; _Therefore being by the right hand of God\nexalted, and having received of the Father, the promise of the Holy\nGhost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear_. The argument\nis therefore this: he who was, according to this prophecy, to pour out\nhis Spirit on all flesh, is called Jehovah, your God; but this our\nSaviour is said to have done, therefore the name Jehovah is justly\napplied to him. As to the latter of these verses, _viz._ 32. _Whosoever\nshall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered_; this also is\nreferred to, and explained, as spoken of Christ, in Rom. x. 13. And that\nthe apostle here speaks of calling on the name of Christ, is plain, from\nthe foregoing and following verses. In ver. 9. it is expressed, by\nconfessing the Lord Jesus, and it is there connected with salvation. And\nthe apostle proceeds to consider, that, in order to our confessing, or\ncalling on his name, it is necessary that Christ should be preached,\nver. 14, 15. and he farther adds, in the following verses, that though\nChrist was preached, and his glory proclaimed in the gospel, yet the\nJews believed not in him, and consequently called not on his name; which\nwas an accomplishment of what had been foretold by the prophet Isaiah,\nchap. liii. 1. _Who hath believed our report_, &c. intimating that it\nwas predicted, that our Saviour should be rejected, and not be believed\nin by the Jews: so that it is very evident the apostle is speaking\nconcerning him, and applying to him what is mentioned in this scripture,\nin the prophecy of Joel, in which he is called Jehovah; therefore this\nglorious name belongs to him. Several other scriptures might have been\nreferred to, to prove that Christ is called Jehovah, which are also\napplied to him in the New-Testament, some of which may be occasionally\nmentioned under some following arguments; but, I think, what hath been\nalready said is abundantly sufficient to prove his Deity, from his\nhaving this glorious name given to him; which leads us to consider some\nother names given to him for the proof thereof; accordingly,\n2. He is styled Lord and God, in such a sense, as plainly proves his\nproper Deity. We will not, indeed, deny, that the names _Lord_ and\n_God_, are sometimes given to creatures; yet we are not left without\nsufficient light, whereby we may plainly discern when they are applied\nto the one living and true God, and when not. To assert the contrary,\nwould be to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God; and it would not\nonly render those scriptures, in which they are contained, like the\ntrumpet, that gives an uncertain sound, but we should be in the greatest\ndanger of being led aside into a most destructive mistake, in a matter\nof the highest importance, and hereby be induced to give that glory to\nthe creature, which is due to God alone; therefore we shall always find\nsomething, either in the text, or context, that evidently determines the\nsense of these names, whenever they are applied to God, or the creature.\nAnd here let it be observed, that whenever the word God or Lord is given\nto a creature, there is some diminutive character annexed to it, which\nplainly distinguishes it from the true God: thus when it is given to\nidols, it is intimated, that they are so called, or falsely esteemed to\nbe gods by their deceived worshippers; and so they are called strange\ngods, Deut. xxxii. 16. and molten gods, Exod. xxxiv. 17. and new gods,\nJudges v. 8. and their worshippers are reproved as brutish and foolish,\nJer. x. 8.\nAgain, when the word God, is applied to men, there is also something in\nthe context, which implies, that whatever characters of honour are given\nto them, yet they are subject to the divine controul; as it is said,\nPsal. lxxxii. 1, 6. _God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he\njudgeth among the gods_; and they are at best but mortal men; _I have\nsaid ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high, but ye\nshall die like men_; they are, indeed, described, as being made\npartakers of the divine image, consisting in some lesser branches of\nsovereignty and dominion; but this is infinitely below the idea of\nsovereignty and dominion, which is contained in the word when applied to\nthe great God.\nIt is true, God says to Moses, See, _I have made thee a god to Pharaoh_,\nExod. vii. 1. by which we are not to understand that any of the divine\nperfections were communicated to, or predicated of him; for God cannot\ngive his glory to another: but the sense is plainly this, that he was\nset in God\u2019s stead: thus he is said to be instead of God to Aaron, chap.\niv. 16. and the same expression is used by Elihu to Job, chap. xxxiii.\n6. _I am according to thy wish in God\u2019s stead_; so that Moses\u2019s being\nmade a god to Pharaoh, implies nothing else but this, that he should, by\nbeing God\u2019s minister, in inflicting the plagues which he designed to\nbring on Pharaoh and his servants, be rendered formidable to them; not\nthat he should have a right to receive divine honour from them.\nAgain, when the word God is put absolutely, without any additional\ncharacter of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it must always be\nunderstood of the great God, this being that name by which he is\ngenerally known in scripture, and never otherwise applied, without an\nintimation given that he is not intended thereby: thus the Father and\nthe Son are described in John i. 1. _The Word was with God, and the Word\nwas God_, and in many other places of scripture; therefore if we can\nprove that our Saviour is called God in scripture, without any thing in\nthe context tending to detract from the most known sense of the word,\nthis will be sufficient to prove his proper Deity; but we shall not only\nfind that he is called God therein; but there are some additional\nglories annexed to that name, whereby this will more abundantly appear.\nAs to the word Lord, though that is often applied to creatures, and is\ngiven to superiors by their subjects or servants, yet this is also\nsufficiently distinguished, when applied to a divine Person, from any\nother sense thereof, as applied to creatures. Now, if we can prove that\nour Saviour is called Lord and God in this sense, it will sufficiently\nevince his proper Deity; and, in order hereto, we shall consider several\nscriptures, wherein he is not only so called, but several characters of\nglory are annexed, and divine honours given to him, which are due to\nnone but a divine Person, which abundantly determines the sense of these\nwords, when applied to him. And,\n(1.) We shall consider some scriptures in which he is called _Lord_,\nparticularly, Psal. cx. 1. _The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my\nright hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool_; that our Saviour\nthe Messiah, is the person whom David calls his Lord, is very evident,\nfrom its being quoted and applied to him in the New Testament, in Mat.\nxxii. 44. &c. and that by calling him Lord he ascribes divine honour to\nhim, appears from hence, that when the question was put to the\nPharisees, If Christ were David\u2019s Lord, how could he be his Son? They\nmight easily have replied to it, had it been taken in a lower sense; for\nit is not difficult to suppose that David might have a son descending\nfrom him, who might be advanced to the highest honours, short of what\nare divine; but they not understanding how two infinitely distant\nnatures could be united in one person, so that at the same time he\nshould be called David\u2019s son, and yet his Lord, in such a sense as\nproves his Deity, they were confounded, and put to silence.\nBut whether they acknowledged him to be a divine Person or no, it is\nevident that David considers him as such; or as the Person who, pursuant\nto God\u2019s covenant made with him, was to sit and rule upon his throne, in\nwhom alone it could be said that it should be perpetual, or that of his\nkingdom there should be no end; and inasmuch as he says, ver. 3. _Thy\npeople shall be willing in the day of thy power_, speaking of the Person\nwhom he calls his Lord, who was to be his Son, he plainly infers that he\nshould exert divine power, and consequently prove himself to be a divine\nPerson.\nAgain, if the word _Lord_ be applied to him, as denoting his sovereignty\nover the church, and his being the Governor of the world, this will be\nconsidered under the next head, when we speak concerning those glorious\ntitles and attributes that are given to him, which prove his Deity; and\ntherefore we shall waive it at present, and only consider two or three\nscriptures, in which he is called _Lord_, in a more glorious sense than\nwhen it is applied to any creature: thus in Rev. xvii. 14. speaking of\nthe Lamb, which is a character that can be applied to none but him, and\nthat as Mediator, he is called _Lord of lords_, and the _Prince of the\nkings of the earth_, in Rev. i. 5. and _the Lord of glory_, in 1 Cor.\nii. 8. which will be more particularly considered, when we speak\nconcerning his glorious titles, as an argument to prove it; therefore\nall that we shall observe at present is, that this is the same character\nby which God is acknowledged by those that deny our Saviour\u2019s Deity to\nbe described in Deut. x. 17. _The Lord your God, is God of gods, and\nLord of lords; a great God and terrible_; so that we have as much ground\nto conclude, when Christ is called Lord, with such additional marks of\nglory, of which more in its proper place, that this proves his Deity, as\ntruly as the Deity of the Father is proved from this scripture.\n(2.) Christ is often in scripture called _God_, in such a sense, in\nwhich it is never applied to a creature: thus he is called, in Psal.\nxlv. 6. _Thy throne O God, is for ever, and ever_; and there are many\nother glorious things spoken of him in that Psalm, which is a farther\nconfirmation that he, who is here called _God_, is a divine Person, in\nthe same sense as God the Father is; particularly he is said, ver. 2.\n_To be fairer than the children of men_, that is, infinitely above them;\nand, ver. 11. speaking to the church, it is said, _He is thy Lord, and\nworship thou him_; and, in the following verses, the church\u2019s compleat\nblessedness consists in its being brought into his palace, who is the\nKing thereof, and so denotes him to be the spring and fountain of\ncompleat blessedness, and _his name_, or glory, _is to be remembered in\nall generations, and the people shall praise him for ever and ever_.\nThis glory is ascribed to him, who is called God; and many other things\nare said concerning him, relating to his works, his victories, his\ntrumphs, which are very agreeable to that character; so that it\nevidently appears that the Person spoken of in this Psalm, is truly and\nproperly God.\nI am sensible that the Anti-trinitarians will object to this, that\nseveral things are spoken concerning him in this Psalm, that argue his\ninferiority to the Father; but this only proves that the Person here\nspoken of is considered as God-man, Mediator, in which respect he is, in\none nature, equal, and, in the other, inferior to him; were it\notherwise, one expression contained in this Psalm would be inconsistent\nwith, and contradictory to another.\nTo this we shall only add, as an undeniable proof, that it is Christ\nthat is here spoken of, as also that he is considered as Mediator, as\nbut now observed; that the apostle, speaking of him as Mediator, and\ndisplaying his divine glory as such, refers to these words of the\nPsalmist, Heb. i. 8. _Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for\never and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy\nkingdom._\nAgain, another proof of our Saviour\u2019s Deity may be taken from Matth. i.\n23. _Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call his name\nEmmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us._ His incarnation is\nwhat gives occasion, as is plain from the words, for his being described\nby this name or character, _God with us_, which imports the same thing\nas when it is elsewhere said, John i. 14. _The Word was made flesh, and\ndwelt among us._ This cannot be applied to any but Christ; to say the\nFather is called _Emmanuel_, is such a strain upon the sense of the\ntext, as no impartial reader will allow of; for it is plain that it is a\nname given to the Son upon this great occasion; and this is as glorious\na display of his Deity, as when God the Father says, if we suppose that\ntext to be spoken of him elsewhere, in Exod. xxix. 45. _I will dwell\namongst the children of Israel, and will be their God._\nAgain, Christ\u2019s Deity is proved, in 1 Tim. iii. 16. from his being\nstyled _God, manifest in the flesh_, implying, that the second Person in\nthe Godhead was united to our nature; for neither the Father nor the\nHoly Ghost were ever said to be manifested in the flesh; and, besides,\nhe is distinguished from the Spirit, as justified by him. And he is not\ncalled _God_, because of his incarnation, as some Socinian writers\nsuppose; for to be incarnate, supposes the pre-existence of that nature,\nto which the human nature was united, since it is called elsewhere,\nassuming, or taking flesh, as it is here, being manifested therein, and\nconsequently that he was God before this act of incarnation; and there\nis certainly nothing in the text which determines the word _God_ to be\ntaken in a less proper sense, any more than when it is applied to the\nFather.\n_Object._ It is objected that the word _God_ is not found in all the\nmanuscripts of the Greek text, nor in some translations thereof,\nparticularly the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin, which render it, _the\nmystery which was manifest in the flesh_, &c.\n_Answ._ It is not pretended to be left out in above two Greek copies,\nand it is very unreasonable to oppose these to all the rest. As for the\nSyriac and Arabic translations; some suppose that it is not true in fact\nthat the word _God_ is left out in the Arabic, and though it be left out\nin the Syriac, yet it is contained in the sense there, which is, great\nis the mystery of godliness _that he was_ manifested in the flesh; and\nas for the vulgar Latin version, that has not credit enough, especially\namong Protestants, to support it, when standing in competition with so\nmany copies of scripture in which the word is found; therefore we can by\nno means give up the argument which is taken from this text to prove our\nSaviour\u2019s Deity. Besides as a farther confirmation hereof, we might\nappeal to the very words of the text itself, whereby it will plainly\nappear, that if the word _God_ be left out of it, the following part of\nthe verse will not be so consistent with _a mystery_ as it is with _our\nSaviour_; particularly it is a very great impropriety of expression to\nsay that a mystery, or as some Socinian writers explain it, the will of\nGod[112], was manifest in the flesh, and received in a glorious manner;\nfor this is not agreeable to the sense of the Greek words, since it is\nplain that \u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7, which we render _was manifest in the\nflesh_, is justly translated, being never used in scripture to signify\nthe preaching the gospel by weak mortal men, as they understand it: but\non the other hand it is often applied to the manifestation of our\nSaviour in his incarnation, and is explained when it is said, John i.\n14. that he was _made flesh, and we beheld his glory_[113]; and as for\nthe gospel, though it met with reception when preached to the Gentiles,\nand there were many circumstances of glory that attended this\ndispensation, yet it could not be said for that reason to be received up\ninto glory. Now since what is said in this verse agrees to our Saviour,\nand not to the mystery of godliness, we are bound to conclude that he is\nGod manifest in the flesh, and therefore that this objection is of no\nforce.\nThe next scripture which we shall consider, is Acts xx. 28. _Feed the\nchurch of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood_, where we\nobserve, that he who is here spoken of is said to have a propriety in\nthe church; this no mere creature can be said to have, but our Saviour\nis not only here but elsewhere described as having a right to it; thus\nit is said in Hebrews iii. 3, 4, 6. _He was counted worthy of more glory\nthan Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour\nthan the house_; and _he that hath built all things is God_, which is as\nthough he should say, our Lord Jesus Christ hath not only built his\nchurch but all things, and therefore must be God; and ver. 6. he is\ncalled a Son over his own house; so that he is the purchaser, the\nbuilder, and the proprietor of his church, and therefore must be a\ndivine person; and then it is observed, that he that hath purchased this\nchurch is God, and that God hath done this with his own blood; this\ncannot be applied to any but the Mediator, the Son of God, whose Deity\nit plainly proves.\n_Object._ 1. Some object against this sense of the text, that the word\n_God_ here is referred to the Father, and so the sense is, feed the\nchurch of God, that is, of the Father, which _He_, that is, Christ, hath\npurchased with his own blood.\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that this seems a very great strain\nand force upon the grammatical sense of the words, for certainly _He_\nmust refer to the immediate antecedent, and that is God, to wit, the\nSon. If such a method of expounding scripture were to be allowed, it\nwould be an easy matter to make the word of God speak what we please to\nhave it; therefore we must take it in the most plain and obvious sense,\nas that is which we have given of this text, whereby it appears that God\nthe Son has purchased the church with his own blood, and that he has a\nright to it.\n_Object._ 2. God the Father is said to have purchased the church by the\nblood of Christ, which is called his blood, as he is the Proprietor of\nall things.\n_Answ._ Though God be the Proprietor of all things, yet no one, that\ndoes not labour very hard to maintain the cause he is defending, would\nunderstand _his blood_ in this sense. According to this method of\nspeaking, God the Father might be said to have done every thing that the\nMediator did, and so to have shed his blood upon the cross, as well as\nto have purchased the church thereby, as having a propriety in it.\nThe next scripture, which proves our Saviour\u2019s Deity, is Rom. ix. 5. _Of\nwhom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed\nfor ever_; where he is not only called _God_, but _God blessed for\never_; which is a character too high for any creature, and is the very\nsame that is given to the Father, in 2 Cor. xi. 31. who is styled, _The\nGod and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore_,\nthat is, not only the Object of worship, but the Fountain of\nblessedness. Now if Christ be so called, as it seems evident that he is,\nthen the word _God_ is, in this text, applied to him in the highest\nsense, so as to argue him a divine Person. Now that this is spoken of\nour Saviour, is plain, because he is the subject of the proposition\ntherein contained, and is considered, as being _of the fathers,\nconcerning the flesh_, _i. e._ with respect to his human nature; so that\nif we can prove that he is here called _God, blessed for ever_, we shall\nhave the argument we contend for, this being the only thing contested by\nthe Anti-trinitarians.\n_Object._ It is objected, that the words maybe otherwise rendered,\nnamely, _Let God_, _viz._ the Father, _who is over all, be blessed for\never_, to wit, for this great privilege, that Christ should come in the\nflesh; therefore it does not prove that which we bring it for.\n_Answ._ In defence of our translation of these words, it may be replied,\nthat it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof. It is\ntrue, Erasmus defends the other sense of the text, and thereby gives an\nhandle to many after him, to make use of it, as an objection against\nthis doctrine, which, he says, may be plainly proved from many other\nscriptures; it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up,\nand, with the other, overthrow Christ\u2019s proper Deity, unless we\nattribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper to appear\nsingular, and, in many things, run counter to the common sense of\nmankind; or else to the favourable thoughts which he appears to have\nhad, in some instances, of the Arian scheme. It may be observed, that\nthe most ancient versions render this text in the sense of our\ntranslation; as do most of the ancient fathers in their defence of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, as a late writer observes.[114] And it is\ncertain, this sense given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so\napparently forced and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves,\nwhose interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to\ninsist on it. And a learned writer[115], who has appeared in the\nAnti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he attempts\nto give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own scheme; for certainly\nhe would have defended his sense of the text better than he does, had it\nbeen defensible; since we can receive very little conviction from his\nalleging, that \u201cIt is uncertain whether the word _God_ was originally in\nthe text; and if it was, whether it be not spoken of the Father.\u201d To say\nno more than this to it, is not to defend this sense of the text; for if\nthere were any doubt whether the word _God_ was left out of any ancient\nmanuscripts, he would have obliged the world, had he referred to them,\nwhich, I think, no one else has done: and, since he supposes it\nuncertain whether it be not there spoken of the Father, that ought to\nhave been proved, or not suggested. We might observe, in defence of our\ntranslation, that whenever the words are so used in the New Testament,\nthat they may be translated, _Blessed be God_[116], they are disposed in\na different form, or order, and not exactly so as we read them therein:\nbut, though this be a probable argument, we will not insist on it, but\nshall rather prove our translation to be just, from the connexion of the\nwords, with what goes immediately before, where the apostle had been\nspeaking of our Saviour, as descending from the fathers, according to\nthe flesh, or considering him as to his human nature; therefore it is\nvery reasonable to suppose he would speak of him as to his divine\nnature, especially since both these natures are spoken of together, in\nJohn i. 14. and elsewhere; and why they should not be intended here,\ncannot well be accounted for; so that if our translation be only\nsupposed to be equally just with theirs, which, I think, none pretend to\ndeny, the connexion of the parts of the proposition laid down therein,\ndetermines the sense thereof in our favour.\nHere I cannot pass over that proof which we have of our Saviour\u2019s\ndivinity, in 1 John v. 20. _This is the true God, and eternal life_;\nwhere the _true God_ is opposed, not only to those idols, which, in the\nfollowing verse, he advises them to _keep themselves from_; in which\nsense the Anti-trinitarians themselves sometimes call him the true God,\nthat is as much as to say, he is not an idol; upon which occasion a\nlearned writer[117] observes, that they deal with him as Judas did with\nour Saviour, cry, Hail Master, and then betray him: they would be\nthought to ascribe every thing to him but proper Deity; but that this\nbelongs to him, will evidently appear, if we can prove that these words\nare spoken of him. It is true, the learned author of the\nscripture-doctrine of the Trinity[118], takes a great deal of pains to\nprove that it is the Father who is here spoken of; and his exposition of\nthe former part of the text, which does not immediately support his\ncause, seems very just, when he says, _The Son of God is come, and hath\ngiven us an understanding, that we may know him that is true_, _viz._\nthe Father, and _we are in him that is true_, speaking still of the\nFather, _by or through his Son Jesus Christ_; but, I humbly conceive, he\ndoes not acquit himself so well in the sense he gives of the following\nwords, upon which the whole stress of the argument depends, not only in\nthat he takes it for granted, that the word \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _This_, refers back,\nas is most natural and usual, not to the last word in order, but to the\nlast and principal in sense, namely, the Father, which is, at least,\ndoubtful, since any unprejudiced reader, who hath not a cause to\nmaintain, which obliges him to understand it so, would refer it to the\nimmediate antecedent, _viz._ the Son, by whom we have an interest in the\nFather; for when he had been speaking of him as Mediator, and, as such,\nas the author of this great privilege, namely, our knowing the Father,\nand being in him, it seems very agreeable to describe him as a Person\nevery way qualified for this work, and consequently as being the true\nGod; and besides, the apostle had spoken of the Father in the beginning\nof the verse, as _him that is true_, or, as some manuscripts have it,\n_him that is the true God_, as the same author observes; therefore what\nreason can be assigned why this should be again repeated, and the\napostle supposed to say we know the Father, who is the true God, which\ncertainly doth not run so smooth, to say the best of it, as when we\napply it to our Saviour: that author, indeed, attempts to remove the\nimpropriety of the expression, by giving an uncommon sense of these\nwords, namely, _This knowledge of God is the true religion, and the way\nto eternal life_; or, _this is the true worship of God by his Son unto\neternal life_, which, though it be a truth, yet can hardly be supposed\nto comport with the grammatical sense of the words; for why should _the\ntrue God_ be taken in a proper sense in one part of the verse, and a\nfigurative in the other? And if we take this liberty of supposing\nellipses in texts, and supplying them with words that make to our own\npurpose, it would be no difficult matter to prove almost any doctrine\nfrom scripture; therefore the plain sense of the text is, that our\nSaviour is the true God intended in these words; and it is as evident a\nproof of his Deity, as when the Father is called, _the true God_; or\n_the only true God_, as he is in John xvii. 3. where, though he be so\ncalled, nevertheless he is not to be considered as the only Person who\nis God, in the most proper sense, but as having the one divine nature;\nin which sense the word _God_ is always taken, when God is said to be\none.\nMoreover, let it be observed, that he who is here called the true God,\nis styled, _life eternal_, which, I humbly conceive, the Father never\nis, though he be said to _give us eternal life_, in one of the foregoing\nverses; whereas it is not only said concerning our Saviour, that _in him\nwas life_, John i. 4. but he says, John xiv. 6. _I am the life_; and it\nis said in 1 John i. 2. _The life was manifested, and we have seen it_,\nor him, _and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the\nFather_, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 which is an explication of his own words, John\ni. 1. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd _with God_; and then he explains what he had said in\nver. 14. of the same chapter, when he says, _the word of life_, or the\nPerson who calls himself _the life_ was _manifested unto us_; which\nseems to be a peculiar phrase, used by this apostle, whereby he sets\nforth our Saviour\u2019s glory under this character, whom he calls _life_, or\n_eternal life_; and he that is so, is the same Person, who is called the\ntrue God; which character of being _true_, is often used and applied to\nChrist, by the same inspired writer, more than by any other, as appears\nfrom several scriptures, Rev. iii. 17, 14, and chap. xix. 11. and\nthough, indeed, it refers to him, as Mediator, as does also his being\ncalled _eternal life_, yet this agrees very well with his proper Deity,\nwhich we cannot but think to be plainly evinced by this text.\nThere is another scripture, which not only speaks of Christ as God, but\nwith some other divine characters of glory added to his name, which\nprove his proper Deity: thus in Isa. ix. 6. he is styled, _the mighty\nGod_, and several other glorious titles are given to him; as, _the\nwonderful Counsellor, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace_;\nthese are all applied to him, as one whose incarnation was foretold, _to\nus a Child is born_, &c. And he is farther described as a Person who was\nto be the Governor of his church, as it is said, _the government shall\nbe upon his shoulders_; all which expressions so exactly agree with his\ncharacter as God-man, Mediator, that they contain an evident proof of\nhis proper Deity.\n_Object._ They who deny our Saviour\u2019s Deity, object, that the words\nought to be otherwise translated, _viz._ _the wonderful Counsellor_, the\n_mighty God, the everlasting Father, shall call him, the Prince of\npeace_.\n_Answ._ We have before observed, in defence of our translation of\nanother text,[119] that the Hebrew word, that we translate, _he shall be\ncalled_, (which is the same with that which is used in this text) does\nnot fully appear to signify actively; and also that such transpositions,\nas are, both there and here, made use of, are not agreeable to that\nlanguage; and therefore our sense of the text is so plain and natural,\nthat any one, who reads it impartially, without forcing it to speak what\nthey would have it, would take it in the sense in which we translate it,\nwhich contains a very evident proof of our Saviour\u2019s divinity.\nThere is another scripture which speaks of Christ, not only as God, but\nas the _great God_, in Tit. ii. 13. _Looking for that blessed hope, and\nthe glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ_;\nnone ever denied that he, who is said _to appear_, is true and proper\nGod, and therefore the principal thing we have to prove is, that the\ntext refers only to our Saviour, or that the apostle does not speak\ntherein of two Persons, to wit, the Father and the Son, but of the Son;\nand accordingly, though we oftentimes take occasion to vindicate our\ntranslation, here we cannot but think it ought to be corrected; and that\nthe word _and_ should be rendered _even_:[120] But, because I would not\nlay too great a stress on a grammatical criticism, _how_ probable soever\nit may be; we may consider some other things in the text, whereby it\nappears that our Saviour is the only Person spoken of therein, from what\nis said of him, agreeable to his character as Mediator: thus the apostle\nhere speaks of his appearing; as he also does elsewhere, in Heb. ix. 28.\n_He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation_; and in 1\nJohn iii. 2. _When he shall appear, we shall be like him_, &c. and then\nhe who, in this text, is said to appear, is called the _blessed hope_,\nthat is, the object of his people\u2019s expectation, who shall be blessed by\nhim when he appears: thus he is called, in 1 Tim. i. 1. _our hope_, and\nin Coloss. i. 27. _The hope of glory_; now we do not find that the\nFather is described in scripture as appearing, or as the hope of his\npeople. It is true, a late writer[121] gives that turn to the text, and\nsupposes, that as the Father is said to judge the world by Jesus Christ,\nand as when the Son shall come at last, it will be in the glory of his\nFather; so, in that sense, the Father may be said to appear by him, as\nthe brightness of his glory shines forth in his appearance. But since\nthis is no where applied to the sense of those other scriptures, which\nspeak of every eye\u2019s seeing him in his human nature, and plainly refer\nto some glories that shall be put upon that nature, which shall be the\nobject of sense; why should we say that the text imports nothing else\nbut that the Father shall appear in his appearing, which is such a\nstrain upon the sense of the words, that they who make use of it would\nnot allow of, in other cases? I might have added, as a farther\nconfirmation of the sense we have given of this text, its agreeableness\nwith what the apostle says, in Tit. ii. 10. when he calls the gospel,\n_The doctrine of God our Saviour_, and with what immediately follows in\nver. 14. where, having before described him as our Saviour, he proceeds\nto shew wherein he was so, namely, _by giving himself for us, that he\nmight redeem us from all iniquity_; and he is not only called _God our\nSaviour_ by this apostle, but he is so called in 2 Pet. i. 1. where the\nchurch is said _to have obtained like precious faith, through the\nrighteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ_; or as the marginal\nreading has it, _of our God and Saviour_; this seems to be so just a\nreading of the text we are considering, that some, on the other side of\nthe question, allow that the words will very well bear it; but they\nthink their sense agreeable, as the author but now mentioned says, to\nthe whole tenor of Scripture, which is little other than a boast, as\nthough the scripture favoured their scheme of doctrine, which, whether\nit does or no, they, who consider the arguments on both sides, may\njudge; and we think, we have as much reason to conclude that our sense\nof the words, which establishes the doctrine of our Saviour\u2019s being the\ngreat God, is agreeable to the whole tenor of scripture; but, passing\nthat over, we proceed to another argument.\nThere is one scripture in which our Saviour is called both _Lord and\nGod_, _viz._ John xx. 28. _And Thomas answered and said unto him, My\nLord, and my God._ The manner of address to our Saviour, in these words,\nimplies an act of adoration, given to him by this disciple, upon his\nhaving received a conviction of his resurrection from the dead; and\nthere is nothing in the text, but what imports his right to the same\nglory which belongs to the Father, when He is called his people\u2019s God.\nHerein they lay claim to him, as their covenant God, their chief good\nand happiness; thus David expresses himself, Psal. xxxi. 14. _I trusted\nin thee, O Lord, I said thou art my God_; and God promises, in Hos. ii.\n23. that _he would say to them which were not his people, Thou art my\nGod_; and chap. viii. 2. _Israel shall cry unto me, My God we know\nthee_; and the apostle Paul speaking of the Father, says, Phil. iv. 19.\n_My God shall supply all your need_, &c. that is, the God from whom I\nhave all supplies of grace; the God whom I worship, to whom I owe all I\nhave, or hope for, who is the Fountain of all blessedness. Now if there\nbe nothing in this text we are considering, that determines the words to\nbe taken in a lower sense than this, as there does not appear to be,\nthen we are bound to conclude, that Christ\u2019s Deity is fully proved from\nit.\n_Object._ Some of the Socinians suppose, that the words, _my Lord_, and\n_my God_, contain a form of exclamation, or admiration; and that Thomas\nwas surprized when he was convinced that our Saviour was risen from the\ndead, and so cries out, as one in a rapture, _O my Lord! O my God!_\nintending hereby the Father, to whose power alone this event was owing.\n_Answ._ Such exclamations as these, though often used in common\nconversation, and sometimes without that due regard to the divine\nMajesty, that ought to attend them, are not agreeable to the scripture\nway of speaking. But, if any scriptures might be produced to justify it,\nit is sufficiently evident, that no such thing is intended in these\nwords, not only because the grammatical construction will not admit of\nit,[122] but because the words are brought in as a reply to what Christ\nhad spoken to him in the foregoing verse; _Thomas answered and said unto\nhim, My Lord_, &c. whereas it is very absurd to suppose, that an\nexclamation contains the form of a reply, therefore it must be taken for\nan explicit acknowledgment of him, as _his Lord_, and _his God_; so that\nthis objection represents the words so contrary to the known acceptation\nthereof, that many of the Socinians themselves, and other late writers,\nwho oppose our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, do not think fit to insist on it,\nbut have recourse to some other methods, to account for those\ndifficulties, that lie in their way, taken from this, and other texts,\nwhere Christ is plainly called God, as in John i. 1. and many other\nplaces in the New Testament.\nHere we may take occasion to consider the method which the\nAnti-trinitarians use to account for the sense of those scriptures, in\nwhich Christ is called God. And,\n1. Some have had recourse to a critical remark, which they make on the\nword \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 _God_, namely, that when it has the article \u1f41 before it, it\nadds an emphasis to the sense thereof, and determines it to be applied\nto the Father. And inasmuch as the word is sometimes applied to him,\nwhen there is no article, (which, to some, would appear an objection,\nsufficient to invalidate this remark) they add, that it is always to be\napplied to him, if there be nothing in the text that determines it\notherwise. This remark was first made by Origen, and afterwards largely\ninsisted on by Eusebius, as Dr. Clarke observes;[123] and he so far\ngives into it, as that he apprehends it is never applied, when put\nabsolutely in scripture, to any other Person; we shall therefore enquire\ninto the justice thereof.\nBy the word _God_ absolutely taken, (whether \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 have an article before\nit or no) we understand nothing else but its being used without any\nthing to determine its application, either to the Father, Son, or Holy\nGhost; whereas, on the other hand, when it is not absolutely used, there\nare several things, by which we may certainly know to which of the\ndivine persons it belongs: thus it is particularly applied to the\nFather, when there is something in the text that distinguishes him from\nthe Son or Spirit: so John xiv. 1. _Ye believe in God_, _viz._ the\nFather, _believe also in me_; and in all those scriptures, in which\nChrist is called the Son of God, there the word _God_ is determined to\nbe applied to the Father; and when God is said to act in relation to\nChrist as Mediator, as in Heb. ii. 13. _Behold, I and the children which\nGod hath given me_, it is so applied.\nAnd the word _God_ is determined to be applied to the Son, when he is\nparticularly mentioned, and so called, or described, by any of his\nMediatorial works or characters; as in Matt. i. 23. _God_, _viz._ the\nSon, _with us_; and 1 Tim. iii. 16. _God manifest in the flesh_; or when\nthere is any thing in the context, which discovers that the word _God_\nis to be applied to him.\nAlso, with respect to the Holy Ghost, when any of his Personal works, or\ncharacters, are mentioned in the text or context, and the word _God_\napplied to him, to whom they are ascribed, that determines it to belong\nto the Holy Ghost; as in Acts v. 3, 4. speaking concerning lying to the\nHoly Ghost, it is explained, _Thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto\nGod_; and 1 Cor. iii. 16. _Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,\nand that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you_; but more of this when we\nspeak of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. In these, and such like cases, the\nword _God_ is not put absolutely; but, on the other hand, it is put\nabsolutely when there is nothing of this nature to determine its\napplication; as in those scriptures that speak of the divine Unity,\n_viz._ in Matt. xix. 17. _There is none good but one, that is God_; and\nin 1 Cor. viii. 4. _There is none other God but one_; and in James ii.\n19. _Thou believest that there is one God_, &c. and John x. 33. _Thou,\nbeing a man, makest thyself God_; and in many other places of the like\nnature, in which there is an idea contained of the divine perfections;\nbut it is not particularly determined which of the Persons in the\nGodhead is intended thereby.\nThis is what we are to understand by the word \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God_, being put\nabsolutely without any regard to its having an article before it, or\nnot; from whence nothing certain can be determined concerning the\nparticular application thereof, since many scriptures might easily be\nreferred to, in which it is put without an article, though applied to\nthe Father; and, on the other hand, it has very often an article put\nbefore it when applied to idols, or false gods;[124] and the devil is\ncalled, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, _the god of this world_; and it may be\nobserved, that in two evangelists,[125] referring to the same thing, and\nusing the same words, one has the word with an article, and the other\nwithout.\nTherefore, setting aside this critical remark about the application of\nthe word _God_, when there is an article before \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, the main thing in\ncontroversy is how we are to apply it, when neither the context, nor any\nof the rules above-mentioned, give us any direction, therein, namely,\nwhether it is in that case only to be applied to the Father, or\nindifferently to any of the Persons in the Godhead. The author\nabove-mentioned, in his scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, always\napplies it to the Father; and it may easily be perceived, that he has no\nother reason than this to apply many scriptures to the Father, which\nothers, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity, in another way,\napply to the Son, as being directed herein by something spoken of him in\nthe context, as in Rev. xix. 4, 5, 6, 17.[126]\nAnd this is, indeed, the method used by all the Anti-trinitarians, in\napplying the word _God_, especially when found absolutely in scripture.\nThat which principally induces them hereunto, is because they take it\nfor granted, that as there is but one divine Being, so there is but one\nPerson who is truly and properly divine,[127] and that is the Father, to\nwhom they take it for granted that the word _God_ is to be applied in\nscripture to signify any finite being, as the Son, or any creature below\nhim. But this supposition is not sufficiently proved, _viz._ that the\none divine Being is a person, and that this is only the Father, whom\nthey often call the supreme, or most high God, that is, superior, when\ncompared with the Son and Spirit, as well as all creatures; but this we\ncannot allow of, and therefore cannot see sufficient reason to conclude,\nthat the word _God_, when put absolutely, is to be applied to no other\nthan the Father.\nThat which I would humbly offer, as the sense of the word, when thus\nfound in scripture, is, that when the Holy Ghost has left it\nundetermined, it is our safest way to consider it as such, and so to\napply it indifferently to the Father, Son, or Spirit, and not to one\nperson, exclusive of the others: thus when it is said, Mark xii. 29, 32.\n_The Lord our God is one Lord_; and _there is one God, and there is none\nother but him_; the meaning is, that there is but one divine Being, who\nis called God, as opposed to the creature, or to all who are not God by\nnature: thus when the unity of the Godhead is asserted in that scripture\nhere referred to, Deut. vi. 4. and Israel was exhorted to _serve him_,\nthey are, at the same time, forbidden to _go after other gods_, ver. 13,\n14. And when it is said, that to love the Lord with all our heart, soul,\nmind, and strength, is more than all burnt-offering and sacrifices, Mark\nxii. 33. it implies, that religious worship was performed to God; but it\nis certain that this was performed to all the Persons in the Godhead;\ntherefore none of them are excluded in this scripture, in which the\nunity of God is asserted. And however Dr. Clarke concludes Athanasius,\nfrom his unguarded way of speaking, in some other instances, to be of\nhis side; yet, in that very place, which he refers to,[128] he expressly\nsays, that when the scripture saith the Father is the only God, and that\n_there is one God_, and _I am the First_, and _the Last_; yet this does\nnot destroy the divinity of the Son, for he is that one God, and first\nand only God, &c. And the same thing may be said of the Holy Ghost.\nAgain, when it is said, Mat. xix. 17. _There is none good but one, that\nis God_; it implies, that the divine nature, which is predicated of all\nthe persons in the God-head, hath those perfections that are essential\nto it, and particularly that goodness by which God is denominated\nAll-sufficient: so in Acts xv. 18. when it is said, _Known unto God are\nall his works_; where the word _God_ is absolute, and not in a\ndeterminate sense, applied either to Father, Son, or Spirit, the meaning\nis, that all the Persons in the Godhead created all things, which they\nare expressly said to do in several scriptures, and, as the consequence\nthereof, that they have a right to all things, which are known unto\nthem.\n_Object._ It will probably be objected to this, that we assert that\nthere are four divine Persons, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nand the Godhead which is common to them all, since we call it _God_,\nwhich word in other instances, connotes a personal character; and, if\nso, then it will follow, that we are chargeable with a contradiction in\nterms, when we say that there are three Persons in the Godhead, _viz._\nin one Person.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though the divine nature, which\nis common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is represented, in\nscripture, as though it were a Person, when it is called God, yet it is\nto be taken in a metaphorical sense; whereas the Father, Son, and\nSpirit, as has been before considered, are called Divine Persons\nproperly, or without a metaphor.[129] Moreover, the divine nature,\nthough it be called God, is never considered as co-ordinate with, or as\ndistinguished from the divine Persons, as though it were a Person in the\nsame sense as they are; and therefore, whenever it is so called, it must\nbe considered as opposed to the creature; as we before observed, the one\nGod is opposed to those who are not God by nature. It may also be\nconsidered, that those divine perfections, which are implied in the word\n_God_, taken in this sense, are known by the light of nature; (whereas\nthe divine Personality, as applied either to the Father, Son, or Spirit,\nis a matter of pure revelation) and it is such an idea of God, or the\nGodhead, that is intended thereby; so that all the force of this\nobjection consists only in the sense of a word, and the principal thing\nin debate is, whether the word _God_ thus absolutely and indeterminately\nconsidered, is a proper mode of speaking, to set forth the divine\nnature: now if the scripture uses the word in this sense, it is not for\nus to enquire about the propriety, or impropriety, thereof; but we must\ntake heed that we do not pervert, or misunderstand, the sense hereof\nwhich they do, who either speak, on the one hand, of the Godhead, when\ncalled _God_, as though it were distinct from the Father, Son, and\nSpirit; or, on the other hand, understand it only of the Father, as\nopposed to the Son and Spirit, as the Anti-trinitarians do, who deny\ntheir proper Deity, and when they assert that there is but one God, do\nin effect, maintain that there is but one Person in the Godhead. Thus\nconcerning the sense in which the Anti-trinitarians take the word _God_,\nwhen (as it is generally expressed) it is taken absolutely in scripture,\nas applying it only to the Father; we proceed to consider,\n2. That they farther suppose that our Saviour is called God, in the New\nTestament, by a divine warrant, as a peculiar honour put upon him; and\nhere they think it not difficult to prove, that a creature may have a\nright conferred on him to receive divine honour; which if they were able\nto do, it would tend more to weaken our cause, and establish their own,\nthan any thing they have hitherto advanced. But this we shall have\noccasion to militate against under the fourth head of argument, to prove\nthe Deity of the Son, _viz._ his having a right to divine worship, and\ntherefore shall pass it over at present, and consider them as intending\nnothing more by the word _God_, when applied to our Saviour, but what\nimports an honour infinitely below that which belongs to the Father; and\nthis they suppose to have been conferred upon him, on some occasions,\nrelating to the work for which he came into the world. The Socinians, in\nparticular, speak of his being called God, or the Son of God.\n(1.) Because of his having been _sanctified_ and _sent into the world_,\nJohn x. 36. _viz._ to redeem it, in that peculiar and low sense in which\nthey understand the word _redemption_, of which more hereafter.\n(2.) Also from his extraordinary conception and birth, by the power of\nthe Holy Ghost, as it is said, in Luke i. 35. _The Holy Ghost shall come\nupon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee;\ntherefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be\ncalled the Son of God._\n(3.) Another reason of his having this honour conferred upon him, they\ntake from his resurrection, and so refer to Rom. i. 4. in which it is\nsaid, that he was _declared to be the Son of God with power, by the\nresurrection from the dead_.\n(4.) Another reason hereof they take from his ascension into heaven, or\nbeing glorified, at which time they suppose that he was made an High\nPriest, and had, in an eminent degree, the name and character of God put\nupon him, for which they refer to Heb. v. 3. in which it is said,\n_Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that\nsaid unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_.\nBut they plainly pervert the sense of these respective texts but now\nmentioned, inasmuch as they suppose that his mission, incarnation,\nresurrection, and ascension, are the principal reasons of his being\ncalled God; and that his deity is founded not in the excellency of his\nnature, but in these relative circumstances, in which, as an act of\ngrace, this honour was conferred upon him, which God, had he pleased,\nmight have conferred on any other creature, capable of yielding\nobedience to him, or receiving such a commission from him: whereas, in\nreality, these scriptures refer to that glory which he had as Mediator,\nas a demonstration of his Deity, and these honours were agreeable to his\ncharacter, as a divine Person, but did not constitute him God, as they\nsuppose.\nBut these things are not so particularly insisted on by some late\nAnti-trinitarians, though they all agree in this, that his right to\ndivine honour is the result of that authority which he has received from\nGod, to perform the works which are ascribed to him, relating to the\ngood of mankind; whereas we cannot but conclude, from the scriptures\nbefore brought to prove his proper Deity, in which he is called _Lord_\nand _God_, in as strong a sense, as when those words are applied to the\nFather, that he is therefore God equal with the Father.\nThus having considered our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, as evinced from his\nbeing called Lord and God; and also, that these names are given to him\nin such a sense, as that hereby the Godhead is intended, as much as when\nit is applied to the Father; we shall close this head, by considering\ntwo scriptures, in which the divine nature is ascribed to him; and the\nfirst of them is in Coloss. ii. 9. _In him dwelleth all the fulness of\nthe Godhead bodily_; in which we may observe, that it is not barely\nsaid, that God dwelleth in him, which would not so evidently have proved\nhis deity, because God is elsewhere said to dwell in others: thus, in 1\nJohn iv. 12. it is said, _God dwelleth in us_; but here it is said, the\nGodhead dwelleth in him, which is never applied to any creature; and the\nexpression is very emphatical, the fulness, yea, all the fulness of the\nGodhead dwelleth in him; what can we understand thereby, but that all\nthe perfections of the divine nature belong to him? The apostle had been\nspeaking, in ver. 2. of the _mystery of Christ_, as what the church was\nto know, and acknowledge, as well as that of the Father; and he also\nconsiders him as the Fountain of wisdom, ver. 3. _In whom are hid all\nthe treasures of wisdom and knowledge_; and what is here spoken\nconcerning him, very well corresponds therewith, as being expressive of\nhis divine glory; the fulness of the Godhead is said, indeed, to dwell\nin him _bodily_, by which we are to understand his human nature, as the\nbody is, in some other scriptures taken for the man; thus, in Rom. xii.\n1. we are exhorted _to present our bodies_, _i. e._ ourselves, _a living\nsacrifice to God_; so here the divine nature, as subsisting in him, is\nsaid to dwell in, that is, to have the human nature united to it, which\nis meant by its dwelling in him bodily.\nThe account which some give of the sense of this text, to evade the\nforce of the argument, taken from thence, to prove our Saviour\u2019s Deity,\ndoes little more than shew how hard the Anti-trinitarians are put to it\nto maintain their ground, when they say that the word \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which we\nrender _Godhead_, signifies some extraordinary gifts conferred upon him,\nespecially such as tended to qualify him to discover the mind and will\nof God; or, at least, that nothing else is intended thereby, but that\nauthority which he had from God, to perform the work which he came into\nthe world about; since it is certain, that this falls infinitely short\nof what is intended by the word _Godhead_, which must signify the divine\nnature, subsisting in him, who assumed, or was made flesh, and so dwelt\ntherein, as in a temple.\nThere is another scripture, which seems to attribute to him the divine\nnature, _viz._ Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that he was _in the form\nof God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God_; by _the form\nof God_, I humbly conceive, we are to understand the divine nature which\nhe had, and therefore it was no instance of robbery in him to assert,\nthat he was equal with God. If this sense of the text can be defended,\nit will evidently prove his proper Deity, since it is never said,\nconcerning any creature, that he is in the form of God, or, as the words\nmay be rendered, that he subsisted in the form of God; now it is well\nknown, that the word which we render _form_, is not only used by the\nschoolmen, but by others, before their time, to signify the nature, or\nessential properties, of that to which it is applied; so that this sense\nthereof was well known in the apostle\u2019s days. Therefore, why may we not\nsuppose, that the Holy Ghost, in scripture, may once, at least, use a\nword which would be so understood by them? And it will farther appear,\nthat Christ\u2019s Deity is signified thereby, if the following words are to\nbe understood in the sense contained in our translation, that _he\nthought it not robbery to be equal with God_; now this seems very plain,\nfor the same word \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, _he thought_, is taken in the same sense in\nthe third verse of this chapter; _Let every man esteem_, or think,\n_others better than themselves_; and it is used about twenty times in\nthe New Testament, five times in this epistle, besides in this text, and\nnever understood otherwise than as signifying _to think_, _esteem_, or\n_account_; and it would destroy the sense of the respective texts, where\nit is used, to take it otherwise. This the Anti-trinitarians themselves\nwill not deny, inasmuch as it does not affect their cause;\nnotwithstanding they determine that it must be otherwise translated in\nthis text; and so they render the words, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9, _he did not covet to be honoured_, or was not greedy, or in\nhaste of being honoured _as God_[130], that is, he did not affect to\nappear like a divine Person, or catch at those divine honours that did\nnot belong to him. Could this sense of the text be made out to be just,\nit would effectually overthrow our argument, taken from thence, to prove\nChrist\u2019s proper Deity: but this is as foreign from the sense of the\nwords, as any sense that could be put upon them; and all that is\npretended to justify it, is a reference which they make to a phrase, or\ntwo, used in a Greek writer, which is not at all to their purpose[131].\nMoreover the sense of this text, as agreeable to the words of our\ntranslation, will farther appear to be just, if we consider, that our\nSaviour\u2019s _being in the form of God_, is there opposed to his having\nafterwards been _in the form of a servant_, or the _fashion of a man_;\nnow if the latter be to be understood of his being truly and properly\nman, and not to be taken barely for something in him which resembled the\nhuman nature; or if his _taking on him the form of a servant_, imports,\nhis being in a capacity to perform that obedience which was due from\nhim, as man to God, in a proper, and not a theatrical sense; then it\nwill follow, that his being in the form of God, as opposed hereunto,\nmust be taken for his being truly and properly God, or for his having\nthe divine nature, as before mentioned; which was the thing to be\nproved.\nI might here consider the sense which Dr. Whitby, in his annotations,\ngives of our Saviour\u2019s being _in the form of God_, as opposed to that of\na servant, (after he had given up the sense of the words, as in our\ntranslation, to the adversary) which is, that his being in the form of\nGod, implies, his appearing, before his incarnation, in a bright shining\ncloud, or light, or in a flame of fire, or with the attendance of an\nhost of angels, as he is sometimes said to have done, which the Jews\ncall Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, as being a visible emblem of his\npresence; this he calls _the form of God_, and his not appearing so,\nwhen incarnate in this lower world, _the form of a servant_, as opposed\nto it; and adds, that when he ascended into heaven, he assumed the form\nof God; and therefore whenever he has occasionally appeared, as to the\nmartyr Stephen at his death, or to the apostle Paul at his first\nconversion, it has been in that form, or with like emblems of majesty\nand divinity, as before his incarnation,\nHere I would observe concerning this, that what he says of Christ\u2019s\nappearing with emblems of majesty and glory before his incarnation, and\nthe glory that was put upon his human nature after his ascension into\nheaven, is a great truth; but as this is never styled, in scripture, the\nform of God, nor was the symbol of the divine glory ever called therein\nthe divine majesty, however it might be called by Jewish writers;\ntherefore this has no reference to the sense of this text, nor does it,\nin the least, enervate the force of the argument, taken from it, to\nprove our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity, any more than this critical remark on\nthe words thereof does, the sense of our translation, whereby it\nevidently appears. I might also observe the sense which another\nlearned[132] writer gives of _the form of God_ in this text, which is\nthe same that is given by several of the Socinians; namely, that it has\na relation to his working miracles while here upon earth, which is\ncertainly very disagreeable to the scope and design of the text, since\nhe is said to be _in the form of God_, before he took upon him the form\nof a servant, that is, before his incarnation: and besides, the working\nmiracles, never was deemed sufficient to denominate a person to be in\nthe form of God, for if it had, many others, both before and after him,\nmight have had this applied to them; whereas it is a glory appropriate\nto him, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God.\nI would not wholly pass over that which some call a controverted text of\nscripture, in 1 John v. 7. _For there are three that bear record in\nheaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are\none_, lest it should be thought that I conclude the arguments, brought\nby the Anti-trinitarians, sufficiently conclusive to prove it\nspurious,[133] but I shall say the less on this subject, because it is a\nvery hard matter to advance any thing that has not been very largely\ninsisted on, by various writers; among whom I cannot but mention, with\ngreat esteem; one who has defended the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity\nwith a great deal of learning and judgment, who has given a particular\naccount of several that have written on either side of the\nquestion[134]. No one pretends to deny, that this text is not to be\nfound in a great number of manuscripts, among which some are generally\nallowed to be of great antiquity; therefore it is less to be wondered\nat, that it is left out in some ancient versions thereof, which were\ntaken from copies that were destitute of it; all which only proves, that\nthe text has been corrupted: but the main question is, which of those\ncopies are to be reckoned genuine, those which have it, or others which\nhave it not? It must be allowed, that there are a considerable number,\nin which the text is inserted, as Beza and others observe; and it will\nbe a hard matter to prove that these are all spurious, which must be\ndone, before we shall be obliged to expunge it out of scripture.\nIf it be objected, that the manuscripts, which have the text, are not so\nancient as those that are without it, it will be a difficult matter for\nthem to determine the antiquity thereof, with such exactness, as, by\ncomparing one with the other, it may be certainly known, with respect to\nall of them, which has the preference, and by what a number of years:\nbesides, since it is certain, that more manuscripts of scripture are\nlost by far, than are now known to be in the world; unless we suppose\nthat religion, in ancient times, was contracted into a very narrow\ncompass, or that very few, in the first ages of the church, had copies\nof scripture by them, which is not to be supposed; and, if so, then it\nwill be hard to prove that those manuscripts, which have the text\ninserted, did not take it from some others, that were in being before\nthem; so that the genuineness, or spuriousness of the text, is not to be\ndetermined only or principally by inspection into ancient manuscripts.\nNor can I think it very material to offer conjectures concerning the\nmanner how the text came first to be corrupted. Dr. Hammond, and others,\nsuppose, that some one, who transcribed this epistle, might commit a\nblunder, in leaving out this text, because of the repetition of the\nwords in the following verse, _There are three that bare record_. It is,\nindeed, a hard thing to trace every mistake made by an amanuensis to its\nfirst original; however, this must be concluded, that it is possible for\nit to be left out through inadvertency, but it could not be put in\nwithout a notorious fraud; and no one would attempt to do this, unless\nsome end, which he thought valuable, were answered thereby. Indeed, if\nthe doctrine of the Trinity could not have been maintained without such\nan insertion, I will not say, that every one, who ever defended it, had\nhonesty enough to abhor such a vile practice; but this I am bound to\nsay, that if any one did so, he was guilty not only of fraud, but folly,\nat the same time; since the divinity of the Son and Spirit, as well as\nof the Father, is maintained throughout the whole scripture; and the\nprincipal thing asserted concerning the Son, in this text, _viz._ that\nhe is _One_ with the Father, is expressly laid down in his own words,\nJohn x. 30. _I and my Father are one._\nI know the Arians take occasion to censure the defenders of the doctrine\nof the Trinity, as being guilty of this fraud, though Father Simon[135]\nis a little more sparing of his reflections on them; but he is no less\ninjurious to the truth, when he maintains, that some person or other, in\nthe margin of a copy, which he had by him, which he supposes to have\nbeen about five hundred years old, had affixed to ver. 8. these words,\nas an explication thereof, as though the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost\nwere intended thereby, to wit, by the _Spirit_, _water_, _and blood_;\nand from hence concludes, that the next person, who transcribed from\nthis manuscript, mistook this note for a part of the text; and so the\n7th verse came to be inserted. This Le Clerc calls a setting the matter\nin a clear light; for some persons are ready to believe that which\nsupports their own cause, how weakly soever it be maintained.\nIt might easily be replied to this, that this text was known in the\nworld long enough before that manuscript was wrote, and consequently\nthis insertion could not first take its rise from thence; and therefore\nto produce a single instance of this nature, is, I humbly conceive,\nnothing to the purpose[136].\nBut, passing by what respects scripture-manuscripts, there is more\nstress to be laid on the writings of those who have referred to this\ntext; and accordingly it is certain, that it was often quoted in defence\nof the doctrine of the Trinity, by ancient writers, in the fifth and\nfollowing centuries, therefore it was found in the manuscripts that they\nused. It is true, it is not quoted by the Fathers, who wrote in the\nfourth century, to wit, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Nazianzen,\nChrysostom, nor by Augustin, and some others; but nothing can be\ninferred from hence, but that it was not in the copies they made use of:\nbut it does not follow that it was in no copy at that time; for, if we\nlook farther back to the third century, we find it expressly referred to\nby Cyprian, which I cannot but lay a very great stress on; he has it in\ntwo places[137], in the former of which, he occasionly mentions these\nwords, _These three are one_; and, in the latter, he expressly quotes\nthis scripture; and says, it is _written of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, that these three are one_; which evidently proves, that he found\nit in some manuscript extant in his time, which was before any\nmanuscript, now in being, is pretended to have been written; for even\nthe Alexandrian manuscript is, I think, supposed by none to be of\ngreater antiquity than the fourth century, which seems to me to be of\ngreater force than any thing that is suggested, concerning its being not\nfound in manuscripts of later date; and we may observe, that that Father\ndoes not speak of it as a certain manuscript, which was reserved, as a\ntreasure, in some private library, which might be adulterated; nor doth\nhe pretend to prove the authority thereof, nor make use of it, to prove\nthe genuineness of the text; but quotes the text, as we do any other\nplace of scripture, as supposing it was generally acknowledged to be\ncontained therein; and he also was reckoned a man of the greatest\nintegrity, as well as piety, and so would not refer to any text, as a\npart of the sacred writings, which was not so.\n_Object._ It is objected against this, by the Anti-trinitarians, that\nthough he quotes scriptures, yet it is not this, but ver. 8. and that\nnot in the words thereof, but in a mystical sense, which he puts upon\nit, by the Spirit, water, and blood, agreeing in one, intending the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, being one: and this is the sense Facundus, an\nAfrican bishop, who lived about the middle of the sixth century, puts\nupon it, and supposes him thus to quote it.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be answered, that his judgment is no more to\nbe valued, who lived three hundred years after him, than if he had lived\nin this present age; nor had he any farther light to understand\nCyprian\u2019s meaning, than we have; and we know very well, that Cyprian was\nnot so unreasonably fond of mystical interpretations of scriptures, as\nOrigen, and some others of the Fathers were: and even they never\npresumed to quote any mystical sense, which they put on scripture, as\nthe words thereof, or say, as this Father does, it is so written; much\nless are we to suppose that his words are to be taken in this sense. And\nwhatever Facundus\u2019s sense was of his words, another who lived in the\nsame century, together with, or a little before him, _viz._ Fulgentius,\nrefers (as the learned author above mentioned[138] observes) to this\npassage of Cyprian; not as a mystical explication of ver. 8. but as\ndistinctly contained in ver 7. and, as such, makes use of it against the\nArians.\nAs for that known passage in Tertullian[139], in which he speaks of the\nunion, or connexion, as he calls it, of the Father in the Son, and of\nthe Son in the Comforter, making three joined together, and that these\nthree are one, that is, one divine Being, not one Person, and so\nreferring to our Saviour\u2019s word\u2019s, _I and the Father are one_, it is a\nvery good explication of the sense of this text, and discovers that, in\nthat early age of the church, he had a right notion of the doctrine of\nthe Trinity: but whether it is sufficiently evident from hence, that he\nrefers to this scripture under our present consideration, though\ndefending the doctrine contained in it, I will not determine. I shall\nadd no more in the defence of the genuineness of this text, but rather\nrefer the reader to others, who have wrote professedly on this\nsubject.[140]\nAnd whereas some of the anti-trinitarians have supposed, that if this\nscripture were genuine, it doth not prove the doctrine of the Trinity,\nbecause the words ought to be taken as implying, that the Father, Son,\nand Spirit, are one only in testimony; to this it may be answered, that\nthough it be an undoubted truth that they agree in testimony, yet it\ndoth not amount to the sense of the words, _They are one_; for if that\nhad been the principal idea designed to be conveyed thereby, no reason\ncan be assigned why the phrase should be different from what it is in\nthe following verse; but it would, doubtless, have been expressed, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _They agree in one_.\nThus we have endeavoured to prove our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity from those\nscriptures that speak of him, not only as a being called _Lord_ and\n_God_, but from others, that assert him to have the divine nature, or to\nbe equal with God the Father; we shall now proceed to consider some\nscriptures, by which it appears, that he asserts this concerning\nhimself; or what proofs we have of his Deity from his own words, in\nseveral conferences which he held with the Jews, by which he gave them\nreason to conclude that he was God equal with the Father; and the\nopposition which he met with from them, who, for this reason, charged\nhim with blasphemy, plainly intimates, that they understood his words in\nthis sense. And if it be replied to this, as it often is, that nothing\ncan be inferred to prove his Deity from their misunderstanding his\nwords, and so charging him, without ground to be guilty thereof; to this\nit may be answered, though we do not lay much stress on what they\nunderstood to be the meaning of his words, yet it plainly appears, that\nhe intended them in this sense, inasmuch as if they misunderstood him,\nhe did not undeceive them, which certainly he ought to have done, had he\nnot been a divine Person. If any one seems to assume to himself any\nbranch of the glory of God, that does not belong to him, though the\nambiguity of words, provided they may be taken in two contrary senses,\nmay in some measure, excuse him from having had such a design, however\nunadviseable it be to speak in such a way, yet if he apprehends that\nthey, to whom he directs his discourse, are in the least inclined to\nmisunderstand him, he is obliged, from the regard which he has to the\ndivine glory, and the duty which he owes to those with whom he\nconverses, as well as in defence of his own character, to undeceive\nthem; therefore, if our Saviour had not been equal with God, he would,\ndoubtless, upon the least suspicion which the Jews might entertain, that\nhe asserted himself to be so, immediately have undeceived them, and\nwould have told them, that they took his words in a wrong sense, and\nthat he was far from usurping that glory, which belonged to God; that\nhad he intended them in that sense, they might justly have called him a\nblasphemer; this he would, doubtless have done, had he by his words,\ngiven them occasion to think him a divine Person if he were not so.\nThus the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when the people at Lystra, upon\ntheir having wrought a miracle, concluded that they were gods, with what\nzeal and earnestness did they undeceive them! In Acts xiv. 14, 15. it is\nsaid, when they perceived they were going to offer sacrifice to them,\n_they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and\nsaying, Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions\nwith you_. And, at another time, we read, that Peter and John, in Acts\niii. 11-13. when they had cured the lame man, though the people did not\nconclude them to be divine persons, yet, perceiving that they were\namazed, and being jealous that some thoughts might arise in their minds,\nas though they had a right to that glory, which belongs to God alone, or\nthat this miracle was to be ascribed to themselves, rather than to him,\nwe read, that _when Peter saw that they marvelled, and that the people\nran together, he answered, ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or\nwhy look ye so earnestly on us, as though, by our own power, or\nholiness, we had made this man to walk?_ and accordingly takes occasion\nto shew, that the glory hereof was due to none but God.\nBut our Saviour takes no such method to exculpate himself from this\ncharge of blasphemy; therefore we must suppose they did not mistake his\nwords but that he intended thereby, that they should understand him to\nbe a divine Person; yea, he is so far from undeceiving them, if they\nwere deceived, that he rather confirms, than denies, the sense, which\nthey put upon them. This appears from Matt. ix. 2-5. when they brought\nto him a man sick of the palsey, to whom, when he healed him, he said,\n_Son be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee_, he perceived, that\n_certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth_,\nsupposing _that none had power to forgive sins but God_. It is true, the\nwords might have been understood, as though he had said, thy sins are\nforgiven thee, only in a _declarative way_, as signifying, that the man\nhad obtained forgiveness from God, without insinuating thereby, that he\nhad a power, as a divine Person, to forgive sins. But it is plain, that\nthe Jews took his words in this latter sense, from their charging him\nwith blasphemy; but, instead of rectifying the mistake, if it was one,\nhe asserts, that notwithstanding the meanness of his appearance, while\nin his humble state on earth, yet he had a power to forgive sins; and he\nnot only asserts, but proves this, when he says, ver. 5. _Whether it is\neasier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say Arise, and walk?_\nMany suppose, that Our Saviour hereby intends to establish his Deity, by\nasserting his infinite power, which was exerted in working a miracle,\nand so it is as though he should say: he that can produce any effect,\nwhich is above the laws of nature, as miracles are, at least if he does\nit by his own power, must be God: but this he had done, and so proved\nhis deity thereby, and consequently his right to forgive sins.\nBut I am sensible it will be objected to this, that since creatures have\nwrought miracles, which were as truly and properly so as this that\nChrist wrought; therefore the working a miracle will not prove the\ndivinity of the person that wrought it, unless we could prove that he\ndid it by his own power, that we cannot do without supposing his deity,\nand therefore that ought not to be made use of, as a medium to prove it.\nSome, indeed, attempt to prove it from that scripture, Luke xi. 20. in\nwhich he says, _he cast out devils by the finger of God_, supposing he\nmeans hereby his own divine power. Others take notice of something\npeculiar to himself as they suppose, in the way of his working miracles,\nthat herein he spake, and acted like a God. But, since neither of these\narguments will be reckoned conclusive, therefore I would take a method\nsomewhat different, which is not liable to the aforesaid objection, to\naccount for this matter; and that is that our Saviour first tells the\nman, that his sins were forgiven him, knowing, before-hand, how this\nwould be resented by the scribes, who would, upon this occasion, charge\nhim with blasphemy, which accordingly they did; and then, to convince\nthem that he was a divine Person, and had a power to forgive sin, he\nwrought a miracle, and so bade the man, sick of the palsey, to _arise\nand walk_; whereby he proved his deity, of which he designed to give an\nextraordinary conviction, and consequently of his having a power to\nforgive sin, by an appeal to this miracle. Now though miracles do not\nargue the divinity of the person that works them, from any visible\ncircumstance contained therein as but now mentioned, yet they\neffectually prove it, provided this be the thing contested, and an\nexplicit appeal be made to the divine power to confirm it by miracles,\nthen they are an undoubted proof thereof, as much as they prove any\nthing relating to the Christian religion: and, in this sense, I humbly\nconceive, Christ proved his deity by miracles, which he is expressly\nsaid elsewhere to have done; as in John ii. 11. speaking concerning his\nfirst miracle in Cana of Galilee, it is said, that thereby _he\nmanifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him_; where,\nby _his glory_ is doubtless, meant his divine glory; for the faith of\nhis disciples, which was consequent hereupon, was a divine faith: and we\nnever read of the glory of Christ, in his humbled state more especially,\nbut it must import the glory of his deity, which his disciples are said,\nin some measure to behold, when they believed in him. This Christ\nconfirmed by his miracles, in the same way, as his mission was confirmed\nthereby. By this means, therefore, he proved his deity and consequently\nhis right to forgive sin: and therefore was so far from endeavouring to\nconvince the Jews, that they were mistaken in thinking him a divine\nperson, he farther insists on, and proves, that he was so.\nThere is another conference which our Saviour held with the Jews,\nmentioned, John vi. in which we read, that after he had healed a lame\nman on the sabbath-day, for which, ver. 16. _the Jews sought to slay\nhim_, as a sabbath-breaker, he replies, ver. 17. _My Father worketh\nhitherto, and I work_; upon which they were more enraged, and as it is\nsaid, ver. 18. _sought the more to kill him, because he had not only\nbroken the sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making\nhimself equal with God_. It is plain they understood his words, as\nimporting that he was equal with God; and, indeed they could do no\notherwise, for he compares his works with God\u2019s, and speaks of himself\nas working co-ordinately with him. Certainly our works ought not to be\nmentioned at the same time with God\u2019s; therefore they suppose that he\nasserted himself to be a divine Person, and farther proved it by calling\nGod his Father; which, according to the sense in which they understood\nit, denoted an equality with him. Hereupon they charge him with\nblasphemy, and go round about to kill him for it. Now it is certain,\nthat, if he had not been equal with God, he ought to have undeceived\nthem, which he might easily have done, by telling them that though I\ncall God my Father, I intend nothing hereby, but that I worship,\nreverence, and yield obedience to him; or that I am his Son, by a\nspecial instance of favour, in such a sense as a creature may be; but\nfar be it from me to give you the least occasion to think that I am\nequal with God, for that would be to rob him of his glory: but we find\nthat our Saviour is far from denying his equality with the Father, but\nrather establishes and proves it in the following verses.\nIt is true, indeed, in some passages thereof, he ascribes to himself the\nweakness of a man, as having therein respect to his human nature, which\nis included in his being the Messiah and Mediator, as well as his\ndivine: thus he says, ver. 19. _The Son_, _viz._ as man, _can do nothing\nof himself_; and ver. 20. _The Father sheweth him all things_; but, in\nother passages, he proves that he had a divine nature, and farther\nconfirms what he had before asserted, namely, that he was equal with\nGod; in ver. 21. _For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth\nthem, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will._ Observe, he not only\nspeaks of himself, as having divine power, but sovereignty; the former\nin that he quickeneth; the latter, in that he does it according to his\nown will or pleasure; and, in ver. 23. he signifies his expectation from\nmen, that _all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the\nFather_. Thus he lays claim to divine glory, as well as ascribes to\nhimself the prerogative of raising the whole world, at the general\nresurrection, and determining their state, either of happiness or\nmisery, ver. 28, 29. _Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in\nwhich all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come\nforth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they\nthat have done evil to the resurrection of damnation._ From hence,\ntherefore, we may conclude, that our Saviour was so far from disclaiming\nthe charge of being equal with God, which they called blasphemy, that he\nproves it by arguments yet more convincing.\nAnother conference, which he held with the Jews about this matter, we\nread of in John viii. wherein, taking occasion to speak concerning\nAbraham, who rejoiced to see his day, he tells them plainly, ver. 58.\n_Before Abraham was, I am_; not intending hereby, as the Arians suppose,\nthat he was the first creature, but that he was equal with God; and,\nindeed, there seems to be something in his mode of speaking that argues\nhis asserting his eternal and unchangeable Deity. The phrase here used\nis the same, with a little variation, with that which is used to set\nforth the eternity and immutability of God, in Isa. xliii. 13. _Before\nthe day was, I am he._ If the prophet is to be understood, as asserting\nthat God the Father existed before time, before the _day_ was, or the\ncourse of nature began, why may we not suppose our Saviour to intend as\nmuch, when he says, _Before Abraham was, I am_.\nHowever, since it will be objected, that this, at best, is but a\nprobable argument, though it is such as many of the Fathers have made\nuse of in defending his Deity, yet we will not lay the whole stress of\nour cause upon it, but may observe, that whatever critical remark others\nmay make on the sense of the words, it is certain the Jews understood\nthem no otherwise, than as implying, that he thought himself equal with\nGod; therefore it is said, ver. 59. that _they took up stones to stone\nhim_; which was a punishment inflicted, under the law, on blasphemers;\nand ought he not, had they misunderstood his words, to have cleared\nhimself from this imputation, if he had not been equal with God? But he\nis far from doing this; for it is said, in the following words, that _he\nhid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of\nthem, and so passed by_.\nAgain, there is another conference, which he held with the Jews,\nmentioned in John x. in which he speaks like a divine Person in several\nverses; as ver. 14. _I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am\nknown of mine_; which is the same that is ascribed to God, in Psal.\nxxiii. 1. _The Lord is my Shepherd_; and he lays claim to his church,\nwhom he calls his sheep, as his own; and ver. 18. he speaks of himself,\nas having a power over his own life; _I have power to lay it down, and I\nhave power to take it again_; which is a greater instance of dominion\nthan belongs to a creature, who has not a power to dispose of his own\nlife at pleasure; and, in ver. 28. he ascends yet higher in his\nexpression, when he speaks of himself, as having a power _to give\neternal life_ to his people, which is certainly the gift of none but\nGod; and when, in ver. 29. he owns himself to be inferior to his Father,\nas man; notwithstanding, in ver. 30. he plainly asserts his Deity, when\nhe says, _I and my Father are one_.\n_Object._ 1. The Anti-trinitarians object to this, that Christ did not\nspeak of himself as one with the Father, any otherwise than in consent,\nor, at least, as having power and authority derived from him.\n_Answ._ To say that those words, _I and my Father are one_, imply\nnothing more than that they are One in consent, does not well agree with\nthe sense of the foregoing words, in which he speaks of the greatness,\nand the power of his Father, and in this of his being One with him.\nBesides, had he only meant his being One with him in consent, as\nimplying the subjection of all the powers and faculties of his soul to\nhim, that is a sense in which every good man may be said to be one with\nGod; therefore the Jews would not have charged him with blasphemy for\nit, which, it is plain, they did, and took up stones to stone him, if\nhis own words had not given them ground to conclude that he intended\nmore than this, namely, that he was one in nature with God. It is\ntherefore farther objected,\n_Object._ 2. That the Jews, indeed, misunderstood him, and nothing can\nbe inferred from their stupidity, to prove his Deity: but he seems, in\nthe following verses, to do more to the undeceiving them, than he had\ndone in some of the foregoing instances; for he tells them plainly the\nreason why he spake of himself as a God, namely, because he was a\nprophet; and these were called _gods, to whom the word of God came_, or,\nat least, that he had a right to be so called, from his being\n_sanctified, and sent into the world_.\n_Answ._ By these expressions, he does not intend to set himself upon a\nlevel with the prophets of old, but they contain an argument from the\nless to the greater; and so it is, as though he should say, If some\npersons, who made a considerable figure in the church of old, and were\nsent about important services to them, are called gods, I have much more\nreason to claim that character, as having been sanctified, and sent into\nthe world about the great work of redemption, consecrated, or set apart\nto glorify the divine perfections therein; which work, as will be\nobserved under a following head, proves his Deity; and therefore we are\nnot to suppose that he disclaims it, when he speaks of himself, as\nengaged therein. Then he proceeds yet farther, in asserting his Deity,\nwhen he speaks of his _being in the Father, and the Father in him_,\nwhich, it is certain, the Jews took in a very different sense from what\nthose words are taken in, when applied to creatures, for they concluded,\nthat he spake of himself as a divine Person; for it follows, ver. 39.\nthat _they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand_;\nso that he still gives them occasion to conclude, that he was God equal\nwith the Father.\nThus he asserted his Deity in all these various conferrences with the\nJews; in which, if he had not been what they apprehended him to\ninsinuate that he was, many charges must have been brought against him;\nnot only as to what concerns matters of common prudence, as incensing\nthe people by ambiguous expressions, and thereby hazarding his own life;\nbut his holiness would have been called in question, had he given\noccasion to them, to think that he assumed to himself divine glory, had\nhe not had a right to it.[141]\nAnd this leads us to consider that last public testimony, which he gave\nto his Deity, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, which, in some respects,\nmay be said to have cost him his life, when he stood before Pontius\nPilate; upon which occasion, the apostle says, 1 Tim. vi. 13. that _he\nwitnessed a good confession_: this we have recorded, Matth. xxvi. 61.\nwhere we observe, that when false witnesses were suborned to testify\nagainst him, who contradicted one another, in their evidence, upon which\nthe high priest desired that he would make a reply to what they said, in\nhis own defence, he did not think that worthy of an answer, and\ntherefore held his peace: but when he was asked, in the most solemn\nmanner, and adjured by the living God, to tell them, _Whether he were\nthe Christ, the Son of God_? that is, the Messiah, whom the Jews\nexpected, who governed his church of old, and whom they acknowledged to\nbe a divine Person, or the Son of God; here the whole matter is left to\nhis own determination. Had he denied this, he would have saved his life;\nand if he confessed it, he was like to die for it. On this occasion, he\ndoes not hold his peace, or refuse to answer; therefore, says he, ver.\n64. _Thou hast said_; which is as though he had said, It is as thou hast\nsaid, I am the Christ, the Son of God; and then in the following words,\n_Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man,\nsitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven_;\nwhereupon the high priest rent his clothes, and appealed to the people\nthat they had heard his blasphemy, and accordingly they judged him\nworthy of death. Here we observe, that he not only asserts himself to be\nthe Son of God, and to have a right to the glory of a divine Person,\nbut, as a farther confirmation thereof, applies to himself a text, which\nthe Jews, supposed to belong to the messiah, Dan. vii. 13. _I saw in the\nnight-visions, and behold, one, like the Son of man, came with the\nclouds of heaven_, &c. So that, from all this, it follows, that if\nChrist, when he conversed occasionally with the Jews, or when he was\ncalled before the Sanhedrim, asserts himself to be the Son of God, which\nincludes in it his Deity, and so does not shun to speak of himself, as\nequal with God, we have the doctrine, which we are defending, maintained\nby himself; therefore we must conclude, that he really is what he\ndeclared himself to be, namely, God equal with the Father.\nII. We proceed to consider how our Saviour\u2019s Deity appears, from those\ndivine attributes, which are ascribed to him, which are proper to God\nalone; to which we shall add, those high and glorious titles, by which\nhe is described in scripture. The attributes of God, as has been before\nobserved[142], are all essential to him, and therefore cannot, in a\nproper sense, be any of them, applied to a creature, as they are to\nChrist, which will be particularly considered in some following heads.\n1. He is said to be eternal, and that not only without end, as the\nangels and saints in heaven shall be, but from everlasting: this appears\nfrom Micah v. 2. _Whose goings forth have been from of old, from\neverlasting._ If his goings forth have been from everlasting, then he\nexisted from everlasting, for action supposes existence. Nothing more\nthan this can be said, to prove that the Father was from everlasting:\nand that this is spoken of our Saviour is very plain, from the reference\nto this text, in Matth. ii. 6. where the former part of this verse is\nquoted and explained, as signifying our Saviour\u2019s being born in\nBethlehem; therefore the latter part of it, _whose goings forth_, &c.\nmust belong to him. Again, he is said, in John i. 1. to have been _in\nthe beginning_; observe, it is not said he was _from_ but _in_, the\nbeginning; therefore it is plain, that he existed when all things began\nto be, and consequently was from eternity.\nWhen we consider this divine perfection as belonging to our Saviour, we\nmilitate against both the Socinians and the Arians; as for the former,\nthey deny, that he had any existence, properly speaking, before his\nconception in the womb of the virgin Mary, and interpret all those\nscriptures that speak of his pre-existence to it, such as that in John\nviii. 58. _Before Abraham was, I am_, or that _the Word was in the\nbeginning_, as importing either, that he was from eternity, in the\ndecree and purpose of God, relating to his incarnation, in which sense\nevery thing that comes to pass was eternal, as fore-ordained by God,\nwhich is therefore a very absurd exposition of such-like texts; or else\nthey suppose, that his being in the beginning signifies nothing else but\nhis being the Founder of the gospel-state, which cannot be the sense of\nthe evangelist\u2019s words, because he is said _to be with God_; and it\nimmediately follows, _and all things were made by him_, which every\nunprejudiced reader would suppose to intend the creation of the world,\nand not the erecting the gospel-dispensation; this therefore evidently\nappears to be a perversion of the sense of the text.\nAs for the Arians, they distinguish between Christ\u2019s being in the\nbeginning of time, and his being from eternity; and so they suppose the\nmeaning of the text to be, that _the Word was from the beginning_; and\nwhatever disguise they seem to put upon their mode of speaking, when\nthey say there was not a point of time in which Christ was not, or that\nhe was before the world, they are far from asserting that he was without\nbeginning, or properly from eternity. And, in answer hereunto, let it be\nconsidered, that we cannot conceive of any medium between time and\neternity; therefore whatever was before time, must be from eternity, in\nthe same sense in which God is eternal. That this may appear, let us\nconsider that time is the measure of finite beings, therefore it is very\nabsurd, and little less than a contradiction, to say that there was any\nfinite being produced before time; for that is, in effect, to assert\nthat a limited duration is antecedent to that measure, whereby it is\ndetermined, or limited. If we should allow that there might have been\nsome things created before God began to create the heavens and the\nearth, though these things might be said to have had a being longer than\ntime has had, yet they could not have existed before time, for time\nwould have begun with them; therefore if Christ had been created a\nthousand millions of ages before the world, it could not be said that he\nexisted before time; but it would be inferred from hence, that time,\nwhich would have taken its beginning from his existence, had continued\nso many ages; therefore that which existed before time, must have\nexisted before all finite beings, and consequently was not produced out\nof nothing, or did not begin to be, and is properly from eternity.\nTherefore I cannot but think the objection evasive, or a fruitless\nattempt to take off the force of this argument, to prove our Saviour\u2019s\nDeity, since the expressions of scripture, by which his eternity is set\nforth, are as strong and emphatical, as those whereby the Father\u2019s is\nexpressed, and consequently his Deity is equally evident.\n2. Our Saviour is said to be unchangeable, which perfection not only\nbelongs to God, but is that whereby he is considered as opposed to all\ncreated beings, which are dependent upon him, and therefore changed by\nhim, at his pleasure. Now that Christ is immutable, is evident, if we\ncompare the words of the Psalmist, Psal. cii. 25-27. _Of old hast thou\nlaid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy\nhands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall\nwax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they\nshall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no\nend_, with Heb. i. 10. where the apostle uses the same words and\nconsiders them as applied to Christ; so that it will be a very hard\nmatter for any to evade the force of this argument. I am persuaded, that\nif the apostle had not applied these words to Christ, the\nAnti-trinitarians would have allowed, that the Psalmist gives as plain\nan account of the immutability of God, as can be found in scripture, or,\nindeed, as words can express. Some of the writers on that side of the\nquestion, have passed over this scripture, as thinking, I suppose, that\nit is better not to attempt to account for it consistently with their\nscheme, than to do it in such a way, as will not, in the least, support\nit: others do not care to own that they are applied to Christ; but that\nis to break the chain of the apostle\u2019s reasoning, and thereby to fasten\nan absurdity upon him. Now, that we may briefly consider the connexion\nbetween this and the foregoing verses, whereby it will evidently appear\nthat our Saviour is the Person here described, as unchangeable, let us\nconsider, that the design of this chapter is to set forth the\nMediatorial glory of Christ, to establish his superiority to angels; and\nafter he had referred to that scripture, which speaks of the eternity of\nhis kingdom, to wit, the 45th Psalm, ver. 6. he then speaks of him as\nunchangeable, and so applies the words of the Psalmist, but now\nmentioned, to him. We may also observe, in the text, that he is not only\nunchangeable, as to his existence, but his duration is unchangeable,\nwhich farther confirms what was observed under the last head, that he is\neternal, as God is, _viz._ without succession, as well as from\neverlasting: this seems to be contained in that expression, _Thou art\nthe same, thy years shall not fail_, as though he should say, thy\nduration does not slide, or pass away by successive moments, as the\nduration of time and created beings do.\nTo this we might add what the apostle says, Heb. xiii. 8. that he _is\nthe same yesterday, to-day, and for ever_, that is, throughout all the\nchanges of time, he remains unchangeably the same in his divine nature.\nA late writer[143] supposes the meaning of this scripture to be nothing\nbut this, that the doctrine of Christ, once taught by the apostles,\nought to be preserved unchanged: it is true, he says elsewhere,[144]\nthat it is certainly true that the Person of Christ is the same\nyesterday, to-day, and for ever; whether, by yesterday, he means any\nthing more than a limited duration of time past, which he must do, or\nelse give up the doctrine that he every where contends for, I cannot\ntell; but he does not think that this text respects the Person of\nChrist, but his doctrine as above mentioned; the principal argument by\nwhich he proves it is, its supposed connexion with the foregoing verse;\nand so it is as though he should say; Have regard to what has been\ndelivered to you by those who have preached the word of God, who, though\nthey are no more among you, yet the doctrine they have delivered is the\nsame yesterday, to-day, and for ever. But it seems to be too great a\nstrain on the sense of the words, to suppose _Christ_ to import the same\nwith _his doctrine_; and, with submission, I cannot think that this is\nto be inferred from what goes before, or follows after it; but the sense\nseems to be this; Adhere to the doctrine you have formerly received from\nthose who have preached the word of God to you, and be not carried about\nwith divers and strange doctrines, so as to change your sentiments with\nyour teachers, for that would not be to act in conformity to Jesus\nChrist, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; so that he\ndesigns to establish their faith from the consideration of Christ\u2019s\nimmutability, whatever changes they are liable to from the death of\ntheir teachers, or the innovations of those who succeed them, and\nendeavour to carry them away by divers and strange doctrines; so the\ntext seems to be as plain a proof of our Saviour\u2019s immutability as that\nscripture, Rev. i. 4. is of the immutability of God, in which it is\nsaid, _He is, was, and is to come_. If, by his being _yesterday_, we are\nto understand, as some do, his managing the affairs of his church under\nthe legal dispensation; and _to-day_, his governing them under this\npresent dispensation; and _for ever_, the eternity of his kingdom, it\nplainly proves, that whatever changes he has made in the affairs of the\ngovernment of the church and of the world, yet he is the same, and\nconsequently a divine Person.\n3. Another divine attribute ascribed to our Saviour, is omnipresence, as\nin Matt, xviii. 20. _Where two or three are gathered together in my\nname, there am I in the midst of them_; which expression imports the\nsame thing, with that whereby the divine omnipresence (as is allowed by\nall) is set forth in Exod. xx. 24. _In all places where I record my\nname, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee._ Now that Christ\u2019s\npresence in the midst of his people, in all places, argues his\nomnipresence, is very evident, since he designs, by this promise, to\nencourage them in all places, and at all times, to perform religious\nduties, with an eye to this privilege; so that wherever there is a\nworshipping assembly, they have hereby ground to expect that he will be\npresent with them. Now it is certain, that no creature can be in two\nplaces at the same time, much less in all places, which is the same as\nto _fill heaven and earth_, and is applicable to God alone, as the\nprophet expresses it, in Jer. xxiii. 24. Moreover, when Christ says,\nthat he will be with his people in all places, it must be meant at the\nsame time, and not successively, otherwise he could not be where-ever\ntwo or three are met in his name; this therefore is a plain proof of his\nomnipresence, which is an incommunicable perfection of the divine\nnature, and consequently argues him to be true and proper God.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected to the sense we have given of this\nscripture, (to weaken the force of the argument taken from it) that our\nSaviour is here said to be present, only by his authority, where two or\nthree are met together in his name; and accordingly the words are to be\ntaken in a metaphorical sense, as when a king is said to be present in\nall parts of his dominions, where persons, who are deputed to represent\nhim, act by his authority.\n_Answ._ Though we allow, that whatever is done in Christ\u2019s name, must be\nsaid to be done by his authority; yet we cannot allow that his being in\nthe midst of them is to be taken only for his being so by his authority;\nfor we must not suppose that our Saviour, in these words, makes use of a\ntautology; and, indeed, it would be a very jejune and empty way of\nspeaking to say, that where two or three are met together in my name,\nthat is, by my authority, there am I in the midst of them, by my\nauthority. Certainly, Christ\u2019s being in the midst of them, must be taken\nin the same sense with that parallel scripture before referred to, in\nExod. xx. 24. where God\u2019s _coming to his people_, in those places where\nhe records his name, is explained, as having a very great privilege\nattending it, namely, his _blessing them_, which he is said to do, when\nhe confers blessedness upon them, and gives them a full and rich supply\nof all their wants; this therefore must be the sense of our Saviour\u2019s\nbeing in the midst of his people.\nMoreover, as God is said to be present where he acts, so Christ\u2019s\npowerful influence, granted to his people in all places, which supposes\nhis omnipresence, contains a great deal more than his being present by\nhis authority; and if that were the only sense in which this scripture\nis to be taken, it might as well be alleged, that all the scriptures,\nwhich speak of the divine omnipresence might be taken in that sense,\nwhich would be to set aside all the proofs we have from thence of this\nperfection of the divine nature; therefore this objection seems to be\nrather an evasion, than an argument, to overthrow Christ\u2019s divinity,\ntaken from his omnipresence.\n_Object._ 2. Others suppose that Christ being in the midst of his\npeople, when met together in his name, implies nothing more than his\nknowing what they do when engaged in acts of religious worship.\n_Answ._ We observe, that they who make use of this objection, that they\nmay militate against that argument, which is brought to prove his Deity\nfrom his omnipresence, will, for argument\u2019s sake, allow him to be\nomniscient, not considering that that equally proves him to be a divine\nPerson, as will be considered under our next head. Now, to prove that\nChrist\u2019s being present with his people, is to be understood of his\nknowing what they do, they refer to that scripture, 2 Kings v. 26. in\nwhich Elisha says to Gehazi, as knowing what he had done, when he\nfollowed Naaman, the Syrian, for a reward; _Went not mine heart with\nthee, when the man turned again from his chariot with thee?_ But since\nthis scripture signifies nothing else but that this secret was revealed\nto him, which is, in a figurative way of speaking, as though he had been\npresent with him, it will not follow from hence that the prophet\npretended to know what was done in all places, and that at all times,\nwhich is more (as will be farther observed under the next head) than\nwhat seems communicable to any creature: but this is intended by\nChrist\u2019s knowing all things, and more than this, doubtless, is meant by\nhis being in the midst of his people, whereby he encourages them to\nexpect those blessings, which they stand in need of, from him, in which\nrespect he promises to be with them in a way of grace; and certainly he\nthat is so present with his people, must be concluded to be, in the most\nproper sense, a divine Person.\nThere is another scripture, which is generally brought to prove Christ\u2019s\nomnipresence, and consequently his proper Deity, to wit, John iii. 13.\n_And no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from\nheaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven._ For the understanding\nof which words, we must consider their connexion with what goes\nimmediately before; thus by, _No man hath ascended up into heaven, but\nhe that came down from heaven_, It is plain our Saviour means, that no\nman has a full and comprehensive knowledge of heavenly things, of which\nhe had been speaking in the foregoing verse, but he that came down from\nheaven; in which he asserts his divine omniscience[145], as the person\nin whom all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid, as it is\nexpressed elsewhere; or none knows the mysteries which are hid in God,\nbut he that is in the bosom of the Father, who came down from heaven;\nor, as the apostle expresses it, 1 Cor. xv. 47. who is _the Lord from\nheaven_; and then, as a farther proof of his Deity, he adds, that _he is\nin heaven_; that is, while he was on earth, in one nature, as being\nomnipresent, he was in heaven in the other nature; and, agreeably to\nthis sense of the scripture, he is said to _come down from heaven_, as\nhis divine nature manifested its glory here on earth, when the nature\nwas united to it, which is the only sense in which God is said to come\ndown into this lower world; as we have the same mode of speaking, in\nGen. xi. 7. Exod. iii. 8. and other places; so that if he is thus\nomnipresent, we must conclude that he is a divine Person.\nThe Arians give a very different sense of this text, especially those\nwords, _The Son of man, who is in heaven_;[146] for, they suppose, the\nwords ought to be rendered, _was in heaven_; and that it does not argue\nhis omnipresence, but that nature, which they call divine, first resided\nin heaven from the beginning, when it was produced by the Father; and\nafterwards in his incarnation, by a removal from heaven to earth it was\nsaid to come down from thence. But, before we allow of this sense of the\ntext, they must prove that Christ was the first creature, and that, in\nthis finite nature, he resided in heaven till his incarnation, and that\nhe afterwards, by a change of place, descended into this lower world;\nand, if they could make this appear, there is yet a difficulty in the\nexpression, as they understand the words; for it is not usual to say, I\ncame from a place, and was in that place before I came from it;\ntherefore whether their exposition of the words, or ours, be most\nproper, I leave any one to judge.\nAs for the Socinians, who deny that Christ had any existence before his\nincarnation, these are very much at a loss to account for the sense of\nthis scripture; though Socinus himself, and many of his followers, have\nconcluded from thence, that Christ was taken up into heaven some time\nafter his incarnation, which they suppose to have been in some part of\nthose forty days in which the scripture says he was in the wilderness\ntempted of the devil; but how he could ascend into heaven, and yet be in\nthe wilderness, where one of the evangelists says he was all the forty\ndays, as Mark i. 13. cannot be easily understood, or accounted for; and,\nindeed, the scripture is altogether silent as to this matter: and it is\nvery strange, if it had been so, that when we have an account of other\ncircumstances in his life, which are of less importance, no mention\nshould be made of this, which, had it been discovered, would have been a\ngreat inducement to his followers to have paid the highest regard to his\ndoctrine; for they suppose he was taken up into heaven, that he might be\ninstructed in those things which he was to impart to the world. And,\ninstead of a proof hereof, they only say that this is a parallel\ninstance with that of Moses, who was called up to the top of mount\nSinai, which was then the immediate seat of the divine presence, and\nthere received the law, which he was to impart to Israel; so, they\nsuppose, it was necessary, that our Saviour should ascend into heaven,\nthat he might there be instructed in that doctrine, which he was to\ncommunicate to his church.\nBut we cannot but conclude, that being omniscient, as will be proved\nunder our next head, he had no need to receive instructions, and having,\nin his human nature, had an unction from the Holy Ghost; or, as it is\nexpressed, John iii. 34. that _God gave not the Spirit by measure unto\nhim_, therefore it was necessary that he should ascend into heaven, to\nreceive the doctrines from thence, which he was to deliver. Moreover,\naccording to this conjecture, his coming from heaven, in the end of\ntime, to judge the world, should have been called his _third_ coming,\n(as his first coming from thence was in his incarnation, and his second\ncoming is supposed to be his return to this world, after he ascended\ninto heaven, during this interval of time) which is contrary to that\ntext of scripture, in Heb. ix. 28. which calls it, _his coming the\nsecond time, without sin, unto salvation_. And, indeed, it is so\nungrounded a supposition, that some of the Socinians themselves reckon\nit, at most, but a probable conjecture, but do not pretend to say that\nit is sufficiently founded in scripture; and therefore we cannot think\nthat this will have any tendency to enervate the force of our argument,\nto prove Christ\u2019s Deity, taken from the above-mentioned sense of that\ntext; _The Son of man, which is in heaven_.\n4. Our Saviour\u2019s Deity may farther be proved, from his being omniscient:\nthus the apostle Peter says, in John xxi. 17. _Lord thou knowest all\nthings, thou knowest that I love thee._ This is too great a glory to be\nascribed to any creature; and had it been spoken of the Father, the\nAnti-trinitarians themselves would have owned, that it is as great a\nproof of his Deity, as any contained in scripture, as importing the same\nthing with what the Psalmist says, Psal. cxlvii. 5. _His understanding\nis infinite._ But, besides this there is another expression that\nabundantly proves this matter, wherein he is denominated the Searcher of\nhearts, which is a glory that God appropriates to himself, in Jer. xvii.\n10. _I the Lord search the hearts, I try the reins, even to give every\nman according to his ways_; and elsewhere, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. _The Lord\nsearcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the\nthoughts_; and all creatures are excluded from having any branch of this\nglory, when it is said, in 1 Kings viii. 39. _Thou only knowest the\nhearts of all the children of men_: now such a knowledge as this is\nascribed to Christ; sometimes he is said to know the _inward thoughts\nand secret reasonings of men within themselves_, Mark ii. 8. And, if it\nbe said, that this is only a particular instance of knowledge, such as\nhe might have had by immediate divine inspiration, and therefore that it\ndoes not prove his Godhead; there is another scripture, that speaks of\nhis knowledge, as more extensive, _viz._ that he knows the thoughts of\nall men, John ii. 25. _He needed not that any one should testify of man,\nfor he knew what was in man_; and this his knowledge does not only\nrespect men\u2019s present, but their future thoughts, which are not known to\nthemselves: thus it is said, in John vi. 64. that _he knew from the\nbeginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him_.\nAnd if all this be not reckoned sufficient to prove him to be the\nheart-searching God, nothing can be expressed in plainer terms than this\nis, concerning him, in Rev. ii. 23. _All the churches shall know that I\nam he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every\none of you, according to your works._\n_Object._ 1. It is objected to this argument for Christ\u2019s omniscience,\ntaken from Peter\u2019s confession above-mentioned, _Lord, thou knowest all\nthings_, &c. that nothing else is intended hereby, but that he had a\nvery great degree of knowledge; not that he was strictly and properly\nomniscient, as supposing that it is an hyperbolical expression, not\naltogether unlike that of the woman of Tekoa to David, in 2 Sam. xiv.\n20. when she says, _My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel\nof God, to know all things that are in the earth_.\n_Answ._ It is true, this expression of her\u2019s is either an unwarrantable\nstrain of compliment, or flattery, occasioned by David\u2019s suspecting that\nJoab had employed her to plead the cause of Absalom; or else it is a\nsincere acknowledgment of his great wisdom, without supposing him to be\nabsolutely omniscient, as though she should say, thou knowest all things\nthat are done in the land: there is no plot or contrivance, how secret\nsoever it may be managed, but thou wilt, some way or other, find it out,\nas thou hast done this that I am sent about. But what reference has this\nto Peter\u2019s confession? Does it follow, that because there are\nhyperbolical expressions in scripture, as well as in other writings,\nthat this must be one? or because a wise governor may have a conjectural\nknowledge of what is done by his subjects, when considering the various\ncircumstances that attend their actions, that therefore the apostle\nintends nothing more than this? It is plain he appeals to Christ, as the\nheart-searching God, concerning the inward sincerity of his love to him,\nas well as of his repentance, after a public and shameful denial of him,\nwhich might have given just occasion for its being called in question;\nand it is as evident a proof of his omniscience, as that is of the\nFather\u2019s, in Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. _Search me, O God, and know my heart;\ntry me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me_,\n_Object._ 2. Others, especially some of the Arians, do not so much deny\nChrist\u2019s omniscience, as the consequence deduced from it, to wit, his\nproper Deity; and these make use of a more abstruse and metaphysical way\nof reasoning, and accordingly they suppose that a creature may know all\nthings, that is, all finite objects, and consequently all things that\nare done in the world, namely, all creatures, and all their actions,\nsince the object of this knowledge is, at most, but finite; therefore it\nis possible for a finite mind to be so enlarged, as to take in all\nfinite things, or to have the knowledge of all things communicated to\nit, since the object and the recipient are commensurate with each other.\nTherefore our Saviour may know all things; and yet it will not follow\nfrom hence, that his understanding is infinite, or that his knowledge is\nso properly divine as the Father\u2019s is; and consequently this is no\nsufficient argument to prove his Deity in the sense in which we\nunderstand it.\n_Answ._ This method of reasoning might as well be used to evade the\nforce of every argument, brought from scripture, to prove the Father\u2019s\nomniscience, or, indeed, to evince his infinite power, since all effects\nproduced, which are the objects thereof, are but finite; and therefore\nit may as well be said, that it does not require infinite power to\nproduce them, nor prove his eternal power and Godhead.\nMoreover, as this would tend to destroy the infinite disproportion\nbetween God and the creature in acting, so it supposes that God can\ncommunicate a branch of his own glory to a creature, by enlarging it to\nsuch a degree, as to take in all finite objects. There are some things\nnot so properly too great for God to do, as for a creature to be the\nsubject of: we do not pretend to set limits to the divine power; yet we\nmay infer, from the nature of things, and the powers of finite beings,\nthat it is impossible for any one, below God, to know all things past,\npresent, and to come, at one view; which our Saviour must be supposed to\ndo, or else this attribute of omniscience is not justly applied to him;\nnor would he be fit to govern the world, as will be observed under a\nfollowing head; therefore we must conclude, from hence, that he is truly\nand properly a divine Person.\nTo what has been said, concerning Christ\u2019s omniscience, we may subjoin\nthose scriptures that speak of him, as the _wisdom of God_, the Fountain\nof all communicated wisdom, _the light which lighteth every man that\ncometh into the world_, as he is called, in John i. 9. And it is\nsupposed, by many, that _wisdom_ spoken of in Prov. viii. is to be\nunderstood of our Saviour, as the personal wisdom of God, inasmuch as\nthere are several personal characters ascribed to him: thus it is said,\nver. 23. _I was set up from everlasting_, &c. and ver. 30, 31. _Then_,\nto wit, before the creation of all things, _I was by him, as one brought\nup with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,\nrejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with\nthe sons of men_. This cannot properly speaking, be applied to God\u2019s\nessential wisdom; it must therefore be a description of an eternal\ndivine Person, distinct from the Father.\nBut since many suppose, that whatever is spoken of wisdom, in this and\nsome other chapters of this book, is only metaphorical, or a beautiful\ndescription of divine wisdom, as the instructor of mankind; though we\ncannot see how this, if nothing else be intended by it, can agree with\nsome of the personal characters before mentioned, which seem applicable\nto our Saviour; yet we find that he is elsewhere called the _wisdom of\nGod_, in a sense, that can by no means be supposed to be figurative:\nthus when we read in Luke xi. 49. _Therefore also said the wisdom of\nGod, I will send them prophets and apostles_, &c. it is certainly\nunderstood of our Saviour.[147] To which, if it be objected, that, by\nthe _wisdom of God_, is meant there the wise God, to wit, the Father; it\nmay be answered, that another evangelist, referring to the very same\nthing, explains what is meant by the _wisdom of God_, and represents our\nSaviour as speaking in his own Person, Matt. xxiii. 34. _Therefore,\nbehold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes_, &c.\n5. The next divine perfection that is ascribed to Christ, is almighty\npower. This attribute is appropriated, by the Arians to the Father;[148]\nand accordingly they suppose, that it implies not only his supremacy\nover all creatures, but over the Son and Holy Ghost; and therefore they\nperemptorily conclude it is never applied to them, and consequently that\nthe Deity of our Saviour cannot be proved by it; and that they may turn\nour own weapons upon us, or improve some unwary concessions, made by\nsome very considerable writers, who have, in other respects, very well\ndefended the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to insinuate, as though\nthis were a matter to be taken, as it were, for granted, though it might\neasily be made appear, that they strain the sense of those expressions,\nfrom whence they conclude them to have given up the cause to them,\nbeyond what they ever intended; and there are many others, who are far\nfrom making such concessions.\nAs for the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, _Almighty_, there is nothing in the\nderivation thereof, from whence it may justly be inferred, that it is a\nperfection, that contains a greater display of the divine glory, than\nthe other perfections, that are attributed to all the Persons in the\nGodhead, though indeed it contains in it an idea of the universal extent\nof divine power, with respect to the objects thereof; yet this is not to\nbe separated from the sense of the word, when power is ascribed to God\nin those scriptures, where he is called _the Almighty_; therefore, if we\ncan prove that Christ has power ascribed to him, that is properly\ndivine, this will evince his Deity, as much as though we could produce\nseveral scriptures, in which he is indisputably called _the Almighty_;\nand this we shall first endeavour to do, and then enquire whether we\nhave not as much, or more reason to conclude, that he is called\nAlmighty, than they have to deny it.\nThat power, such as is properly divine, is attributed to Christ, may be\nproved from that scripture before-mentioned, which is evidently applied\nto him, Isa. ix. 6. where he is called, _the mighty God_; and, in Psal.\nxlv. 3. which, as has been before observed, is spoken concerning him, in\nwhich he is called _most mighty_; and, in Phil. iii. 21. we read of his\n_changing our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious\nbody_; which is such an effect of power, as plainly argues it divine, as\nmuch as the production of all things out of nothing could do; and this\nis said to be done, _according to the working, whereby he is able to\nsubdue all things to himself_. We might observe many other things, which\nhe has done, and will do, that require infinite power, which we shall\nhave occasion to consider, when we prove his deity from his works under\na following head.\nBut since all this is to no purpose, with respect to those who deny his\nproper Deity, unless we can prove that he is called _Almighty_; and the\nwhole stress of this argument is laid upon it, for no other reason, as I\npresume, but because they think it impossible for us to do it: I shall\nattempt it; and I hope to make it appear that we have greater\nprobability, on our side, that he is so called, than they have ground to\ndeny it. Here I shall take notice of this perfection of the divine\nnature, as we find it in the book of the Revelations, in which this\nattribute is mentioned nine times, and, in some places, seems to be\napplied to the Father, but in others to the Son.\nThe first we shall mention is in chap. i. 8. _I am Alpha and Omega, the\nbeginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and\nwhich is to come, the Almighty_; which seems to be spoken of our\nSaviour,\n1. Because he is described at large in the three foregoing verses; and\nthere is nothing which gives the least ground to question its\napplication to him, unless that character s being given to the Person\nhere spoken of, which is given to the Father, in ver. 4. _which is, and\nwhich was, and which is to come_; but since we find in other scriptures,\nthe same divine glories ascribed to the Son that had before been\nascribed to the Father; as in John v. 21. _As the Father raiseth the\ndead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will_; and\nin Tit. iii. 4. the Father is called _God our Saviour_, as appears by\ncomparing it with the 5th and 6th verses; and so is Christ called, chap.\nii. 10, 13. therefore, why may not the Father and the Son be each of\nthem described with this character, _Which was, is, and is to come_? and\nthat more especially, if we consider, that the ascribing this to Christ,\nis, in effect, the same with what is said of him elsewhere, Heb. xiii.\n8. where he is said _to be the same yesterday, to-day, and for\n2. It farther appears, that this text, in which the Person spoken of is\ncalled _Almighty_, is applied to Christ, because that character, _Alpha_\nand _Omega_, seems to be applied to none but him in other places, where\nit is used. We find it four times in this book, _viz._ not only in this\nverse, but in ver. 11. in which it is indisputably applied to him, as\nwill appear, by comparing it with the followings verses. And, in chap.\nxxi. 6. he is again called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, which, that it is\napplied to him, appears from the context; it is he that _makes all\nthings new_, or puts a new face upon the affairs of his church; and it\nis he who commands John to write what he saw and heard; _He said unto\nme, Write these words_, ver. 5. We may observe, that whereever John is\ncommanded, in this book, to write, it is Christ that gives forth the\ncommand: thus he said to him before, chap. i. 19. _Write the things\nwhich thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which\nshall be hereafter_; and he is again commanded to write, _Blessed are\nthe dead which die in the Lord_, by him who is called the Son of man,\nAgain, in chap. xxii. 13. he is called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, who is\ndescribed in the foregoing verse, _as coming quickly, whose reward is\nwith him_; which is undoubtedly meant of our Saviour; for it is said\nconcerning him, ver. 20. _Surely I come quickly, Amen: even so come,\nLord Jesus._\nThat which I infer from hence, is, that if Christ be styled _Alpha_ and\n_Omega_, in all other placed in this book, it is more than probable he\nis so in this 8th verse of the 1st chapter, in which he is said to be\n_the Almighty_. And as he is called _Alpha_ and _Omega_, so the\nexplication of these words, wherever we meet with it in this book\nwithout the words themselves, is applied to Christ: thus he is called,\nchap. i. 17. and ii. 8. _the first and the last_; and, chap. iii. 14.\n_the beginning of the creation of God_: from hence, I humbly conceive,\nwe have more ground to conclude, that Christ is called the _Almighty_ in\nthis verse, than the Arians have to deny it.\nAgain, there is another place in this book where he seems to be styled\n_the Almighty_, chap. xv. 3. _And they sing the song of Moses, the\nservant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous\nare thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King\nof saints._ This triumphant song is occasioned by one of the greatest\nvictories which the church expects to obtain in this world: by the song\nof Moses, I humbly conceive, is meant the church\u2019s celebrating the glory\nof God, for the greatest victory that ever was obtained under the legal\ndispensation; and the song of the Lamb, is an acknowledgment of the\ngreatest that is, or shall be obtained under the gospel-dispensation;\nand, in celebrating the Lamb\u2019s victories, they set forth the praises of\nthe mighty Conqueror in the following words, _Great and marvellous are\nthy works, Lord God Almighty_: it is the Lamb that is every where\ndescribed in this book, as fighting the church\u2019s battles, and obtaining\nvictory for it; therefore it is his glory which is here set forth.\nAnd as he is always described, in this book, as thus fighting the\nchurch\u2019s battles; so it is he who is described as taking vengeance on\nits enemies, which is the just consequence thereof. Therefore I cannot\nbut conclude, that he is spoken of, in chap. xvi. 6, 7. as having\n_given_ their persecutors _blood to drink, for they were worthy_; and,\nin ver. 7. _Even so Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy\njudgments._\nAgain, in chap. xvi. 14. we read of _the battle of that great day of God\nAlmighty_; and then it immediately follows, _Behold, I come as a thief\nin the night_, &c. which expression is known to be elsewhere applied to\nour Saviour, and to none but him; and that it is he who fights the\nchurch\u2019s battles, is evident from chap. xvii. 14. _These shall make war\nwith the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overthrow them_; and from chap. xix.\n12, &c. where it is said, _his eyes were as a flame of fire_; as he is\nelsewhere described, chap. i. 14. to denote that the great day of his\nwrath was come; and his name is called, in the 13th verse of this 19th\nchapter, _the Word of God_; and we read of the _armies which followed\nhim_, and that _out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that he might\nsmite the nations_. From whence we may conclude, that since Christ is\nrepresented, in so many places in this book, as fighting with, and\ntriumphing and reigning over his enemies, inflicting his plagues upon\nthem, and delivering his church from their persecution, which is a work\nof divine power, he is fitly styled in several places, _Lord God\nAlmighty_.\nWe might consider several other divine attributes ascribed to Christ,\nwhich prove his Deity, _viz._ holiness, truth, and faithfulness: thus,\nin Rev. iii. 7. _These things saith he that is holy, he that is true_;\nand he is farther described in the following words, as having\nuncontroulable power; _who openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth,\nand no man openeth_. That this is spoken of him, is beyond dispute; and\nin chap. vi. 10. _They cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy\nand true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell\nupon the earth?_ to whom did they cry but to the Lamb, who is said to\nhave opened the seals, or to have discovered the mysteries that were\nthereby revealed, as in ver. 1.? And when he had opened the sixth seal,\nhe is described, as hearing his church\u2019s prayer, and avenging their\nblood, and so is represented as coming to judgment, in a very terrible\nmanner; upon which occasion it is said, _the great day of his wrath is\ncome_; and therefore it is he who is described as _holy and true_.\nBut if it be replied to this, that creatures are sometimes called holy\nand true, we may farther add, that it is Christ to whom it is said,\nchap. xv. 4. _Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name, for\nthou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before thee,\nfor thy judgments are made manifest._ This I infer from what has been\nbefore considered, that it is he who obtains victory over, and pours\nforth his judgments on his church\u2019s enemies; and it is he whose praises\nare celebrated in the song of the Lamb, mentioned in the verse\nimmediately foregoing.\nHaving considered several divine perfections, as ascribed to our\nSaviour, and these so glorious, that nothing greater can be mentioned to\nset forth the glory of a divine Person; yet we may add hereunto, those\nglorious titles that are given him with a design to excite in us adoring\nand admiring thoughts of him: amongst which we shall only mention some\nwhich are either the same with, or are equivalent to those which are\ngiven to the Father, which they who deny Christ\u2019s Deity, cannot but own\nto be distinguishing characters of a divine Person, when so applied.\nThus, is the Father styled, in Heb. xiii. 20. _The God of peace_? our\nSaviour is styled, in Isa. ix. 6. _The Prince of peace_; and he is said,\nEph. ii. 14. to be _our peace_; and as peace includes in it all the\nblessings that accompany salvation, Christ\u2019s being styled the Author\nthereof, denotes him to be the Fountain of blessedness, which he could\nnot be, were he not a divine Person.\nAgain, as God is called _a Sun_, and _a Shield_, Psal. lxxxiv. 9. so\nChrist is called, in Mal. iv. 2. _The Sun of Righteousness_; and, in\nIsa. xxxii. 2. _An hiding place from the wind, a covert from the\ntempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land._\nAgain, it is said of God the Father, Deut. xxx. 20. _He is thy life, and\nthe length of thy days_; our Saviour says, concerning himself, in John\nxi. 25. compared with chap. xiv. 6. that he is _the life_; and, Acts\niii. 15. he is called _the Prince of life_; and, in Colos. iii. 4. _our\nlife_. Again, is the Father called, in Psal. lxxx. 1. _The Shepherd of\nIsrael_? Christ is called, in Heb. xiii. 20. _That great Shepherd of the\nsheep._\nMoreover, is God often described in scripture as a glorious King; as in\nZeph. iii. 15. _The King of Israel, even the Lord in the midst of thee_?\nour Saviour is styled, in Isa. vi. 5. _The King, the Lord of hosts_;\nand, in John i. 49. _The King of Israel_; and, in Rev. xix. 16. _King of\nkings, and Lord of lords._\nAgain, is God styled the _Hope of Israel_, Jer. xiv. 8? our Saviour\nseems to be so called by the apostle, when he says, in Acts xxviii. 20.\n_for the Hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain_, that is, for\nChrist\u2019s sake, who is the object of his people\u2019s hope. However, whether\nhe is intended thereby, or no, in that scripture, he is called elsewhere\n_our hope_, 1 Tim. i. 1. compared with Coloss. i. 27.\nMoreover, is God the object of desire, so that there is _nothing in\nheaven or earth_, or within the whole compass of finite beings, that is\nto be desired _besides_, or in comparison with _him_, as the Psalmist\nsays, Psal. lxxiii. 25? our Saviour is called, in Hag. ii. 7. _The\ndesire of all nations._ I might refer to many other glorious titles that\nare given to him in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the Revelations, in the\nepistles to the seven churches; every one of which is prefaced with such\na character given of him, as is designed to strike them with an holy\nreverence, and esteem of him, as a divine Person. Thus concerning those\nproofs of Christ\u2019s Deity, which are taken from the names, attributes,\nand titles which are given to him; which leads us to consider,\nIII. The next head of argument taken from those works, which have been\ndone by our Saviour, that are proper to God alone. Divine works argue a\ndivine efficient, or that he has infinite power, and consequently that\nhe is an infinite Person, or truly and properly God, who performs them.\nNow these works are of two sorts; either of nature and common\nprovidence, or of grace, to wit, such as immediately respect our\nsalvation; in all which, he acts beyond the power of a creature, and\ntherefore appears to be a divine Person.\n1. He appears to be so, from his having created all things. He that made\nthe world, must be before it; and therefore since time began with the\nfirst creature, as has been before observed, it follows that he must be\nbefore time, that is, from eternity.\nAgain, he that created all things, must have a sovereign will, for whose\n_pleasure they are, and were created_, Rev. iv. 11. And it follows from\nhence, that he has an undoubted right to all things, and that he might\nhave annihilated them, had it been his pleasure; and also, that he has a\nright to dispose of them as he will, as the potter has power over his\nclay. All these things are consequent on the work of creation; therefore\nit is an undeniable argument, that he, who created all things, must be\nGod.\nIt may also be observed, that to create, is to exert infinite power, or\nto act above the power of a creature, which, at best, is but finite: now\nwhatever is more than finite, must be infinite; and consequently he who\ncreated all things, must exert infinite power, and that is certainly\nsuch as is truly divine.\nWe might farther consider, that there are many scriptures which\nappropriate creation to God, and, indeed, it cannot be otherwise; for to\nsuppose that a creature gave being to itself, is to suppose him to be\nboth a cause and an effect, and consequently to be, and not to be, at\nthe same time, to exist as a creator, and not to exist as brought into\nbeing, which is a plain contradiction; and it is evident, that, in\nscripture, the creature is opposed to the Creator: thus, in Rom. i. 25.\nit is said, _they worshipped and served the creature more than the\nCreator, who is blessed forever_. And there are several scriptures that\nspeak of creation, as a distinguishing evidence of divine glory: thus,\nin Isa. xl. 28. we have a magnificent description of God, taken more\nespecially from this work, when he is called, _The everlasting God, the\nLord, the Creator of the ends of the earth_; and, in chap. xlii. 5.\n_Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched\nthem out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of\nit; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them\nthat walk therein_; in which, and many other scriptures of the like\nnature, which might be referred to, it appears that creation is a work\npeculiar to God.\nThe next thing we are to prove is, that our Saviour created all things.\nThere are many who think that this may be proved from the work of\ncreation\u2019s being ascribed to more persons than one; and therefore when\nwe read of creators, in the plural number, as it is in the original, in\nEccles. xii. 1. _Remember thy Creator_, or creators; and when God, in\ncreating man, is represented as speaking after this manner, _Let us make\nman after our own image_, &c. this seems to imply that there were more\ndivine Persons engaged in this work than the Father.\nI do not indeed lay so much stress on this argument, as many do, yet it\nis not wholly to be neglected; for, I confess, I cannot see any reason\nwhy there should be such a mode of expression used, were it not to\nsignify this divine mystery, of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead,\nto whom this work is ascribed.\n_Object._ As for the objection, which some of the Anti-trinitarians,\nespecially the Socinians, bring against it, that this mode of speaking,\nis such as is used in conformity to the custom of kings who, speak in\nthe plural number;\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that though kings do often speak in\nthe plural number, yet this is only a modern way of speaking, implying,\nthat whatever a king does, is by the advice of some of his subjects, who\nare his peculiar favourites, and who are also made use of to fulfil his\nwill; but, nevertheless, this way of speaking is not so ancient as\nscripture-times, much less as Moses\u2019s time, or the beginning of the\nworld, which he refers to, when God is represented as thus speaking. It\nis the custom of kings, in scripture, to speak in the singular number:\nand it is very absurd to pretend to explain any mode of speaking used in\nscripture, by customs of speech, not known till many ages after.\nI am sensible, some think that mode of speaking used by Ahasuerus Esth.\ni. 15. _What shall we do unto the queen_ Vashti, _according to law?_ is\na proof that it was used in former ages. But the words may be rendered,\n_What is to be done_, according to law, &c. or what is expedient for me\nto do? and therefore it doth not prove that kings used, in ancient\ntimes, to speak of themselves in the plural number; and consequently it\ncannot be argued, that when God is represented as speaking so in\nscripture, it is in compliance with any such custom. Besides, whenever\nhe is represented as speaking in scripture, in all other instances,\nexcepting those that are supposed to be contained in our argument, he is\nalways represented as speaking in the singular number; and therefore it\nseems still more probable, that this variation from his usual way of\nspeaking, is not without some reason, and that hereby we are led into\nthis doctrine, that there are more divine Persons than one, that created\nall things.\nBut not to insist on this, since we have more plain proofs hereof in\nscripture, it evidently appears that Christ made all things, not only\nfrom what is said in John i. 3. that _all things were made by him; and\nwithout him was not any thing made that was made_; but, from Col. i. 16.\n_By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on\nearth, visible and invisible, whether they are thrones, or dominions, or\nprincipalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him_;\nin which he is not only said to be the Creator, but the end of all\nthings, which is the same with what is said in Prov. xvi. 4. that _the\nLord hath made all things for himself_.\nThis farther appears from Psal. cii. 25. _Of old hast thou laid the\nfoundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands_;\nwhich is expressly applied to Christ by the apostle, in Heb. i. 10.\nBy these, and such-like scriptures, it evidently appears that Christ\nmade all things. The Socinians, indeed, who are sensible that creation\nwas an evident proof of divine power, and therefore that the Creator of\nall things must be God, labour very hard to prove that all those\nscriptures that ascribe this work to our Saviour, are to be taken in a\nmetaphorical sense, and so signify nothing else but his being the author\nof the gospel-state, which is a kind of new creation peculiar to him;\nand that he did this as a prophet, revealing those doctrines which\nrelate thereunto; and accordingly they take the sense of that scripture,\nin John i. 2, 3. which speaks of his being _in the beginning, and that\nall things were made by him_, as intending nothing else, but that he was\nin the beginning of the gospel, and that whatever was made, or ordained,\nto be a standard and rule of faith, was by him; and that, in the\ndischarge of this work, he was to restore decayed religion, and to\ncorrect several mistaken notions, which the Jews had entertained\nconcerning the moral law, to add some new precepts to it, and give\ndirections concerning that mode of worship which should be observed in\nthe church for the future. This is all they suppose to be intended by\nthat work, which is ascribed to Christ as a Creator; whereas, in this\nscripture, it is plainly said, that there was nothing in the whole frame\nof nature, nothing that was an effect of power, made without him. And\nthere is another scripture, which cannot, with any colour of reason, be\nunderstood in that sense, _viz._ in Col. i. 16. _By him were all things\ncreated that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and\ninvisible_; where the apostle speaks of the creation of angels and men,\nas well as all other things: now, certainly, Christ did not come into\nthe world to rectify any mistakes or restore decayed religion among the\nangels, therefore the apostle here plainly proves that our Saviour\ncreated all things.\nBut since this opinion of the Socinians is now almost universally\nexploded by the Anti-trinitarians, we have no occasion to add any thing\nfarther in opposition to it; but shall proceed to consider what the\nArians say concerning Christ\u2019s creating all things. These allow that the\nwork of creation is ascribed to him; but they deny that this argues him\nto be God in the same sense as the Father is. The account which they\ngive thereof is, that God, to wit, the Father, created all things by the\nSon, as an instrument, created by him, immediately for that purpose; so\nthat the Son was an inferior, or second cause of the production of all\nthings; and therefore that it cannot, from thence, be concluded that he\nis God equal with the Father.\nWhat I would humbly offer, in opposition hereunto is,\n1. That, in this account of creation, there is not a just difference put\nbetween the natural and supernatural production of things, of which the\nlatter can only be called creation; therefore, if these two be\nconfounded, the distinguishing character of a Creator is set aside, and\nconsequently the glory arising from hence cannot be appropriated to God;\nnor is that infinite perfection, that is displayed therein, duly\nconsidered, but according to this scheme or method of reasoning a\ncreature may be a Creator, and a Creator a creature; nor can the\n_eternal power and Godhead_ of the divine Being be demonstrated by the\nthings that are made or created, as the apostle says they are in Rom. i.\n2. From that first mistake arises another, namely, that because, in\nnatural productions, that which was created by God, may be rendered\nsubservient to the production of other things; in which respect it may\nbe termed an instrument made use of by a superior cause, and may have an\nenergy or method of acting, peculiar to itself, whereby it produces\neffects according to the course and laws of nature, fixed by God, the\nfirst cause of all things; therefore they suppose, though without\nsufficient ground that God might create all things by an instrument, or\nsecond cause thereof, as they conclude he did by the Son.\n3. Notwithstanding we must assert, that creation being a supernatural\nproduction of things, what has been said concerning natural production,\nis not applicable to it; therefore,\n4. Though things may be produced in a natural way, by second causes,\nwhose powers are limited, and subjected as aforesaid, to the laws of\nnature; yet supernatural effects cannot be produced by any thing short\nof infinite power; therefore, since creation is a supernatural work, it\nmust be concluded to be a work of infinite power.\n5. It follows, from hence, that it is not agreeable to the idea of\ncreation, or the producing all things out of nothing, for God to make\nuse of an instrument. That this may appear, let it be considered, that\nwhatever instrument is made use of, it must be either finite or\ninfinite. An infinite instrument cannot be made use of, for then there\nwould be two infinites, one superior, the other inferior. Nor can a\nfinite one be made use of, for that, according to our last proposition,\ncannot produce any supernatural effect, as creation is supposed to be,\nwhich requires infinite power, and that cannot be exerted by a finite\nmedium, therefore no such instrument can be used. Moreover, if it\nrequires infinite power to create all things, this power, in its method\nof acting, would be limited, by the instrument it makes use of; for\nwhatever power a superior cause has in himself, the effect produced, by\nan instrument will be in proportion to the weakness thereof. This some\nillustrate by the similitude of a giant\u2019s making use of a straw, or a\nreed, in striking a blow in which the weakness of the instrument renders\nthe power of the person that uses it insignificant. Thus if God the\nFather should make use of the Son, in the creation of all things, the\npower that is exerted by him therein, can be no other than finite; but\nthat is not sufficient for the production of things supernatural, which\nrequire infinite power. To this we may add,\n6. That the creation of all things is ascribed to the sovereignty of the\ndivine will; accordingly the Psalmist describing it, in Psal. xxxiii. 9.\nsays, _He spake and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast_; so\nwhen God, in Gen. i. 3. said, _Let there he light, and there was light_;\nand when we read of the other parts of the creation, as produced by his\nalmighty word, it implies that they were produced by an act of his will.\nNow it seems impossible, from the nature of the thing, that an\ninstrument should be made use of in an act of willing any more than in\nan act of understanding.\n7. No cause can reasonably be assigned why God should make use of an\ninstrument in the production of all things; for certainly he that, by\nhis immediate power, produced the instrument, might without any\ndifficulty, or absurdity, attending the supposition, have created all\nthings immediately without one. And we must farther suppose, that if\nthere were nothing in the nature of things, which required him to make\nuse of an instrument, he would not, by making use of one, to wit, the\nSon, administer occasion to him, to assume so great a branch of his own\nglory, namely, that of being the Creator of the ends of the earth; or\nfor his being, as the result thereof, worshipped as a divine Person\nsupposing him to have a right to divine worship, for no other reason.\n_Object._ 1. Though no one supposes that God stood in need of an\ninstrument, or could not have created all things without it, yet we must\nconclude that he did not, because the scripture speaks of the Father\u2019s\ncreating all things by the Son; and when one person is said to do any\nthing by another, it implies that he makes use of him as an instrument\ntherein.\n_Answ._ This seems to be the only foundation on which this doctrine is\nbuilt. But there is no necessity of understanding the words in this\nsense, especially if we consider that all effects are produced by the\npower of God; and this power, supposing the Son to be a divine Person,\n(which we have endeavoured, by other arguments, to prove) must belong to\nhim; and the Father, and the Son being united, in the same Godhead, one\ncannot act without the other; therefore whatever is said to be done by\nthe Father, may, in this sense, be said to be done by the Son; for\nthough the Persons are distinct, the power exerted is the same.\nThus a learned writer[150] accounts for this matter, when he says, that\n\u201cThe Son is of the same nature and substance with the Father, so nearly\nallied, so closely united, that nothing could be the work of one,\nwithout being, at the same time, the work of both: Hence it was, that\nthe Son was Joint-creator with the Father, that all things were made by\nhim, and nothing without him; it was not possible for them either to\nact, or to exist separately; and therefore it is that the work of\ncreation is, in scripture, attributed to both.\u201d This is a very safe as\nwell as a just way of reasoning, consistent with, and founded on the\ndoctrine of the Father and the Son\u2019s being united in the same Godhead,\nthough distinct Persons; and therefore it is agreeable to the sense of\nthose scriptures, which attribute this work to the Son, in the same\nsense, as when it is attributed to the Father.\nBut I am sensible that the Arians will reply to it; that this does not\nsufficiently account for that subordination in acting, that seems to be\nimplied in the sense of those scriptures, in which the Father is said to\nhave created all things by the Son; therefore I shall take leave to\nspeak more particularly to those texts that treat of this matter, where\nthe same mode of speaking is used. And though there are several\nscriptures that represent the Son as a Creator, or consider all things,\nas being made by him, as well as the Father, or as a Joint-creator with\nhim; yet there are but two places in the New Testament, in which the\nFather is said to have created all things by the Son, namely, Eph. iii.\n9. in which it is said, _that God_, that is, the Father, _created all\nthings by Jesus Christ_; and the other is in Heb. i. 2. where it is\nsaid, _by whom also he made the worlds_.\nWe have already considered the absurdity of the Socinian way of\nexpounding those other scriptures, that speak of Christ as a Creator, in\nwhich he is not said to act in subserviency to, but co-ordinately with\nthe Father. But inasmuch as God the Father is, in these scriptures, said\nto create all things by Jesus Christ, I shall humbly offer it, as my\nopinion, that though the other scriptures, in which Christ is set forth\nas a Creator, have no reference to him as Mediator, nor to the new\ncreation, yet this seems to be the more probable sense of both these\nscriptures.[151]\nAs for the former of them, though some suppose that it is needless to\ngive the sense of it, since the words, _by Jesus Christ_,[152] are\nwanting in some ancient copies of scripture, as well as in the vulgar\nLatin and Syriac versions; yet, since there are many copies that have\nit, we will suppose it to be genuine; and that we may account for the\nsense of it, we may observe that the apostle makes use of the word\n_create_ three times in this epistle; we find it, in chap. ii. 10. and\niv. 24. in both which places it is taken for the new creation, which is\nbrought about by Christ, as Mediator; and, I humbly conceive, that it\nmay be taken so, in this verse, which we are now considering; and\ntherefore this is a part of that mystery, of which the apostle speaks in\nthe foregoing words, _that was hid in God_; and this sense seems not to\nbe excluded, by those who suppose, that in other respects, it has some\nreference to the first creation of all things.[153]\nAs for the other scripture, _by whom also he made the worlds_, \u03b4\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, that is, by whom he made, instituted, or ordained,\nthe various dispensations, which the church was under, either before or\nsince his incarnation; this was certainly done by him as Mediator; and\nherein he acted in subserviency to the Father, as well as in all other\nworks performed by him, as having this character. I would not be too\nperemptory in determining this to be the sense of the text, inasmuch as\nthe apostle speaks _of his upholding all things_, in the following\nverse, which is well put after this account of his having created them:\nI am also sensible that the word which we translate _worlds_, is used in\nHeb. xi. 3. to signify the world that was at first created, in the most\nproper sense of the word _creation_, when the apostle says, that\n_through faith we understand that the worlds_, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 _were framed\nby the word of God_, &c. But yet when I find that in many other places\nof the New Testament, where the word is used, it is taken in the sense\nbut now given,[154] I cannot but conclude it the more probable sense of\nthe text; but that which most of all determines me to acquiesce in it,\nis, because the subserviency of the Son to the Father in this work is\nmost agreeable to it.\nIf it be objected, that this sense of the text coincides with that which\nis given of it by Socinus, and his followers, which we before-mentioned\nand opposed;\nTo this I answer, that the sense I have given of it, is very foreign to\ntheirs, who endeavour thereby to evade the force of the argument brought\nfrom it, to prove our Saviour\u2019s Deity; whereas we only exchange one\nargument, for the proof thereof, for another; for it seems to me to be\nas great an evidence, that he is a divine Person, when considered as the\nAuthor and Founder of the church, in all the ages thereof, or the rock\non which it is built, as when he is called, Creator of the world: if he\nbe the supreme Head, Lord, and Lawgiver to his church, in all the ages\nthereof; if the faith and hope of all that shall be saved, is founded\nupon him, as the great Mediator, Redeemer, and Sovereign thereof, then\ncertainly he is God, equal with the Father.\n_Object._ 2. To what has been before suggested, upon which the chief\nstress of our reasoning depends, _viz._ that a finite creature cannot be\nan instrument in supernatural productions, it is objected, that miracles\nare supernatural productions; but these have been wrought by men, as\ninstruments in the hand of God; therefore the creation of all things may\nas well be supposed to have been performed by the Son, as an instrument\nmade use of to this end by the Father.\n_Answ._ That miracles are supernatural productions, no one denies; and\nit follows from hence, that they are either a species of creation, or\nequivalent to it; therefore if it be allowed that a creature can have\npower communicated to him to work them, and therein may be said to be an\ninstrument made use of by God, then we cannot reasonably deny that God\nthe Father might use the Son as an instrument in creating all things.\nBut we must take leave to deny that any, who are said to have wrought\nmiracles, have had infinite power communicated to them for that purpose;\ntherefore they are not properly instruments in the hand of God, to\nproduce supernatural effects; but all that they have done therein, was\nonly by addressing themselves to God, that he would put forth his\nimmediate power in working the miracle; and in giving the people, for\nwhose sake it was to be wrought, occasion to expect it; and afterwards\nimproving it for their farther conviction. It is true, miracles are\noftentimes said to have been wrought by men; but, I humbly conceive,\nnothing more than this is intended thereby; which, that it may appear,\nwe may observe, that sometimes they who have wrought them, have not made\nuse of any action herein, but only given the people ground to expect the\ndivine interposure: thus, immediately before the earth swallowed up\nKorah and his company, Moses gave the people to expect this miraculous\nevent, Numb. xvi. 28-30. _And Moses said, Hereby shall ye know that the\nLord hath sent me. If these men die the common death of all men, then\nthe Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord make a new thing, and the\nearth open her mouth, and swallow them up, then shall ye know that these\nmen have provoked the Lord_; and as soon as he had spoken the words, the\nground clave asunder, and swallowed them up. This might be reckoned\namong the miracles wrought by Moses; though all that he did was only\nwhat tended to raise the people\u2019s expectation, that such an\nextraordinary event should immediately happen. Again, at other times,\nwhen a miracle has been wrought, we read of nothing done but only a word\nspoken to signify that God would work it: thus, when the captain, with\nhis fifty men, was sent by the king of Israel, to the prophet Elijah, to\ncommand him to come to him, the prophet uses this mode of speaking, 2\nKings i. 12. _If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and\nconsume thee and thy fifty_; which immediately happened accordingly.\nAt other times, when miracles have been wrought, the Person, who, in the\nsense but now mentioned, is said to work them, has made use of some\nexternal and visible sign, which was either an ordinance for his own\nfaith, if no one was present but himself; as when the prophet Elisha\nsmote the waters of Jordan with Elijah\u2019s mantle, and said, 2 Kings ii.\n14. _Where is the Lord God of Elijah?_ or else the sign, being given by\ndivine direction, was an ordinance for the faith of the people present,\nwhose conviction was intended thereby; not that they should suppose that\nthe action used had any tendency to produce the miracle: but it was only\ndesigned to raise their expectation, that God would work it by his\nimmediate power; as when Moses was commanded, in Exod. xiv. 16. _to lift\nup his rod, and stretch out his hand over the sea, and divide it, that\nIsrael might pass through_; or, in chap. xvii. 6. _to smite the rock_,\nwhereupon God caused water to come out of it; and in several other\nactions, which he used, by divine direction, when other miracles were\nwrought; in which respect, though he was said, in a less proper way of\nspeaking, to have wrought them, yet he was no more than a moral\ninstrument herein, and therefore the divine power was not communicated\nto, or exerted by him; and if creatures have been instruments in working\nmiracles in no other sense than this, it cannot be inferred from hence\nthat Christ might be made use of by the Father, as an instrument in\ncreating the world: a moral instrument he could not be; for there was no\ndoctrine contested, no truth to be confirmed thereby, no subjects\npresent to expect a divine interposure; and, indeed, none ever supposed\nthat the Son of God was an instrument in this sense; therefore if no one\never was an instrument in any other, nor could be from the nature of the\nthing, as has been already proved, then the force of the argument, which\nwe have laid down to prove it, is not in the least weakened by this\nobjection.\nThus we have endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ from the work\nof creation.\n2. We shall proceed to consider how our Saviour\u2019s Deity appears, from\nthose works of providence, which are daily performed by him. Providence\nis as much a divine work, and contains as glorious a display of the\ndivine perfections, as creation; and this is twofold, _viz._ preserving\nand governing. With respect to the former of these, some divines have\nasserted, that it is, as it were, a continued creation, not formally so;\nbut as the one produces a creature, the other prevents its sinking into\nnothing; and because it is, in all respects, dependent on the power of\nGod, and as much so, for the continuance of its being, as it was for its\nbeing brought into being; therefore conserving providence is an evidence\nof the divine power of him who sustains all things.\nNow that this glory belongs to our Saviour, is plain from scripture,\nwhich speaks of him, in Heb. i. 3. _as upholding all things by the word\nof his power_; and in Coloss. i. 17. it is said, _by him all things\nconsist_; both these scriptures respect this branch of divine\nprovidence, namely, his preserving all things in being; and this is\ncertainly more than can be said of any creature. And it is not pretended\nthat herein he acts as the Father\u2019s instrument, even by those who\nsuppose that he was so, in the creation of all things, inasmuch as\nscripture does not speak of God\u2019s upholding all things by him, but of\nChrist\u2019s upholding them by his own, that is, the divine power; so that\nwe have as plain a proof of his Deity, from his upholding providence, as\nthere is of the being of a God, which is evidently inferred from it.\nAs to the other branch of providence, respecting the government of the\nworld in general, or of the church in particular, this is also ascribed\nto Christ, and thereby his Godhead is farther proved. Whatever degree of\nlimited dominion may be said to belong to creatures; yet universal\ndominion belongs only to God; and this is assigned, as one ground and\nreason of his right to divine honour; therefore it is said, in Job xxv.\n2. _Dominion and power are with him_, that is, there is a holy reverence\ndue to him, as the supreme Lord and Governor of the world; and, in Psal.\nlxvii. 4. when it is said concerning the great God, that _he shall judge\nthe people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth_, this is\nconsidered as the foundation of universal joy, _O let the nations be\nglad, and sing for joy_; and of praise, ver. 5. _Let the people praise\nthee, O God; let all the people praise thee_; and, in Psal. xxii. 28.\nwhen it is said, _the kingdom is the Lord\u2019s; and he is the Governor\namong the nations_; this is assigned, as the reason of their worshipping\nhim, ver. 27. _All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto\nthe Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before\nthee._ This therefore is, undoubtedly, a branch of the divine glory; so\nthat if we can prove that universal dominion belongs to Christ, or that\nhe is the Governor of the world, and of the church therein, this will\nplainly evince his Deity.\n1. Let us consider him as the Governor of the world. This seems to be\nthe meaning of several expressions of scripture, in which royal dignity\nis ascribed to him; and he is represented as sitting upon a throne, and\n_his throne to be for ever and ever_, Psal. xlv. 6. and he infinitely\ngreater than all the kings of the earth; upon which account, he is\ncalled, in Rev. i. 5. _The Prince of the kings of the earth_; and they\nare commanded to testify their subjection to him, and all are\nrepresented as blessed that _put their trust in him_, Psal. ii. 12. And\nas his kingdom is considered, in John xviii. 36. as _not being of this\nworld_, and the honours due to him, such as are divine, this farther\nproves his Deity.\nMoreover, his universal dominion, and consequently his Godhead, is\nevinced by that glorious character, which we have before\nconsidered[155], as belonging to him, namely, the Lord of hosts, as the\nprophet Isaiah says, speaking of the vision which he had of his glory,\nin chap. vi. 5. _Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts_, as\ndenoting his sovereignty over all the hosts of heaven, and all creatures\nin this lower world, as he governs them, and makes one thing subservient\nto another, and all this is done to set forth his own glory.\n2. This will farther appear, if we consider him as the Governor of his\nchurch; in this he has access to the souls of men, working in them those\ngraces, which are the effects of almighty power, which he does, when\nthey are effectually called; and the work of sanctification, which is\nconsequent hereupon, is carried on till it is perfected. We shall have\noccasion, under some following answers[156], to prove that these are\ndivine and supernatural works; the more full and particular proof\nwhereof, we shall reserve to its proper place, and only observe, at\npresent, that they are spoken of as such in scripture, and ascribed to\nthe exceeding greatness of the power of God, no less than that _which he\nwrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead_, Eph. i. 18,\u2014\u201420.\nand elsewhere they are called a _new creation_, chap. ii. 1. _a\nquickening_ or _resurrection_, _a breaking the rock in pieces_, _taking\naway the heart of stone_, _giving an heart of flesh_, or _a new heart_;\nJer. xxiii. 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. which expressions would never have been\nused, had not the work been divine and supernatural; therefore it\nfollows from hence, that since Christ is the Author of this internal\nwork, he is a divine Person. Now that he is so, is obvious, from many\nplaces in the New Testament; as when he is styled, in Heb. xii. 2. _The\nAuthor and Finisher of our faith_; and when the apostle, in 1 Tim. i.\n14. speaks of _faith and love abounding, which is in Christ Jesus_, he\nspeaks, at the same time, of the _grace of our Lord abounding_, as the\nspring and fountain thereof; and when the apostles, in Luke xvii. 5.\ndesire him to _increase their faith_, not in an objective way, as\naffording some greater foundation for it, but subjectively, by an\ninternal work, exciting and promoting the principle thereof, which was\nbefore implanted in them; and so causing all those graces, that\naccompany it, to abound, as the effects of his divine power.\nWe might farther consider Christ\u2019s spiritual government, as extended to\nhis church, collectively considered, which is exposed to many dangers\nand difficulties, and meets with much opposition from its enemies, who\nattempt its ruin, but in vain, because it is the object of the divine\ncare, kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation: for which\nreason, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now this is, in\na peculiar manner, the work of Christ; he is the rock on which it is\nbuilt; and his presence, in the midst of his people, is not only their\nglory, but their safety; which it would not be, if he were no more than\na creature. We might also consider the subserviency of the various\ndispensations of providence in the world to their good, as he is _Head\nover all things to the church_, Eph. i. 22. which could not answer that\nvaluable end, had he not been a divine Person.\nWe might farther consider how the divine glory of Christ will be\ndemonstrated, in his second coming to compleat the work of salvation,\nbegun in this world. To prepare a way for this, there will be an\nuniversal resurrection of the dead, which will be no less an effect of\nalmighty power, than the creation of all things was at first. I need not\ntherefore say any thing farther to prove this to be a divine work; we\nneed only prove that this general resurrection shall be performed by\nChrist: this might be proved from several scriptures; in one whereof he\nexpressly asserts it himself, in words very plain and particular, _viz._\nJohn vi. 38. _The hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth_, &c.\nMoreover, when, at the same time, he is represented as coming in the\nclouds, with power and great glory, in his _own glory_, as well as _that\nof the Father, and of the holy angels_, in Luke ix. 26. the most natural\nsense of that text seems to be this, that his divine glory, which is\ncalled _his own_, which was comparatively hid from his people, while he\nwas here on earth, shall eminently be demonstrated in his second coming,\nand also that Mediatorial glory, which he has received from the Father,\nas what he had a right to, on his having accomplished the work of\nredemption, which he came into the world about; and then there is the\nglory of his retinue, as appearing with all his holy angels; which bears\nsome resemblance to that expression whereby the majesty of God is set\nforth upon another occasion, namely, as appearing on mount Sinai, to\ngive the law, when it is said, in Deut. xxxiii. 2. _The Lord came with\nten thousands of saints._ And to this we may add, that the work, which\nhe shall, immediately after this, be engaged in, to wit, that of judging\nthe world in righteousness, plainly proves his Deity, since none but a\ndivine Person can judge the secrets of all men, and bring to light every\nthing that has been done, from the beginning to the end of time; and\nthis is to be done, in that day; for it is said, in Eccles. xii. 14.\n_That God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,\nwhether it be good, or whether it be evil._ This is a farther\nimprovement of that argument, before laid down to prove his divinity\nfrom his omniscience; if his judgment must be, as the apostle says, in\nRom. ii. 2. _according to truth_, and consequently performed with the\ngreatest impartiality, as well as an exquisite knowledge or discerning\nof the cause, without which it could not be said, that _the Judge of all\nthe earth does right_, (as he certainly will) in Gen. xviii. 25. and if\nrewards shall be proportioned to every work done, so that every one\nshall receive as the apostle says, in 2 Cor. v. 10. _according to what\nhe has done, whether it be good or bad_; and if persons are to be\nrewarded, or punished, for all the secret springs of action, which must\nbe reckoned either good or bad, according to what they produce, as well\nas the actions themselves; and if this respects not particular persons\nonly, but all men, who have lived, or shall live, from the beginning to\nthe end of the world, it evidently proves, that he, to whom this\nglorious work is ascribed, must be a divine Person.\nAnd to this we may add, that the manner of his appearing, with the\nterror, as well as the majesty of a judge, being such as shall strike\nhis enemies with the utmost horror and confusion, is a farther proof of\nthis matter. This is represented in a lively manner, in Rev. vi. 15-17.\nin which it is said, _the kings of the earth, and the great men_, those\nwho once rendered themselves formidable to their subjects shall desire\nto _hide themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, and shall\nsay to the rocks and to the mountains, fall on us, and hide us from the\nface of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the\nLamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to\nstand?_ And,\n_Lastly_, He will not only pronounce the sentence but execute it, and\nthat with respect to his saints and subjects; and his enemies: as to the\nformer of these he will not only command them to come, and possess the\nkingdom prepared for them, but the blessedness which he will confer upon\nthem, pursuant thereunto, is called the beatific vision, in 1 John iii.\n2. _We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is_; and the\nhappiness of heaven is described in such a way as plainly proves our\nSaviour to be the fountain thereof, and consequently a divine Person;\nfor it is represented as a state, in which they will _behold his glory_,\nJohn xvii. 24. whereas certainly the beholding the glory of the most\nexalted creature, falls infinitely short of this ingredient in the\nheavenly blessedness.\nAnd on the other hand, the immediate impressions of the wrath of God on\nthe consciences of his enemies, or the power of his anger, which shall\nrender them eternally miserable, when banished from his presence, proves\nhim to be a divine Person, inasmuch as the highest degree of misery\nconsists in a separation, or departure from him, which it could not do,\nif he were not the fountain of blessedness; nor could the punishment of\nsinners be proportioned to their crimes, if it were not to be inflicted\nby the _glory of his power_; the apostle joins both these together, in 2\nThess. i. 9. though some understand the words, as implying, that their\npunishment proceeds from his immediate presence, in the display of the\ngreatness of his power, as a sin-avenging Judge; in either of which\nsenses, it argues him to be a divine Person. And that it is our Saviour\nwho is spoken of, is evident, from the foregoing and following verses;\nit is he who shall appear _in flaming fire_, taking vengeance on them\nthat know not God, and obey not the gospel; and it is he that shall\n_come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that\nbelieve_; so that we have a very plain proof of his Deity, from the\nexercise of his government, either in this or the other world.\nHaving endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ, from his works of\ncreation and providence and under the former of these, offered some\nthings in answer to the methods taken by the Socinians, and especially\nthe Arians, in accounting for the sense of those scriptures that speak\nof the Father\u2019s creating all things by the Son; it is necessary for us\nnow to consider the most material objections, brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians in general, against what has been said in defence of\nthis doctrine, taken from the works of common and special providence, as\nascribed to him, and, in particular, from the administration of his\nkingdom of grace; it is therefore objected.\n_Object._ 1. That his kingdom, and power of acting, in the\nadministration of the affairs relating thereunto, is wholly derived from\nthe Father: thus he says in Luke xxii. 29. _I appoint unto you a\nkingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me_; and, in Mat. xi. 27. _All\nthings are delivered unto me of my Father_; and in Psal. ii. 6. _Yet\nhave I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion._ And whatever he does in\nmanaging the affairs thereof, is by the Father\u2019s commission and\nappointment: thus in John v. 36. he speaks of the works which he was to\nperform, as those which _the Father had given him to finish_. And as for\nhis power of executing judgment, which is one of the greatest glories of\nhis kingly government, this is derived from the Father, in John v. 22.\n_For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the\nSon_; and, in Acts xvii. 31. it is said, that _he hath appointed a day,\nin which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he\nhath ordained_, meaning our Saviour; and when he speaks, in Rev. ii. 27.\nof his ruling his enemies _with a rod of iron, and breaking them to\nshivers, as the vessels of a potter_, he adds, that this _he received of\nhis Father_; from whence they argue, that since he received his\ndominion, or right to govern the world and the church, from the Father,\ntherefore he cannot be God equal with the Father. As we say, in\nopposition to their scheme of doctrine, that a derived Deity, such as\nthey suppose his to be, cannot be the same with that which the Father\nhas; so they allege this, by way of reprisal, against the argument we\nhave but now insisted on, that a derived dominion cannot be made use of\nas a medium to prove him that has it to be a divine Person, in the same\nsense in which we maintain him to be.\n2. In all his works, and particularly in the administration of the\naffairs of his kingdom, he acts for the Father\u2019s glory, and not his own;\nwhereas a divine Person, cannot act, for any other end than for his own\nglory: this therefore rather disproves, than evinces, his proper Deity;\nas when he says, in John viii. 49. _I honour my Father_; and, in chap.\nv. 30. he says, _I seek not mine own will, but the will of my Father\nwhich hath sent me_. He also speaks of the Father giving him a\ncommandment to do what he did; as in John xii. 49. _I have not spoken of\nmy self, but the Father which sent me; he gave me a commandment, what I\nshould say, and what I should speak_; and, in chap. xiv. 31. _As the\nFather gave me commandment, so do I_; and, in chap. xv. 10. he speaks of\nhis having _kept his Father\u2019s commandment_, and pursuant hereunto,\n_abiding in his love_, from whence they argue, that he who is obliged to\nfulfil a commandment, or who acts in obedience to the Father, is\nproperly a subject, or a servant, and therefore cannot be God in the\nsame sense as the Father, who gave this commandment, is.\n3. They add, that in the government of his church, and the world, in\nsubserviency thereunto, he acts in the Father\u2019s name, as deputy and\nvicegerent; as in John x. 25. _The works that I do in my Father\u2019s name,\nthey bear witness of me_; and accordingly his works are called the\nFather\u2019s, in ver. 37. _If I do not the works of my Father, believe me\nnot_; and these works are said to be done _from the Father_, ver. 32.\n_Many good works have I shewed you from my Father_: and, as the\nconsequence of all this, he acknowledges, as he ought to do, in John\nxiv. 28. that _the Father is greater than he_. How then can he be a\ndivine Person, in the sense in which we have proved him to be, when\nthere is a God above him, in whose name he acts in all he does?\n4. They farther argue, that he was _made both Lord and Christ_, and that\nby the Father, as it is expressly said, in Acts ii. 36.\n5. They farther argue that the donatives of his kingdom, or those\nhonours which are bestowed on his subjects, are not his to give, but the\nFather\u2019s; as it is said, in Matt. xx. 23. _To sit on my right hand, and\non my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them, for whom\nit is prepared of my Father._\n6. This kingdom which he received from the Father, and thus administers\nin subserviency to him, is, in the end, to be resigned, or delivered up:\nthus, in 1 Cor. xv. 24. _Then cometh the end, when he shall have\ndelivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father_; and in ver. 28. _When\nall things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be\nsubject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in\nall_; and accordingly, he shall lay aside those divine honours which he\nnow has, or cease to perform those works which give him a right to claim\nthem. These are the strongest arguments, of any, that are brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians against our Saviour\u2019s proper Deity; and, indeed, as\nthough they had little else to object, there is scarce an argument to\ndisprove it, but what is supported in this method of reasoning, which\nthey think to be altogether unanswerable, (and there are many more\nscriptures, which might have been brought to the same purpose) therefore\nit is necessary that we should consider what may be replied to it.\nThe sum of what has been objected, as thus branched out into several\nparticulars, is, that since Christ is represented as below the Father,\nor inferior to him, he cannot he equal with him, for that is no other\nthan a contradiction.[157]\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though the scripture speaks of\nour Saviour, as receiving a commission from the Father, and acting in\nsubserviency to him; yet let it be considered, that this does not\nrespect the inferiority of the divine nature, but the subserviency of\nwhat is done by him, as Mediator, to the glory of the Father, as this\ncharacter and office were received from him. And, indeed, whenever the\nSon is represented, as engaged in the great work of redemption, or in\nany thing tending thereunto, or in any work consequent thereupon,\nwhereby what was before purchased is said to be applied by him, this has\na peculiar reference to him, as Mediator: therefore let us consider,\n1. That nothing is more common, in scripture, than for him to be\nrepresented as Mediator, especially in all those things that concern the\nspiritual advantages, or salvation of his church, which is the principal\nthing to be considered in his government; and in this sense we are to\nunderstand those scriptures, which have been brought to support the\nobjection: and it is plain, that our Saviour generally speaks of himself\nunder this character, which is included in his being the Messiah, or\nChrist, which is the main thing that he designed to evince by his\ndoctrine and his miracles; therefore, if we duly consider the import of\nthis character, it will not only give light to the understanding such\nlike scriptures, but sufficiently answer the objection against his Deity\ntaken from them.\nOur adversaries will not deny that Christ is represented as a Mediator;\nbut they widely differ from us, when they take occasion to explain what\nthey intend thereby: sometimes they seem to mean nothing else by it, but\na middle-Being betwixt God and the creature; and therefore the work\nperformed by him as such is not what requires him to be, in the most\nproper sense, a divine Person, and consequently whatever inferiority to\nthe Father is contained in this character, they conclude that this\nrespects his Deity; whereas we distinguish between the subserviency of\nthe work, performed by him, as Mediator, to the glory of God the Father,\ntogether with the subjection, or real inferiority of the human nature,\nin which he performed it to the Father; and the inferiority of his\ndivine nature: the former we allow; the latter we deny.\n2. When we speak of him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be God and\nMan, in one Person; and that these two natures, though infinitely\ndistinct, are not to be separated. As God, without the consideration of\na human nature united to his divine Person, he would be too high to\nsustain the character, or to perform the work of a servant, and, as\nsuch, to yield obedience, which was incumbent on him, as Mediator; and\non the other hand, to be a mere man, is too low, and would be altogether\ninconsistent with that infinite value and dignity, that was to be put on\nthe work which he was to perform. Therefore it was necessary that he\nshould have two distinct natures, a divine and a human, or that he\nshould be God incarnate. This will be more particularly considered under\nsome following answers[158]; and therefore we shall reserve the proof\nhereof for its proper place, and there consider the distinct properties\nof each nature; and all that we shall observe at present is, that the\nevangelist John, in whose gospel our Saviour is often described, as\ninferior to the Father, as well as equal with him, which is agreeable to\nhis Mediatorial character, lays down this, as a kind of preface,\ndesigning hereby to lead us into the knowledge of such like expressions,\nwhen he says, in John i. 14. _The Word was made flesh and dwelt among\nus_; which is all the proof we shall give of it at present.\n3. It follows from hence, that several things may be truly spoken\nconcerning, or applied to him, which are infinitely opposite to one\nanother, namely that he has almighty power in one respect, as to what\nconcerns his Deity; and yet that he is weak, finite, and dependent in\nanother, as to what respects his humanity. In one nature, he is God\nequal with the Father, and so receives nothing from him, is not\ndependent on him, nor under any obligation to yield obedience. In this\nnature, he is the object of worship, as all worship terminates on that\nDeity, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead: but, in the\nother nature, he worships, receives all from, and refers all to the\nglory of the Father; therefore,\n4. Those scriptures which speak of him as receiving a kingdom, doing all\nthings from, or in obedience to the Father, or in his name, and for his\nglory, and as inferior to, and dependent on him, are not only applied to\nhim, as Mediator, but they have a particular respect to his human\nnature; so that all that can be inferred from such modes of speaking, as\nthose above-mentioned, as so many objections against the doctrine which\nwe are defending, is, that he who is God is also man, and consequently\nhas those things predicated of him, as such which are proper to a nature\ninfinitely below, though inseparably united with his divine.\nMoreover, whereas it is said, that _the Father has committed all\njudgment to the Son_, or that _he judgeth the world in righteousness, by\nthat man whom he hath ordained_; all that can be inferred from hence is,\nthat so far as this work is performed by him, in his human nature, which\nwill be rendered visible to the whole world at the day of judgment, it\nis an instance of the highest favour and glory conferred upon this\nnature, or upon God-man Mediator, as man: but whereas he is elsewhere\ndescribed, as having a right to judge the world, as God; and as having\nthose infinite perfections, whereby he is fit to do it, these are the\nsame that belong to the Father, and therefore not derived from him.\nAgain, when, in another scripture, before referred to, it is said, that\n_God hath made him both Lord and Christ_, it is not there said, that the\nFather hath made him God, or given him any branch of the divine glory;\nbut it signifies the unction that he received from the Father, to be the\nKing, Head, and Lord of his church; which, so far as this is an act of\ngrace, or connotes his dependence on the Father herein, it has an\nimmediate respect to him, in his human nature, in which, as well as in\nhis divine nature, this dominion is exercised; whereas his sovereignty,\nand universal dominion over the church and the world, or those divine\nperfections, which render him, in all respects, fit to govern it; they\nbelong, more especially to the Mediator, as God, and are the same as\nwhen they are applied to the Father.\nMoreover, when he says, _I seek not my own will, but the Father\u2019s, that\nsent me_; and elsewhere, _Not my will, but thine be done_; it argues\nthat he had a human will, distinct from his divine, in which he\nexpresses that subjection to the Father, which becomes a creature; this\nis plainly referred to him as man; so, on the other hand, when he says,\nspeaking of himself co-ordinately with the Father, _As the Father\nraiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so even the Son quickeneth\nwhom he will_; this, though spoken of him as Mediator, has a peculiar\nreference to his divine nature.\nAgain, when he says, in another scripture, _The Father is greater than\nI_, that is applied to him as man; whereas elsewhere, in John x. 30.\nwhen he says, _I, and my Father are one_, that is spoken of him as God,\nhaving the same nature with the Father so that if we suppose our Saviour\nto be God and Man, as he is plainly proved to be, from scripture, then\nit follows, that whatever is said concerning him, as importing his right\nto divine honour on the one hand, or his disclaiming it on the other,\nthese are both true, when we consider him in these different natures.\nThus we are to understand those scriptures, that speak of the real\ninferiority of the Son to the Father: but when, in other places, nothing\nis intended but the subserviency of what is done by the Son, as\nMediator, or its tendency to set forth the Father\u2019s glory, this may be\napplicable to those divine works, which the Mediator performs; and so we\nmay distinguish between the subserviency of the divine actions to the\nFather\u2019s glory, and the inferiority of one divine Person to another; the\nformer may be asserted without detracting from his proper Deity, while\nthe latter is denied, as inconsistent with it.\nThus we have endeavoured to explain those scriptures, which are referred\nto by the Arians, to overthrow our Saviour\u2019s divinity: and, by the same\nmethod of explication, I humbly conceive, all others, that can be\nbrought to that purpose, may be understood. I have passed over that\nscripture, indeed, which respects _Christ\u2019s delivering up the kingdom to\nthe Father_, and being subject to him, which it might have been expected\nthat I should have endeavoured to explain; but I choose rather to refer\nthe consideration thereof to its proper place, when we speak concerning\nChrist\u2019s kingly office, and his being exalted in the execution thereof.\nIV. The next argument to prove the divinity of Christ is taken from his\nbeing the object of religious worship, which is a practical owning of\nhim to be a divine Person, when there is an agreement between our words\nand actions, in both which we acknowledge him to have the perfections of\nthe divine nature. This argument is so strong and conclusive, that it is\nvery difficult to evade the force thereof; and, indeed, it affects the\nvery essentials of religion. Now, that we may herein proceed with\ngreater plainness, we shall,\n1. Consider what we understand by worship in general, and by religious\nworship in particular. I am very sensible that the Anti-trinitarians\nunderstand the word in a sense very different from what we do, as taking\nit in a limited sense, for our expressing some degree of humility, or\nreverence, to a person, whom we acknowledge in some respect, to be our\nsuperior; but whatever external signs of reverence, or words, we use, as\nexpressive of our regard to him who is the object thereof, this, when\napplied to our Saviour, is no more than what they suppose to be due to a\nperson below the Father. Therefore, that we may not mistake the meaning\nof the word, let it be considered; that worship is either civil or\nreligious; the former contains in it that honour and respect which is\ngiven to superiors, which is sometimes expressed by bowing, or falling\ndown, before them, or some other marks of humility, which their advanced\nstation in the world requires; Though this is seldom called worshipping\nthem; and it is always distinguished from religious worship, even when\nthe same gestures are used therein. It is true, there is one scripture,\nin which the same word is applied to both, in 1 Chron. xxix. 20. where\nit is said, _All the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped\nthe Lord and the king_, that is, they paid civil respect, accompanied\nwith those actions that are expressive of humility, and that honour that\nwas due to David, but their worship given to God was divine or\nreligious. This is the only sense in which we understand _worship_ in\nthis argument, and it includes in it adoration and invocation. In the\nformer, we ascribe infinite perfection unto God, either directly, or by\nconsequence; an instance whereof we have in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12.\n_Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the\nvictory, and the majesty; for all that is in heaven, and in the earth is\nthine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as Head above\nall. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all,\nand in thine hand is power and might and in thine hand it is to make\ngreat, and to give strength unto all_; and, in Deut. xxxii. 3. in which\nwe are said to _ascribe greatness_ unto him; and, in Rom. i. 21. to\n_glorify him as God_, or, _give unto him the glory due to his name_,\nPsal. xxix. 2.\nInvocation is that wherein we glorify God, as the Fountain of\nblessedness, when we ask those things from him, which none but a God can\ngive, which is sometimes called _seeking the Lord_, Psal. cv. 4. or\n_calling upon him_, Psal. l. 15. And this includes in it all those\nduties which we perform, in which we consider him as a God of infinite\nperfection, and ourselves dependent on him, and desirous to receive all\nthose blessings from him, which we stand in need of; and particularly\nfaith, in the various acts thereof, is a branch of religious worship, as\nconnoting its object to be a divine Person; as also supreme love, and\nuniversal obedience; and, indeed, it contains in it the whole of\nreligion, in which we have a due regard to that infinite distance that\nthere is between him and the best of creatures; and religious worship is\nno where taken in a lower sense than this in scripture.\n2. Religious worship, as thus described, is to be given to none but a\ndivine Person, according to our Saviour\u2019s words, in Matth. iv. 10. _Thou\nshall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve._ This is\nevident, from the idea we have of religion in general, which is a giving\nthat glory, or ascribing those perfections to God, which belong to him,\nas being founded in his nature; and therefore it is the highest instance\nof blasphemy and profaneness to apply them to any creature, since it is\nin effect to say that he is equal with God.\n3. It plainly appears, from Scripture, that Christ is the object of\nreligious worship, and consequently that the argument we are maintaining\nis just, namely, that, for this reason, he must be concluded to be a\ndivine Person. Now that he is the object of religious worship, is\nevident, from many examples in scripture of such worship being given to\nhim, when, at the same time, they, who have given it, have not been\nreproved or restrained, but rather commended, for performing it. We have\nvarious instances of this nature in the Old Testament, of which I shall\nmention two or three, _viz._ in Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. _God, before whom\nmy fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life\nlong unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the\nlads._ When he speaks of Abraham and Isaac\u2019s walking before him, it\nimplies, that, in their whole conversation, they considered themselves\nas under his all-seeing eye; and Jacob acknowledges him as the God, who\nhad sustained, preserved, and provided for him hitherto, the support of\nhis life, and his Deliverer, or Redeemer, from all evil. This divine\nPerson he addresses himself to, in a way of supplication, for a blessing\non the posterity of Joseph; and that he intends our Saviour hereby, is\nevident, because he has a reference to his appearance in the form of an\nangel, and therefore describes him under that character. Now we cannot\nsuppose that this holy patriarch is here represented as praying to a\ncreated angel, for that would be to charge him with idolatry. Moreover,\nthis is the same description that is given of Christ elsewhere, in Isa.\nlxiii. 9. _In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of\nhis presence saved them; in his love, and in his pity he redeemed them,\nand he bare them, and carried them all the days of old_; and in Mal.\niii. 1. _The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; even\nthe Messenger_, or Angel, _of the covenant, whom ye delight in_; which\ncontains a very plain prediction of our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, whose way\nis said to be prepared by John the Baptist, who is spoken of in the\nwords immediately foregoing. Now it is certain, that God the Father is\nnever called an angel in scripture, inasmuch as this is a peculiar\ndescription of the Mediator, who, as such, is never mentioned as the\nPerson sending, but sent; in which he is considered as one that was to\nbe incarnate, and, in our nature, to execute those offices, which he was\ntherein obliged to perform. This is the Person then whom Jacob adored\nand prayed to.\nWe have another instance, not only of his being worshipped, but of his\ndemanding this divine honour of him that performed it, in Josh. v. 14,\n15. where he appeared as the _Captain of the host of the Lord_; upon\nwhich, _Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said\nunto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the\nLord\u2019s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the\nplace whereon thou standest is holy; and Joshua did so_. It cannot be\nsupposed that it was any other than a divine Person that appeared; not\nonly because Joshua fell on his face and worshipped him, and expressed\nhis willingness to fulfil his command, but because he bid him loose his\nshoe from his foot, since the place on which he stood was holy; which\nexpression is no where used in any other text of scripture, except in\nExod. iii. 5. in which our Saviour, as we before considered, appeared to\nMoses, with the majesty and glory of a divine Person, whose immediate\npresence made the place relatively holy, which the presence of a\ncreature never did. Moreover, the character which he here gives of\nhimself to Joshua, as the Captain of the Lord\u2019s host, not only implies,\nthat all his success was owing to his conduct and blessing, on his\nwarlike enterprizes; but this is also agreeable to the description which\nis elsewhere given of our Saviour, in Isa. lv. 4. in which he is said to\nbe _a Leader and Commander to the people_; and he is called in Heb. ii.\n10. _The Captain of our salvation_; and elsewhere, _The Prince of life_;\nand, _The Prince of the kings of the earth_.\nMoreover, there are various instances in the New Testament of worship\ngiven to Christ; in which, by several circumstances contained in it, it\nis evident, that it was divine or religious. Thus he had divine honour\ngiven him by the wise men from the East, in Matth. ii. 11. who _fell\ndown and worshipped him_, &c. and, in Luke xxiv. 52. when he ascended up\ninto heaven, his disciples _worshipped him_; where there is nothing in\nthe mode of expression that distinguishes this from that worship that is\ndue to God. Moreover, there is a very illustrious instance of his being\nthus worshipped by a numerous assembly, represented in that vision, in\nRev. v. 11-13. _I beheld, and heard the voice of many angels round about\nthe throne, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power,\nand riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and\nblessing: And every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and\nunder the earth, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be\nunto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and\never_; in which words there are such glories ascribed, that higher\nexpressions cannot be used by any, who adore the divine Majesty; and it\nis plain, that our Saviour is intended hereby, because he is described\nas the _Lamb that was slain_; and he is also considered co-ordinately\nwith the Father, when it is said, that this glory is given to him that\n_sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb_. Now if our Saviour be thus\nworshipped, he must have a right to it, or else his worshippers would\nhave been reproved, as guilty of idolatry; thus Peter reproves\nCornelius, or rather prevents his paying divine adoration to himself,\nwho was no more than a man, in Acts x. 26. _Stand up, I myself also am a\nman_; and the angel, in Rev. xix. 10. when John at first, through\nmistake, thinking him to be a divine person, fell at his feet to worship\nhim, expressly forbad him, saying, _See thou do it not; I am thy\nfellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus;\nworship God._ But our Saviour never forbids any to worship him;\ntherefore we must conclude that he is the object thereof, and\nconsequently a divine Person.\nWe shall now proceed to consider the various branches of divine worship\nthat are given to him, _viz._\n1. Swearing by his name, whereby an appeal is made to him, as the Judge\nof truth, and the Avenger of falsehood. Some think that the apostle, in\nRom. ix. 1. intends as much as this, when he says, _I speak the truth in\nChrist, I lie not_, that is, I appeal to Christ, as the heart-searching\nGod, concerning the truth of what I say. But there is also another sense\nof swearing, namely, when in a solemn manner, we profess subjection to\nhim, as our God and King; which agrees with, or is taken from the custom\nof subjects, who swear fealty or allegiance to their king: thus it is\nsaid, in Isa. xlv. 23. _Unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue\nshall swear_; and, in doing this, they acknowledge him to be the object\nof faith, and to have a right to universal obedience, as well as the\nFountain of blessedness. This religious worship, as the prophet\nforetels, was to be given to the Person here spoken of, who is\nparticularly said to be our Saviour by the apostle, referring to it in\nRom. xiv. 11.\n2. This leads us to consider another act of religious worship, which has\nsome affinity with the former, contained in the baptismal vow; in which\nthere is a consecration, or dedication, of the person baptized, to the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the command given, in Matt.\nxxviii. 19. or a public profession, that it is our indispensable duty to\nexercise an entire subjection to them, in a religious manner. This is\none of the most solemn acts of worship that can be performed, wherein\nthere is an explicit mention of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost. And here we may consider, in general, that the Son is put\nco-ordinately with the Father, which no creature ever is: and it will be\nalso necessary for us to enquire what is meant by being baptized in the\nname of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that so it may farther appear\nto be an act of religious worship.\nSome hereby understand nothing else but our being baptized by the\nauthority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or by a warrant received\nfrom them to do it: but though this be sometimes the meaning of our\nacting in the name of God, yet more is intended by this expression, used\nin the administration of this ordinance, otherwise it is not\nsufficiently distinguished from all other acts of religious worship;\nwhich cannot be rightly performed without a divine warrant. According to\nthis sense of the word, ministers may as well be said to preach the\ngospel, and the church to attend on their ministration, in the name of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for this cannot he done without a\ndivine warrant, upon which account it may be deemed an ordinance.\nMoreover, to suppose that this instituted form of administering baptism,\nconveys no other idea, but that of a divine warrant to do it, is to\nconclude that there is no determinate meaning of the action performed,\ncontained in it; but the administrator is to intend nothing else by it,\nbut only that he has a warrant from God to baptize; whereas its being\nperformed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, seems plainly\nto intimate the principal thing signified thereby, as a direction for\nour faith, when engaging in it: which is, that they who are baptized are\nconsecrated, or devoted to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, devoted to\nGod professedly, and called by his name, in the sense in which the\nphrase is elsewhere used in scripture; his right to them is hereby\nsignified, and their indispensable obligation to be entirely his; and\nthat with a peculiar acknowledgment of the distinct personal glory of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the concern that each of them have\nin our salvation. The apostle speaking of our being baptized in the name\nof Christ, calls it, in Gal. iii. 27. _a putting on Christ_; which seems\nto imply a consecration, or dedication, to him. Persons as well as\nthings, before this ordinance was instituted, were consecrated to God by\ndivers washings, as well as other rites, used under the ceremonial law;\nand this seems to be the sense in which the apostle himself explains\nthis _putting on Christ_, in ver. 29. when he infers, from this action,\nthat they who had so done _were Christ\u2019s_, not only by that right, which\nhe has to them as their Creator and Redeemer, but by another, which is\nthe immediate result of their professed dedication to him; therefore\nthis is such a comprehensive act of worship, that it includes in it the\nwhole of that subjection, which is due to the Father, Son, and Spirit;\nand since, in particular, the Son is considered as the object thereof,\ntogether with the Father, it follows that he is God, equal with the\nFather.\nI might here consider, that it would be not only an unwarrantable\naction, but an instance of the greatest profaneness, for us to be\nbaptized in the name of any one who is not a divine Person, which\nfarther argues that it is an act of divine worship; upon which occasion,\nthe apostle Paul, speaking concerning some of the church of Corinth, as\nbeing disposed to pay too great a veneration to those ministers who had\nbeen instrumental in their conversion, as though, for this reason, they\nwere to be accounted the lords of their faith; and, in particular, that\nsome said they were of Paul, and, being apprehensive that they thought\nthe minister, who baptized them, had a right to be thus esteemed, he not\nonly reproves this ungrounded and pernicious mistake; but takes occasion\n_to thank God, that he baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius,\ntogether with the household of Stephanas, lest any should say he\nbaptized in his own name_; so that while he testifies his abhorrence of\nhis giving any just occasion to any, to conclude that he was the object\nof this branch of divine worship, he takes a great deal of pleasure in\nthis reflection, that the providence of God had not led them through the\nignorance and superstition that prevailed among them, to draw this false\nconclusion from his exercising this branch of the ministerial work,\nwhich properly they would not have inferred from any other\u2019s having\nbaptized them, who had not so great an interest in their affections as\nhe had. This I apprehend to be the meaning of what the apostle says, in\n1 Cor. i. 12-16. which I take occasion to refer to, as a farther proof\nof baptism\u2019s being an act of religious worship, unalienable from the\nFather, Son, and Spirit, in whose name alone we are to be baptized; and\nI cannot but conclude, that if the Son were not a divine Person, we\nmight as well be baptized in the name of Paul, or any other of the\napostles, as in his name, which is a just consequence from its being an\nact of religious worship; and therefore he would never have joined his\nown name with the Father\u2019s when he gave forth his commission to baptize,\nif he had not had a right to it, as well as the Father.\nAgain, divine worship is due to Christ, as he is the object of faith;\nand that not only as we are to depend upon whatever he has revealed, as\na matter of infallible verity, otherwise the faith of the church\nespecially under the New Testament dispensation, would be built on an\nuncertain foundation; but, since I am sensible it would be objected to\nthis, that whatever is transmitted to us by divine inspiration, is\ninfallibly true, though the instruments made use of herein were not\ndivine persons; and when we assert that what Christ delivered was\ninfallible, in a higher sense than this, we rather suppose than prove\nhis Deity; the Anti-trinitarians will not deny, that what he imparted\nwas infallibly true, and therefore the object of faith; but they suppose\nat the same time, that whatever was imparted to the world by the\napostles and prophets, was equally true and infallible; therefore they\nwere the objects of faith, in the same sense that our Saviour himself\nwas.\nIn answer to this I would not compare what was delivered immediately by\nour Saviour with what was transmitted by those who spake and wrote by\ndivine inspiration, or suppose that one was more infallibly true than\nthe other; and therefore that which I would principally insist on, when\nI speak of Christ, as the object of faith, whereby he appears to be a\ndivine Person, is not only that we are obliged to yield an assent to\nwhat he has imparted to us, but this is to be attended with a firm\nreliance on him, or trusting him with all we have, or for all we expect,\nto make us completely happy: in this sense we are to understand the\napostle\u2019s words, when he says, in 2 Tim. i. 12. _I know whom I have\nbelieved_, or trusted, _and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that\nwhich I have committed unto him against that day_; this is such a faith,\nas no creature is the object of. Trust in man is prohibited, and called\na departure from God, in Jer. xvii. 5. _Cursed be the man that trusteth\nin man_, or, by a parity of reason in any other creature, _and maketh\nflesh his arm, and whose heart herein departeth from the Lord_. Trust is\nsuch an act of faith, as is appropriated to a divine Person; and I\ncannot but observe, that there is something peculiar in the mode of\nspeaking, when Christ is represented as the object thereof, that is\nnever applied to any creature; as his worshippers are said to believe\n_in him_; thus, in John xiv. 1. _Ye believe in God, believe also in\nme_,[159] where he commands his people to believe in him, in such a way;\nas that this act of faith is accompanied with other graces, which argue\nhim a divine Person.\nThis leads us to consider him as the object of supreme love and\nuniversal obedience, which are also acts of religious worship; the\nformer respects him, as our chief good and happiness; the latter as our\nundoubted sovereign and proprietor: we do not say, that a person\u2019s\nhaving a right to be obeyed, or loved, or trusted, in a limited degree,\nargues him to be a divine Person; but when these graces are to be\nexercised in the highest degree, without any possibility of our\nexceeding therein; and when the exercise thereof is inseparably\nconnected with salvation, as it often is in scripture, and our not\nexercising them, is said to exclude from it, I cannot but from hence\nconclude, that, being thus circumstanced, is an act of religious\nworship; and it is certain, that our saviour is often represented, in\nscripture, as the object thereof.\nThe last thing that we shall consider, under this head, is, that he is\nthe object of prayer and praise; and that these are parts of religious\nworship, needs no proof. Some think, and the conjecture is not\naltogether improbable, that this is intended by the Psalmist, Psal.\nlxxii. 15. _Prayer also shall be made for him continually_; since it\nmight as well be rendered, continually made _to him_, which agrees with\nwhat follows, _And daily shall he be praised_; and that this Psalm\nrespects the Messiah, who had a right to more glory than Solomon,\nappears from several things, which are said concerning him therein; but\nI will not insist on this, since we have more evident proofs thereof in\nother scriptures. It is also foretold concerning him in Isa. xi. 10.\nthat _to him_, for so the words ought to be rendered, _shall the\nGentiles seek_; which mode of speaking is frequently used, to signify\nour addressing ourselves to a divine Person with prayer and\nsupplication, for the supplying of our wants. But we have yet more\nevident proofs hereof in the New Testament; the Syrophenician woman\u2019s\nprayer, which was directed to him, was indeed short, but very\ncomprehensive, Matt. xv. 22. _Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of\nDavid_; and, in ver. 25. _She came and worshipped him, saying, Lord help\nme_; and this act of religious worship was commended by our Saviour, and\nher prayer answered. And can we suppose any other than an act of\nreligious worship, contained in that petition of the man who came to him\nto cast the devil out of his son, in Mark ix. 24? _Who said, with tears,\nLord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief_; by which we are not to\nunderstand that he desired that his unbelief should be removed in an\nobjective way, by our Saviour\u2019s giving him more convincing arguments to\nconfirm his faith, but by a powerful access to his heart, as the Author\nand Finisher of faith, which is the peculiar gift of God; and\naccordingly he is considered as a divine Person, by those who thus\naddress themselves to him.\nWe shall conclude this head, with giving a few instances of short\nprayers directed to Christ, together with doxologies, or ascriptions of\npraise, in which he is sometimes joined with the Father and Holy Ghost;\nand he is also argued, from the subject matter thereof, to be a divine\nPerson: thus the apostle Paul concludes his epistles with, _The grace of\nour Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen_; 1 Cor. xvi. 23. Phil. iv.\n23. 1 Thess. v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. and, _The grace of our Lord Jesus\nChrist be with your spirit_; Philem. ver. 25. and, _The Lord Jesus\nChrist be with thy Spirit_; 2 Tim. iv. 22. which is a short and\ncomprehensive prayer directed to Christ, that he would bestow on them\nall those graces that are necessary to their salvation; and that this\ngrace may so govern and influence their spirits, as to fit them for his\nservice, which supposes him to be the God and Giver of all grace. And,\nin 2 Cor. x. iii. 14. he puts up a prayer to the three Persons in the\nGodhead expressly; _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of\nGod, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, Amen_;\ndesiring, that they would communicate those blessings, which accompany\nsalvation, by which the divine perfections, and in particular the\nPersonal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are demonstrated; and\nherein the Son is as much considered as the object of prayer as the\nFather, and consequently hereby proved to be a divine Person.\nTo this we may add those doxologies whereby praise is given to Christ;\nand so he is farther considered as the object of divine worship; thus,\nin 2 Pet. iii, 18. speaking of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he\nsays, _To him be glory, both now and for ever, Amen_; and, in Jude, ver.\n24, 25. _Unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present\nyou faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to\nthe only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power,\nboth now, and for ever, Amen_; where it is plain that he ascribes this\ndivine glory to Jesus Christ; for he is spoken of in ver. 21. _Looking\nfor the mercy of our Lord Jesus unto eternal life_, that is, for that\nmercy which shall preserve us unto eternal life, and then confer it upon\nus; which is the sense of those words, _Keeping us from falling, and\npresenting us faultless before the presence of his glory_, with a small\nvariation of the phrase; and the very same thing he is expressly said to\ndo elsewhere, in Eph. v. 27. to _present it to himself a glorious\nchurch, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it\nshould be holy, and without blemish_, that is, that he may present it to\nhis own view, as taking a survey of his workmanship, when brought to\nperfection; as God is said _to have taken a view of all things that he\nhad made at first_, when he pronounced _them good_ Gen. i. 31. and, when\nhe has thus taken a survey of his church, or presented it to himself,\nthen he presents it to the view of the whole world of angels and men,\nwhich, as it is said, is attended with exceeding joy; which plainly\nmakes it appear that our Saviour is the Person here spoken of; which is\nagreeable to what follows, where he is called, as he is elsewhere, _God\nour Saviour_, Tit. ii. 10, 13. which character agrees with the name by\nwhich he was most known, to wit, _Jesus_.\nAnother doxology we have in Rev. i. 4, 5, 6. _Grace be unto you, and\npeace from Jesus Christ_, &c. _Unto him that loved us, and washed us\nfrom our sins in his own blood; and hath made us kings and priests unto\nGod and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever,\nAmen._\nThere are also two places more, in which, to me, it seems more than\nprobable, that doxologies are directed to Christ, namely, in 1 Tim. vi.\n15, 16. _Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and\nLord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which\nno man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, or can see; to whom be\nhonour and power everlasting, Amen_: All allow that nothing greater can\nbe said of God than is here spoken; therefore the only thing denied by\nthe Arians is, that this is applied to any but the Father; but to me, it\nseems very obvious that it is spoken of Christ, because he is mentioned\nimmediately before: thus, in ver. 13. it is said, _I give thee charge in\nthe sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ\nJesus[160]; who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession;\nThat thou keep this commandment without spot, until the appearing of our\nLord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall shew; Who is the blessed\nand only Potentate, &c._ where by _his times_ is meant that season in\nwhich his glory shall shine most brightly, when, what he witnessed\nbefore Pontius Pilate, to wit, that he was the Son of God, he will\ndemonstrate in the highest degree, and then will eminently appear to\nhave a right to that glory, which the apostle ascribes to him.\nAgain, there is another scripture, in which a glorious doxology is\nascribed to Christ, in 1 Tim. i. 17. _Now unto the King eternal,\nimmortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory, for ever\nand ever, Amen._ A late learned writer[161] puts this among those\nscriptures which he applies to the Father, without assigning any reason\nfor it; which he ought to have done, inasmuch as the context seems to\ndirect us to apply it to the Son, spoken of in the foregoing verses;\nthus, in ver. 12. _I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who counted me\nfaithful, putting me into the ministry_; and, ver. 14. _The Grace of our\nLord was exceeding abundant_, &c. and ver. 15. _Christ Jesus came into\nthe world to save sinners_; and ver. 16. _Howbeit, for this cause I\nobtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all\nlong-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on\nhim to life everlasting._ Thus having mentioned the great things which\nChrist did for him, it is natural to suppose that he would take\noccasion, from hence, to ascribe glory to him, which he does in the\nwords immediately following, _Now, unto the King, eternal, immortal_,\nHaving considered the force of this argument, taken from divine worship\nbeing ascribed to Christ, to prove his deity, we shall now proceed to\nobserve the methods used by the Anti-trinitarians to evade it. Some of\nthe Socinians, as though there had been no scriptures that speak of him\nas the object of religious worship, have peremptorily denied that it is\ndue to him, and thought very hardly of their brethren, as though they\nwere involved in the common guilt of idolatry, which they suppose his\nworshippers to have been chargeable with. This occasioned warm debates\nin Transylvania and Poland, where Socinianism most prevailed towards the\nclose of the 16 century[162]; and, indeed, the method of reasoning, made\nuse of by those who denied that he was the object of worship, though it\ntended more to his dishonour, yet it carried in it a greater consistency\nwith that scheme of doctrines, which both sides maintained, who denied\nhis divinity.\nAs for the Arians, they do not expressly deny him to be the object of\nworship, but rather deviate from the true sense of the word, when they\nmaintain his right to it: they speak of great honours that are to be\nascribed to him, by which one would almost be ready to conclude that\nthey reckoned him a divine Person; but when these honours are compared\nwith those that are due to the Father, they very plainly discover that\nthey mean nothing more hereby, but what in consistency with their own\nscheme may be applied to a creature. Thus a late writer[163], in his\nexplication of that text, in John v. 23. _That all men should honour the\nSon, even as they honour the Father_, plainly discovers his sense of\ndivine worship, as due to our Saviour, to be very remote from that which\nis defended by those who maintain his proper deity. His explication of\nthis text is, \u201cThat the meaning is not that the Son\u2019s authority should,\nlike that of the Father, be looked upon as underived, absolute, supreme,\nand independent; but that as the Jews already believed in God, so they\nshould also believe in Christ: as they already honoured God the Father,\nso they should also for the future, honour the Son of God; honour him,\nas having all judgment committed unto him; honour him, to the honour of\nthe Father, which sent him; acknowledge him to be God, to the glory of\nthe Father.\u201d Which is a very low idea of divine honour; for it is as\nmuch as to say, that as the Father is to be honoured as God, so there is\na degree of honour, which he has conferred upon the Son, infinitely\nbelow that which is due to himself, but yet called divine, because it is\ngiven him by a divine warrant. Whether, in this sense, an angel might\nnot have had a warrant to receive divine honour, I leave any one to\njudge; and, indeed, nothing is contained in this sense, but what rather\ntends to depreciate, than advance the glory of Christ. But that we may\nbetter understand how far they allow that religious worship may be given\nto our Saviour, as well as that we may take occasion to defend that\nright to divine worship, which we have proved to be due to him, we shall\nbriefly consider, and endeavour to make some reply to the following\nobjections.\n_Object._ 1. To what has been said concerning a right to religious\nworship, being founded only in a person\u2019s having the perfections of the\ndivine nature; and accordingly that it is an argument that our Saviour\nis truly and properly God, equal with the Father, because as such, he\nhas a right to it, it is objected, that if God commands us to worship a\ncreature, we are bound to obey him; and accordingly, without considering\nany right that is founded in his nature, we are to give divine worship\nto Christ, by divine direction, or in obedience to a command given us to\nthat purpose; and that such a command was given, upon which Christ\u2019s\nright to receive divine worship is founded, appears from Heb. i. 6.\n_When he bringeth his first-begotten into the world, he saith, and let\nall the angels of God worship him_; which supposes that they did not\nworship him before, nor would they have done it afterwards, without this\ndivine intimation.\n_Answ._ 1. As to our yielding obedience to a divine command, provided\nGod should require us to give divine worship to a creature, it may be\nreplied, that we do not deny but that all the divine commands are to be\nobeyed; but yet this supposition is groundless, inasmuch as God cannot\ncommand us to worship a creature, any more than he can discharge us from\nan obligation to worship himself. This, therefore, is, in effect, to\nsuppose what can never be; therefore nothing can be inferred from such a\nsupposition; we might as well say, that if God should cease to exist, he\nwould cease to be the object of worship; or if a created being had\ndivine perfection, he would have a right to equal honour with God; which\nis to suppose a thing that is in itself impossible; and it is no less\nabsurd to suppose it warrantable for us to pay divine worship to a\ncreature. This will farther appear, from what has been said in\nexplaining the nature of religious worship. Adoration is a saying to a\nperson, who is the object thereof, thou hast divine perfections, and to\nsay this to a creature, is contrary to truth; and therefore, certainly\nthe God of truth can never give us a warrant to say that which is false,\nas this certainly would be. And if we consider worship, as it is our\naddressing ourselves to him, whom we worship, in such a way, as becomes\na God, he cannot give us a warrant so to do, for that would be for him\nto divest himself of his glory: and it would also disappoint our\nexpectations, by putting us on trusting one that cannot save us; and\nsuch are justly reproved, in Isa. xlv. 20. as _having no knowledge, who\npray unto a god that cannot save_. We must therefore conclude, that\nsince God cannot give his glory to another, he cannot give any warrant\nto us to pay divine worship to a creature, as is supposed in the\nobjection,\n2. As for that scripture, referred to, in which God commanded the angels\nto worship our Saviour, when he brought him into the world, it is not to\nbe supposed that he had no right to divine worship before his\nincarnation; for if he be a divine Person, as the scriptures assert him\nto be, the angels, doubtless adored him as such before; the only new\ndiscovery that was then made to them was, that the second Person in the\nGodhead was now God incarnate; and therefore this instance of infinite\ncondescension was to be considered as a motive to excite their\nadoration, but not the formal reason of it: thus we are sometimes\ncommanded to adore and magnify God for the visible displays of his\ndivine perfections in his works; as the Psalmist says, Psal. cvii. 8.\n_Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his\nwonderful works to the children of men!_ and, in many other scriptures,\nwhere the works of God are represented, as a means or motive to excite\nour worship or adoration; whereas the divine perfections, which are\ndisplayed or rendered visible therein, are the great foundation or\nreason thereof; we worship this God because he is infinitely perfect;\nthough we take occasion, from the visible display of his perfections, to\nworship him. In this sense we understand the worship given to Christ by\nthe angels, when brought into the world; they took occasion, from this\namazing instance of his condescension, to adore those perfections, which\ninduced the Son of God to take the human nature into union with his\ndivine; not that they supposed his right to worship was founded therein.\n_Object._ 2. Since our worshipping Christ includes in it ascribing all\nthat glory to him that is his due; it is enough for us, when we worship\nhim, to confess that he has an excellency above the angels, or that he\nis the best of all created beings, as well as the most honourable, and\nthe greatest blessing to mankind, as he was sent of God to instruct us\nin the way of salvation as a Prophet, to intercede for us as a Priest,\nand to give laws to us as a King, and that he has done all this\nfaithfully, and with great compassion to us. These things, and whatever\nelse he does for the advantage of mankind, may, and ought to be\nacknowledged to his praise, as a debt due to him, in which respect he is\nto be considered as the object of worship; nevertheless, we are not to\ngive him that glory which is due to the Father, as though he were a\nPerson truly and properly divine, in the same sense as he is.\n_Answ._ 1. It is agreed, on both sides, that that glory, which is due to\nhim, is to be ascribed; but we humbly conceive, that the ascribing to a\nperson that honour, which he has a right to, unless we suppose it to be\ndivine, is not religious worship; or, to confess that those works which\nhe has done, are wonderful, and of great advantage to mankind, is no\ninstance of adoration, unless we suppose that these works are such, as\nnone but a Person who has the divine nature can perform; whereas all\nthose works, which they ascribe to him, may, according to them, be\nperformed by a finite being, or else they must allow the arguments,\nwhich have been taken from thence, to prove his proper deity.\n2. If the works that are ascribed to him be considered as properly\ndivine, as they are represented to be in scripture, it must not be\nconcluded, from hence, that he is to be adored, as performing them; but\nwe are rather to take occasion from thence, as was observed in our last\nhead, to adore those divine perfections, which are evinced hereby, which\nrender him the object of worship; as the works of God are motives to\ninduce us to worship him, and not the formal reason of that worship; as\nwhen, in the first commandment, God lays claim to divine honour, or\nobliges the Israelites _to have no other gods before him, because he had\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt_, we are to consider their\ndeliverance from thence, indeed, as a motive to worship; but it is the\ndivine power that was exerted therein, that was properly the object\nthereof; so, in Psal. cxxxvi. 1. we are _to give thanks to the Lord,\nwhose mercy endureth for ever_; and, in the following verses, there is a\nparticular mention made of some glorious works which God had done, _who\nalone doth great wonders, who, in wisdom, made the heavens, stretched\nout the earth; made the sun to rule by day, and the moon by night_, &c.\nThese, and several other works there mentioned are all considered as\nmotives to excite our adoration; but his being _Jehovah, the God of\ngods, and Lord of lords_, as in the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, is the great\nfoundation of his right to worship, since that is infinite; whereas his\nworks are only the effects of infinite power, and so a demonstration of\nhis right to divine glory. Now to apply this to those works which are\ndone by our Saviour, if we suppose them, as we ought, to be properly\ndivine, they are to be considered only as evincing his right to divine\nhonour, as they are a demonstration of his deity, which is the only\nthing that renders him the object of divine worship.\n_Object._ 3. But some will proceed a little farther, when they speak of\nChrist as the object of worship, and so will allow, that honours, truly\ndivine, may be given to him; yet that this does not prove him to be God\nequal with the Father, since he is herein only considered as the\nFather\u2019s Representative, on whom the worship, that is immediately\napplied to him, must be supposed to terminate; as when an ambassador,\nwho represents the prince that sent him, is considered as sustaining\nthat character, and so receives some honour, which otherwise he would\nhave no right to, or rather he is honoured as personating him whom he\nrepresents.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that whatever may be said to be done\nby an ambassador, as representing the prince that sent him, there is\nalways something contained in the manner of his address, or in the\nhonours ascribed to him, that denotes him to be more than a subject; and\nit would be ill represented, should he assume that honour to himself\nthat is due to his master. Therefore our Saviour, were he not a divine\nPerson, but only the Father\u2019s Representative, could not have a right to\nclaim that divine honour that is ascribed to him; neither have we any\nfoundation, in scripture, to distinguish concerning a supreme and a\nsubordinate worship, or a worship given to a person that does not\nterminate in him, but in another, whom he represents.\nIf there be any apparent foundation for this supposition, it must be\ntaken from those expressions in which Christ is represented, as\nMediator, as acting in the Father\u2019s name, and not seeking his own glory,\nbut the glory of him that sent him, or referring all the honour, that is\ngiven to him as such, to the Father. But to this it may be replied, that\nwhen our Saviour uses such a mode of speaking, he disclaims any right to\ndivine honour due to him as Man, in which respect he received a\ncommission from the Father, and acted in his name; but when the honour\nof a divine Person is given to him as God, though considered as\nMediator, he is not to be looked upon as representing the Father, or\ntransferring the divine glory that he receives, to the Father, but as\nhaving the same right to it as the Father has, inasmuch as he has the\nsame divine nature, otherwise we cannot account for those modes of\nspeaking, in which the glory of a divine Person is ascribed to him,\nwithout restriction or limitation, as it oftentimes is in scripture.\n_Object._ 4. To what has been said in defence of Christ\u2019s divinity, from\nour being baptized in his name, it is objected, that it does not follow,\nthat because we are baptized in the name of the Son, as well as of the\nFather, that therefore he is God equal with the Father; for though this\nordinance, as it respects the Father, contains, properly, an act of\ndivine worship, in which we consider him as the great Lord of all\nthings, to whom divine worship, in the highest sense is due; yet we\nconsider the Son, as well as the Holy Ghost, only as having a right to\nan inferior kind of worship, in proportion to the respective parts which\nthey sustain, by the will of the Father, in the work of our salvation;\nand, in particular, to be baptized in the name of Christ, implies in it\nnothing else but a declaration that we adhere to him, as the Father\u2019s\nMinister, delegated by him to reveal his mind and will to us, and to\nerect that gospel-dispensation, which we, in this ordinance, professedly\nsubmit to; and accordingly to be baptized in the name of Christ, is to\nbe taken in the same sense, as when, in 1 Cor. x. 2. the Israelites were\nsaid to _be baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea_; as they\nsignified thereby their consent to be governed by those laws, which\nMoses was appointed, by God, to give them; upon which account, they were\ndenominated a particular church, separated from the world, and obliged\nto worship God in such a way, as was prescribed in the ceremonial law:\neven so, by baptism, we own ourselves Christians, under an obligation to\nadhere to Christ, as our Leader and Commander, who has revealed to us\nthe gospel, which, by subjecting ourselves to, we are denominated\nChristians; and to this they also add, especially the Socinians, that as\nbaptism was first practised as an ordinance, to initiate persons into\nthe Jewish church, and was afterwards applied by our Saviour, to signify\nthe initiating the heathen into the Christian church; so it was designed\nto be no longer in use among them, than till Christianity was generally\nembraced; and consequently we being a Christian nation, are not obliged\nto submit to it, since we are supposed to adhere to the doctrines of\nChristianity, and therefore it is needless to signify the same by this\nordinance. It was upon this account that Socinus, and some of his\nfollowers, not only denied the baptism of infants, but that of all\nothers, who were supposed to be Christians.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the first part of this objection, to wit, that baptism\ndoes not signify the same thing when it is administered in the name of\nChrist, as when administered in the name of the Father, this is founded\non a supposition, that the Son has not a right to the same honour that\nis due to the Father, which ought to be proved, and not taken for\ngranted; and it altogether sets aside the consideration of the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost\u2019s being herein co-ordinately represented, as the\nobjects of this solemn dedication, which tends very much to derogate\nfrom the Father\u2019s glory. As it supposes the Son and Spirit to have a\nright to that glory which belongs to him, while they deny them to be\ndivine Persons; and according to this method of reasoning, God might as\nwell have ordained, that we should have been baptized in his name,\ntogether with the name of any of his prophets and apostles, which were\nappointed to be his ministers, in revealing his will to us, as in the\nname of the Son and Spirit, unless they were accounted worthy of having\nan honour infinitely superior to that which is given to any creature\ngiven to them herein.\n2. When it is supposed that our professed subjection to Christ in\nbaptism, is nothing else but our consent to be governed by those laws,\nwhich he has given us in the gospel, and so is compared with that\ndeclaration of subjection to the law of Moses, which was contained in\nthe baptism of the Israelites into Moses.\nTo this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be no other than\na Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing else but to be\nprofessedly a member of that society, which goes under that\ndenomination; and that to put on Christ is not to consecrate or devote\nourselves to him as a divine Person; which is a very low idea of\nChristianity; and consequently the character of a Christian does not\nimply in it so much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when\napplied to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour him,\nas they honour the Father, or to submit to his government, as truly and\nproperly divine. A Christian is not barely one who is of Christ\u2019s party,\nin the same sense as a Mahometan, who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is\nof his; for Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those\nreligious duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are due\nto Christ as a divine Person.\n3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance of Proselytism\nto the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation is no longer\nobliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary to what our Saviour\nsays in the words immediately following the institution thereof, in\nMatt, xxviii. 20. _Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the\nworld_, that is, you may expect my presence with you in administering\nthis ordinance, as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the\nfirst age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world,\nbut as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And,\nindeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration of\nour obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it does not follow,\nthat because we are born in a Christian nation, therefore such a\nprofession is no longer necessary. But since more than this is contained\ntherein, as hath been before observed, namely, our professed subjection\nto Christ, in a religious way, as a divine Person, this extends the\nbaptismal obligation much farther than to our being called Christians,\nand argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long as\nChrist is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be the Prophet,\nPriest, and King of his church, and, as such, the object of religious\nworship, namely, unto the end of the world.\n_Object._ 5. There is another objection against the argument in general,\nrelating to Christ\u2019s being the object of divine worship, taken from his\nhaving refused to have one of the divine perfections ascribed to him,\nand directing the Person that gave it, to ascribe it to the Father, in\nMatt. xix. 17. _He said unto him, Why callest thou me good, there is\nnone good but one, that is God_; _q. d._ there is but one Person who is\ngood, as goodness is properly a divine attribute, and that is the\nFather: therefore he alone is the object of that worship, which consists\nin the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in which\nsense we have before supposed religious worship to be understood.\n_Answ._ 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine unity,\nwhen he asserts, that there is none good but one, that is God; it is,\ndoubtless to be understood in the same sense with all other scriptures,\nthat deny a plurality of gods, in opposition to the principles and\npractice of idolaters; but it does not follow from hence, that the\nFather is the only Person who is God, or the object of divine worship.\nThis has been before considered[164], and therefore all that I shall\nreply to this part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes\ntaken for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation\nthereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be equally\napplied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken, when the being of\na God is demonstrated by the light of nature; as from the effects of the\ndivine power, we argue, that there is a God, who is the Creator of all\nthings; but this cannot, if we have no other light to guide us herein\nbut that of nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in\nthe Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine\nPersons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our Saviour\nintends by this expression is, that no one has a right to have divine\nperfections ascribed to him, but he that has a divine nature, which\nwhether it be meant of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, he is denominated\n_the one only living and true God_.\nIt follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are used in\nscripture, though the Father be called the one or only God, the Son is\nnot excluded, as a late judicious writer well observes.[165]\n2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour\u2019s\nblaming the man for calling him good, there are two senses given of it;\none is taken from a different reading of the words, namely, _Why dost\nthou ask me concerning good_.[166] But it will not be much to our\npurpose either to defend or disprove this reading, since Mark and Luke\nread it, _Why callest thou me good_, &c. therefore, passing this over\nand supposing that it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common\nanswer that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may be\nwell acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man, as ascribing\na divine perfection to him, whom, at the same time, he concluded to be\nno more than a creature; and therefore it is as though he should say;\neither, first, acknowledge me to be a divine Person, or else do not\nascribe divine honours to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as\nwell ascribe them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same\nmethod of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian, in his\nday, who had given divine worship to him, and yet denied his proper\ndeity, he would have reproved him for this mistake arising from an\nerroneous conscience, as much as he does the man, whom he reproves, in\nthe same sense, for styling him _good_.\nThat Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to this divine\nperfection, is not only evident, from those several scriptures, which\nhave been before referred to, that ascribe perfections to him that are\nequally divine, inasmuch as he that has a right to one divine\nperfection, has a right to all; but he also styles himself, in John x.\n14. _The good Shepherd_, which certainly imports as much as _good\nMaster_, which expression was used by the man before-mentioned; and that\nhis being the good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of\nblessedness, which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because\nhe speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest sense, ver.\n28. _I give unto them_, _viz._ my sheep, _eternal life_.[167]\n_Secondly_, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed to consider\nthat of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged to oppose the Socinians\nand Arians, though in different respects: As for the Socinians, they\nseem to be divided in their sentiments about this matter, some of them\nconsidering the Holy Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and\ntherefore they call him _Virtus Dei_, or the divine energy, or power of\nacting, seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct\nPersonality, as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though\nothers of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his\nPersonality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to be no\nother than a created ministering Spirit.[174]\nAs for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought upon the\nstage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed in defending\nthe deity of our Saviour, by proving him to have the same essence with\nthe Father, that they had no opportunity to proceed in the defence of\nthe consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied\nby all who give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not\nquestion his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories\nascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account thereof;\nbut they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his proper deity, any\nmore than that of the Son.\nWe have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and therefore\nnothing remains, but that we consider him as having a divine nature.\nAnd, to make this appear, we shall proceed in the same method, in which\nwe have proved the divinity of the Son, namely, from those divine names,\nattributes, works, and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we\nhave no occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that\nhe who is thus described is God, as having done that already under each\nof those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour\u2019s deity; and\ntherefore we need only consider them as applied to the Holy Ghost. And,\n1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son, inasmuch as\nthe same divine names are given to him that are given to them;\nparticularly,\n(1.) He is called _God_, without any thing tending to detract, or\ndiminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied to the Father\nor the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. _Peter said, Ananias, Why hath satan\nfilled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied unto\nmen, but unto God_, where he is not only called _God_, but put in\nopposition to the creature; and it is as though the apostle should say,\nthou hast endeavoured to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a\ngreater crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.\n_Object._ It is objected, that it is not the Holy Ghost who is here\ncalled _God_, but the Father; in defence of which sense of the text it\nis supposed, that though the lie was immediately designed to deceive the\napostles, or the Holy Ghost, by whom they were known to be inspired, yet\nthis was interpreted by God the Father, as an attempt to impose upon\nhim, whose Minister the objectors suppose the Holy Spirit to be, as well\nas the apostles; and accordingly they thus argue; he that does any thing\nagainst God\u2019s ministers, to wit, the Father\u2019s, may be said to do the\nsame against him. And here they refer to some scriptures, which, they\nthink, give countenance to this argument namely, Exod. xvi. 8. where\nMoses tells the Israelites, when they murmured against him, _Your\nmurmurings are not against us, but against the Lord_; and, in 1 Sam.\nviii. 7. where God says to Samuel, speaking concerning the Israelites,\n_They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me_; and also our\nSaviour\u2019s words to his disciples, in Luke x. 16. _He that heareth you,\nheareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that\ndespiseth me, despiseth him that sent me_; and, in 1 Thes. iv. 8. _He\nthat despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us\nhis Holy Spirit._[176]\n_Answ._ How plausible soever this objection may seem to be, yet, if duly\nconsidered, it will not appear sufficient to overthrow the argument we\nare maintaining; it is true, indeed, that what is done against any one,\nwho acts by a commission, as a servant to another, is interpreted to be\ndone against him that gives him the commission; as he that affronts a\njudge, or an ambassador, in this respect, affronts the king, whom he\nrepresents; or if an inferior servant is ill treated, in delivering a\nmessage from his master, this is always supposed to contain a reflection\non him who sent him; But, I humbly conceive, this cannot be applied, as\nit is in the objection, to Ananias\u2019s _not lying unto men, but unto God_.\nAnd, to make this appear, let it be considered; that here are two terms\nof opposition; and these either respect God the Father and the apostles;\nor God the Father and the Holy Ghost; or else God the Holy Ghost and the\napostles.\n1. God the Father cannot be said here to be opposed to the apostles, so\nas to give countenance to this phrase, or mode of speaking used, _Thou\nhast not lied unto men, but unto God_, because it is said, in the\nforegoing verse, that _they had lied to the Holy Ghost_: if the Holy\nGhost had not been mentioned, indeed, then there might have been more\nground to conclude, that Peter opposed himself to God the Father, or\nintimated hereby, that Ananias, in attempting to deceive him, attempted\nto deceive God that sent him; but even then it would not have fully\ncorresponded with the sense of those scriptures but now referred to; for\nthough he that despises a servant, despises him that sent him; and,\naccordingly, he that despises a minister, when he is preaching the\ngospel, or despises the message that he brings, may be said to despise\nGod, whose message it is; yet it does not follow, that if a person\ndesigns to impose upon a minister, in other respects, that he imposes\nupon God that sent him; for he may not disown the divine authority, or\ncommission, which he has to preach the gospel, and yet may conclude that\nhe may deceive him, though he be sensible that he cannot deceive God,\nwho knoweth all things: But this I need not farther insist on, since it\nis not supposed, in the objection; but God the Father is therein opposed\nto the Holy Ghost, or else there would be no appearance of any argument\nin it; therefore,\n2. Let us consider God the Father as being here opposed to the Holy\nGhost; and then it is as much as to say, Thou hast lied to the Holy\nGhost, wherein thou hast not lied to man, but to God, to wit, the\nFather; to which we may answer,\nThat had the apostle designed to oppose the Holy Ghost to the Father,\nand thereby deny his deity, it ought to have been expressed thus; Thou\nhast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God; and this would\neffectually have determined him not to have been God, and removed any\numbrage or suspicion, as though, by the expression, _Thou hast not lied\nunto men_, we were to understand the apostles; or since it will be\nobjected, that this would have been contrary to matter of fact, for\nAnanias did lie both to the apostles and to the Holy Ghost; therefore it\nwould have been better understood, had it been said, Thou hast not lied\nto the Holy Ghost, or to men, that is, not to them only, but thou hast,\ninterpretatively, in lying to them, lied unto God, to wit, the Father.\nIf it had been so expressed, the sense would have been plain and\nobvious, in favour of the Anti-trinitarians, as well as agreeable to the\nscriptures before-mentioned, as giving countenance to it; but since it\nis not so expressed, we must conclude,\n3. That in this text there is no other opposition, but of God the Holy\nGhost to the apostles; and accordingly the sense is very plain and\nnatural, which is as though the apostle had said, Thou hast endeavoured\nto deceive me, who am under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost,\nwhich is a greater crime than if thou hadst only lied to me, at another\ntime, when this honour was not conferred upon me; for herein thou hast\ncommitted a double crime, inasmuch as thou hast not only lied to me,\nwhich thou oughtest not to have done, but thou hast lied to the Holy\nGhost, and, in so doing, hast not lied unto men, but unto God; or, as it\nis expressed, in ver. 9. that _Ananias and his wife had agreed together\nto tempt the Holy Ghost_. Which is called a _lying to him_, in one\nverse, is styled a _tempting him_ in the other; this therefore seems to\nbe a plain and easy sense of the words, which any unprejudiced reader\nwould be inclined to give into; and since the scripture is written to\ninstruct the most injudicious Christians, as well as others, I cannot\nconceive that such modes of speaking would have been made use of\ntherein, which have a tendency to lead persons out of the way, by\ndeviating from the common sense of words, (especially in a matter of so\ngreat importance as this is) whereby some, at least, would be inclined,\nas we are, by adhering to the most proper sense thereof, to acknowledge\nthe Holy Ghost to be God, if he were not so.\nThere is another scripture, in which the Holy Ghost is called _The God\nand the Rock of Israel_, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. Now it seems very evident,\nthat this is applied to him, by comparing it with the foregoing and\nfollowing words; in which it is said, the Spirit of the Lord spake by\nme, and his word was in my tongue; and then we have an account of what\nbe said, namely, _He that ruleth over man, must be just_, &c. It cannot,\nwith any colour of reason, be supposed that there is more than one\nPerson here intended, who imparted this to the prophet; and inasmuch as\nthis Person is not only called the God, but also the Rock of Israel,\nthat is a plain intimation that he is the almighty God of Israel, which\nis the sense of the metaphor, taken from a rock, when applied to God in\nother scriptures.\nAgain, it is said, in 1 Cor. iii. 16. _Know ye not that ye are the\ntemple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you._ Here it must\nbe observed, that their being called the temple of God, who is said to\ndwell in them, denotes the inhabitant to be a divine Person, since a\ntemple, according to the known acceptation of the word, always connotes\na deity; and so it is called the house of God. Now he that dwelt in\nthem, upon which account they are called his temple, is expressly said\nto be the Spirit of God, which is agreeable to what is said concerning\nhim elsewhere, in chap. vi. 19. _Know ye not that your body is the\ntemple of the Holy Ghost, which_, or who, _is in you?_\n(2.) He is called _Lord_; this seems very evident, from Isa. vi. 8, 9.\n_And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who\nwill go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And he said, Go, and\ntell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not_, &c. where we\nobserve, that the person sending speaks both in the singular number and\nthe plural, _Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?_ by the former\nexpression, _Whom shall I send_, he evinces his divinity, as having a\nright to give a commission to the prophets, to declare his mind and will\nto man, which, as will be observed under a fol-head, none but a divine\nPerson has a right to do; by the latter, _Who shall go for us_, he\nincludes himself among the Persons in the Godhead, as it has before been\nobserved[177]; _viz._ that when God is represented, as speaking in the\nplural number, a Trinity of Persons seems to be intended thereby.\nBut that which we shall principally consider is, that the Holy Ghost is\nhere called _Lord_, which appears from what the apostle says, in Acts\nxxviii. 25, 26. _Well spake the Holy Ghost, by Esaias the prophet, unto\nour fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing, ye shall\nhear, and shall not understand_, &c.\nIt cannot be reasonably objected to this, that the apostle only refers\nto the book of Isaiah, and not to this particular part thereof; for\nthough, indeed, these words, _Thus saith the Holy Ghost_, might be used,\nas a preface to any quotation from scripture, as all scripture is given\nby his inspiration; yet this message, referred to by the apostle, was\nnot only transmitted by Esaias to the church, but it is distinguished\nfrom all those other things, which the Spirit of the Lord spake by him;\nand therefore it cannot be supposed that the apostle means, when\nreferring to this scripture, any other than the Holy Ghost\u2019s giving him\nthis commission, when he says, _Well spake the Holy Ghost by him_; and\nconsequently he that gave this commission, or spake thus to him, is the\nHoly Ghost, who is, in the foregoing words, called _the Lord_.\nMoreover, there is another scripture, in 2 Cor. iii. 18. where it is\nsaid, _We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the\nLord_; or, as it is observed in the margin, _As by the Lord the Spirit_;\nwhich reading is certainly as proper as any other, and is preferred, by\nsome, to it; and therefore it contains, at least, a probable argument\nthat the Spirit is expressly called _Lord_.[178]\n2. The Holy Ghost appears to be God, from those divine attributes that\nare ascribed to him. Accordingly,\n(1.) He is said to be eternal, in Heb. ix. 24. Christ, _through the\neternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God_. I am sensible,\nmany think this eternal Spirit signifies Christ\u2019s eternal Godhead; which\nis so called, because of the spirituality of its nature; and that, in\nthis place, it is designed to set forth the infinite value, which the\noblation that he made of himself, in his human nature to God, received\nfrom the divine nature, to which it was united; which, though it be a\nvery great truth, yet there does not seem to be so great a propriety in\nthe expression, when we suppose the eternal Spirit is taken for the\ndivine nature, as if it be understood of the Holy Ghost: and Christ may\nbe said, by him, to have offered himself, without spot, to God, as\nimplying, that the unction, which he received from the Holy Ghost, was\nthe means to preserve him from all sinful defilement, upon which account\nhis oblation was without blemish; and, indeed, it was no less necessary,\nin order to its being accepted, that it should be spotless, than that it\nshould be of infinite value; therefore I must conclude, that it is the\nHoly Ghost who is here called the eternal Spirit.\nMoreover, his eternity may be evinced from his having created all\nthings, as he that made the world, and all finite things, wherewith time\nbegan, must be before them, and consequently from everlasting; by which\nthe eternity of Christ was proved, under a foregoing head; and that the\nHoly Ghost made all things, will be proved under our next argument.\n(2.) His immensity or omnipresence, is a farther proof of his deity; and\nthis seems to be plainly contained in Psal. cxxxix. 7. _Whither shall I\ngo from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?_ _q. d._\nthere is no place where the Spirit is not; and it is allowed by all,\nthat the divine immensity is here described in a very elegant manner;\nthough, it is true, it is objected, that one part of this verse is\nexegetical of the other, and therefore the Psalmist, by the _Spirit_,\nintends nothing else but the presence of God; but it is equally, if not\nmore probable, that the Spirit is distinguished from the presence of\nGod, and consequently that he is a distinct Person in the Godhead; and\nthis does not contain any strain upon the sense of the words, since the\nSpirit is so often spoken of in scripture as a Person, as has been\nbefore observed;[179] and therefore it is not strange that he should be\nmentioned as such in this text; and, if he be spoken of as a Person, it\nis beyond dispute that he is there proved to be a divine Person.\n(3.) He is said to be omniscient in 1 Cor. ii. 10. _The Spirit searcheth\nall things; yea, the deep things of God._ To search, indeed, is a word\nused in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as we arrive to\nthe knowledge of things by searching, or enquiry, though this idea is to\nbe abstracted from the word, when applied to God; for him to search, is\nto know all things; and, in this sense, it is used, in Psal. cxxxix. 23,\n24. _Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts;\nand see if there be any wicked way in me_, &c. It does not imply the\nmanner of his knowing, but the exquisiteness of his knowledge; and so we\nmust understand it in this scripture, when applied to the Spirit\u2019s\nsearching all things, in which we have an account of the objects of his\nknowledge, namely, _the deep things of God_: thus he knows all those\nthings, which were hid in the divine mind from all eternity, and the\ninfinite perfections of the divine nature, which are incomprehensible to\na creature, and which none can, _by searching, find out to perfection_,\nJob xi. 7. in which respect the highest creatures, _viz._ the angels,\nare said to _be charged with folly_, whose knowledge is comparatively\nimperfect, chap. iv. 18. Moreover, we may observe, that the manner of\nthe Spirit\u2019s knowing all things, is not like ours, that is by inferring\nconsequences from premises, in a way of reasoning; for it is said, in\nthe verse immediately following, that _he knows the things of God_, in\nsuch a way, as _a man knoweth the things of a man_, that is, his own\nthoughts, by an internal principle of knowledge, not by revelation, or\nany external discovery: thus the Spirit knows the divine nature, as\nhaving it; therefore his omniscience is a plain proof of his Deity.\n3. The Deity of the Holy Ghost may be farther evinced, from his\nperforming those works which are proper to God alone. And,\n(1.) He is said to have created all things: thus, in Gen. i. 2. _The\nSpirit of God moved upon the face of the waters_; where, by the _Spirit\nof God_, cannot be meant, as some suppose, the air or the wind; for that\nwas not created till the second day, when God made the firmament. Again,\nit is said, in Job xxvi. 13. _By his Spirit he hath garnished the\nheavens_; and, in chap. xxiii. 4. _The Spirit of God hath made me._ Some\nof the Arians are so sensible that the Spirit is represented as the\nCreator of all things as well as the Son; that they suppose him to be an\ninstrument to the Son in the creation thereof; which is as much as to\nsay, he is an instrument of an instrument; and, indeed, to say the Son\ncreated all things, as an instrument, has been considered as an\nindefensible notion;[180] but this is much more so.\n(2.) Extraordinary or miraculous works, which are equivalent to\ncreation, have been performed by the Spirit; thus the apostle, speaking\nconcerning extraordinary gifts, subservient to the propagation of the\ngospel, in the first preaching thereof, attributes them to the Spirit,\nwhich he largely insists on, in 1 Cor. xii. and when he says, ver. 4, 5,\n6. that _there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there\nare differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are\ndiversities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in\nall_; which many who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, take for\ngranted, that it signifies all the Persons in the Godhead, that our\nSaviour is called Lord, and the father God, therein; and some of the\nAnti-trinitarians, from hence, would argue, that the Spirit is not God,\nbecause he is distinguished from the Father, whom they suppose to be\nthere called God, I cannot but from hence conclude, that the Holy Spirit\nis set forth under all these three names; and the works attributed to\nhim, notwithstanding the variety of expressions, are the same, and\nincluded in that general term of spiritual gifts. And so I take the\nmeaning of the text to be this, there are diversities of gifts, or\nextraordinary operations, which some were enabled to put forth in the\nexercise of their ministry, which are all from the same Spirit, who is\ncalled Lord and God, who has an infinite sovereignty, and bestows these\nblessings as he pleases, as becomes a divine Person; and this agrees\nvery well with what is said, in ver. 11. _All these worketh that one and\nthe self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will._\n(3.) The Spirit of God commissioned and qualified ministers to preach\nthe gospel, and thereby to gather and build up churches, determining\nthat their ministry should be exercised in one place, and not in\nanother; which is a peculiar branch of the divine glory, and no one has\na right to do it, but a divine Person. A creature may as well pretend to\ncommand the sun to shine, or stop its course in the heavens at his\npleasure, as he can commission a minister to preach the gospel, or\nrestrain the preaching thereof. And here we may observe, that the Holy\nGhost is plainly said to have called and appointed the apostles to\nexercise their ministry in the first preaching of the gospel, after he\nhad, by conferring extraordinary gifts upon them, qualified them for it;\nand accordingly he speaks in a style truly divine, in Acts xiii. 2. _The\nHoly Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I\nhave called them_; and, in Acts xx. 28. the apostle tells the elders, or\nministers of the church at Ephesus, that _the Holy Ghost had made them\noverseers._ We read also of the Spirit\u2019s determining where they should\nexercise their ministry; thus he commanded Philip to go and preach the\ngospel to the eunuch, in Acts viii. 29. _Then the Spirit said unto\nPhilip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot_; and, at another\ntime, the Spirit bade Peter to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius,\nwhen he doubted whether it were lawful for him to do it or no, in Acts\nx. 19, 20. _The Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee;\ntherefore get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have\nsent them_; and, at another time, it is said, in Acts xvi. 6, 7. _They\nwere forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia_; and that\n_they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not_;\nand, in ver. 9, 10. the apostle Paul was ordered, in a vision, to go to\nMacedonia; which command he obeyed, _assuredly gathering that the Lord_,\nthat is, the Spirit, _had called him to preach the gospel unto them_.\nNothing can be a greater argument of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost,\nin what respects this matter, which was of the highest importance;\ntherefore it is an evident proof of his divinity. But to this we may\nadd,\n(4.) That his divinity farther appears from the unction, which he\nconferred on our Saviour, to perform the work of a Mediator in his human\nnature: thus it is said, in Isa. lxi. 1. _The Spirit of the Lord God is\nupon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the\nmeek_, &c. And this is particularly referred to, as signifying our\nSaviour\u2019s unction by the Holy Ghost, in Luke iv. 18, 19. _The Spirit of\nthe Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me_, &c. And, indeed, it\nis not denied that this is spoken of the Holy Ghost, even by those who\ndo not infer his deity from it; accordingly it is inserted, by a late\nwriter, among those scriptures that speak particularly of the Holy\nGhost;[181] and it would be a great strain on the sense of the text, to\nsuppose that _he hath anointed me_, refers to the Father, and not to the\nSpirit. As to the meaning of the word _unction_, it is borrowed from the\nceremonial law, under which the prophets, priests, and kings were\npublickly anointed with oil, as used to signify the warrant, or\ncommission, they had received from God, to execute these offices,\ntogether with the qualifications which were to be expected for the\ndischarge thereof. In this sense our Saviour is said to have been\nanointed by the Holy Ghost, to wit, in his human nature, in which he was\nobliged to yield obedience and subjection to God, and accordingly he was\nauthorized and qualified to perform this obedience by the Holy Ghost; so\nthat, how difficult soever it was, it might be discharged by him,\nwithout the least failure or defect therein, as we observed before, that\nit was owing hereunto, that his oblation was without spot: the work was\ncertainly extraordinary, and consequently the glory redounding to the\nHoly Ghost from hence, is such as proves him to be a divine Person.\n(5.) He farther appears to be so, inasmuch as the work of grace, both as\nto the beginning, progress, and completing of it, in the souls of\nbelievers, is ascribed to him, as well as to the Father and the Son.\nThat this is a work of God\u2019s almighty power, and consequently too great\nto be performed by any creature; and that the Holy Ghost is, in\nparticular, the author thereof, we shall here take for granted, without\nattempting to prove it, which would not be a just method of reasoning,\nwere we not led to insist on this subject, under some following answers,\nin which this will be more particularly proved.[182] And if the work\nappears to be the effect of the exceeding greatness of the power of God,\nwhereby we are regenerate and sanctified, and enabled to overcome all\nthe opposition which attends it, till we are brought to glory, then he,\nwho is the author hereof, will evidently appear to be the God of all\ngrace; and therefore we shall proceed to consider,\n4. That the Holy Ghost appears to be God, inasmuch as he has a right to\ndivine worship. That none but a divine Person has a right hereunto, has\nbeen already proved; and that the Spirit has a right to it, might be\nevinced, from his having those divine perfections, which, as has been\nbefore observed, are ascribed to him in scripture; since he has the\nperfections of the divine nature, which are the objects of adoration,\nthen it follows, that he is to be adored; and if he has performed those\nworks, which argue him to be the proprietor of all things, this must be\nacknowledged; and if all that grace, which is necessary to make us meet\nfor the heavenly blessedness, be his work and gift, it follows from\nhence, that he is to be sought to for it, which is a great branch of\nreligious worship. But this being only an improvement of, or a deduction\nfrom those foregoing arguments, laid down to prove his Deity, we shall\nenquire whether we have not something that contains in it the obligation\nof a command, or whether there are not some examples, which are\nequivalent thereunto, which will farther warrant our giving divine\nworship to him. Some suppose, that that prayer is directed to the Holy\nGhost, which is mentioned in Acts i. 24, 25. _Thou, Lord, which knoweth\nthe hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that\nhe may take part of this ministry and apostleship_; and the reason of\nthis supposition is, because the designation of persons to the exercise\nof their ministry, as well as the extraordinary gifts with which they\nwere furnished, is peculiarly applied to the Holy Ghost in this book;\ntherefore, it is supposed, they prayed to the Holy Ghost, that he would\nsignify whom he had chosen to the apostleship, in the room of Judas, of\nthose two that were nominated by them; but this being, at most, but a\nprobable argument, I shall lay no stress upon it.\nBut, I humbly conceive, that we have a more evident example of prayer\nmade to the Holy Ghost, in 2 Thess. iii. 5. _The Lord direct your hearts\ninto the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ_; it seems\nmore than probable that the Holy Ghost, who is here called Lord, is\nprayed to; for he is distinguished from the Father and Son; and the\napostle prays to him that he would direct them into the love of the\nFather, and enable them patiently, to wait for the Son.\nAgain, there is another instance hereof, in 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. _The\nLord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, to the\nend, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before\nGod our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ_; where the Holy\nGhost seems to be the person prayed to; and is plainly distinguished\nfrom the Father and Son, inasmuch as what is prayed to him for, is their\nbeing holy before the Father, at the coming of the Son.\nThere is another scripture, in which it is still more evident, that the\napostle prays to the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and Son,\n_viz._ Cor. xiii. 14. _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love\nof God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, amen_;\nwhere, in that part of this prayer, which respects the Holy Ghost, is\ncontained an humble supplication, that he would be pleased to manifest\nhimself to them, or that he would communicate to them those graces which\nthey stood in need of; that so, as the church is said elsewhere, in John\ni. 3. to have _fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus\nChrist_; here the apostle prays that they may have fellowship with the\nHoly Ghost; and how can this blessing be prayed for, without supposing\nhim addressing himself herein to the Holy Ghost? Whenever any thing is\ndesired, or prayed for, that can be considered no otherwise than as an\neffect, produced by a free agent, this prayer, or desire, is supposed\nmore immediately to be directed to him: As suppose a person should use\nthis mode of speaking, in presence of a disobliged friend; Oh that he\nwould look upon me, that he would converse with me, or that he would\ndiscover his wonted love to me! though, according to the form of\nexpression, it seems not be directed to him, yet every one would suppose\nit to be equivalent to an immediate address made to him to that purpose;\nwherefore, for the apostle to desire that the Holy Ghost would have\ncommunion with, that is, converse with, and manifest himself to them, in\nperforming all those works, which were necessary for their edification\nand salvation, this desire cannot contain less than a prayer to him.\nWe shall now proceed to consider some objections, brought by the\nAnti-trinitarians, against the deity of the Holy Ghost.\n_Object._ A divine Person cannot be the gift of God, for that supposes\nhim to be at his disposal, and inferior to him; but the Spirit is said\nto be given by him, in Neh. ix. 20. _Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to\ninstruct them_; and, in Acts xi. 17. _God gave them the like gift_,\nmeaning the Spirit, _that he did unto us_; and, in Luke xi. 13. _God_,\nthe Father, is said _to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him_.\nAgain, the Spirit is said to be _sent_, and that either by the Father,\nas in John xiv. 26. _The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the\nFather will send in my name_; or by the Son, as in chap. xvi. 7. _If I\ndepart, I will send him unto you._ Again, he is said to receive what he\ncommunicates from another, in John xvi. 14. _He shall receive of mine,\nand shall shew it unto you_; which is inconsistent with the character of\na divine Person, who is never said to receive what he imparts to others,\nas the apostle speaks concerning God, in Rom. xi. 35. _Who hath first\ngiven to him?_ Again, he is said not to speak of himself, but what he\nhears, when he shews things to come, John xvi. 13. Accordingly he did\nnot know that which he was to communicate before he heard it. Again, he\nis said to have a mind distinct from God, unless we suppose that there\nare a plurality of gods, and so more distinct divine minds than one; for\nthis, they bring that scripture, in Rom. viii. 27. _He that searcheth\nthe heart, knoweth the mind of the Spirit._ Again, he is represented as\nmaking intercession, which is an act of worship, and consequently he\ncannot be the object thereof; ver. 26. _The Spirit itself maketh\nintercession for us_, &c. this also argues that he is not possessed of\nthe blessings which he intercedes for. Again, he is not only said to be\nresisted and grieved, which expressions, it is true, are sometimes\napplied to God, though in an improper sense, speaking after the manner\nof men; but the Spirit is said to be quenched, or extinguished: thus, 1\nThess. v. 19. this, together with what has been before said concerning\nhim, is not applicable to a divine Person. These are the most material\nobjections that are brought against the doctrine which we have been\nendeavouring to maintain, and the sum of them all is this; that it is\ninconsistent with the character of a divine Person to be thus dependent\non, and subjected to the will of another, as the Spirit is supposed, by\nthem, to be.\n_Answ._ That we may defend the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, against\nsuch-like objections as these, we shall first premise something relating\nto all those scriptures which speak of the Spirit, as given or sent by\nthe Father, and then apply it to the sense of those in particular which\nare brought to support the objections, as before-mentioned.\n1. It may be easily observed, that in several places of scripture,\nespecially in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is often taken for the\ngifts or graces of the Spirit; and more particularly for that\nextraordinary dispensation, in which the apostles were endowed with\nthose spiritual gifts, which were necessary for the propagation and\nsuccess of the gospel: these, by a _Metonymy_, are called the _Spirit_;\nand, I humbly conceive, all those scriptures, which speak of the\nSpirit\u2019s _being poured forth_, as in Prov. i. 23. and Joel ii. 28.\ncompared with Acts ii. 17. and elsewhere, are to be understood in this\nsense; and thus it is explained, in Acts x. 44, 45. _The Holy Ghost fell\non all them which heard the word_; upon which occasion it is said, that\n_upon the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost_. Thus we\nare to understand that scripture, in Acts xix. 2. _We have not so much\nas heard whether there be any Holy Ghost_; and another in John vii. 39.\n_the Holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified_; the\nword _given_ is supplied by our translators, probably, to fence against\na weak argument of some Anti-trinitarians, taken from that text, to\noverthrow the eternity of the Spirit; but whether the word be supplied\nor no, the sense of the text is plainly this, that the gifts of the Holy\nGhost were not conferred before Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven; which is\na farther confirmation of this acceptation of the word, or of this\nfigurative way of speaking, being used in this, and several other places\nof scripture, to the same purpose.\n2. All those scriptures which seem to represent the Holy Ghost, as\ninferior to the Father and Son, some of which are contained in the\nobjection, may be understood as denoting the subserviency of the works\nof the Spirit, which are also called the _Holy Ghost_, to those works\nwhich are said to be performed by the Father and Son: Now it is certain\nthat the subserviency of one work unto another, performed by different\npersons, does not necessarily infer the inferiority of one person to the\nother: accordingly we must distinguish between the Spirit, as\nsubsisting, and as acting; in the former sense, he is a divine Person,\nequal with the Father and Son; in the latter, he may be said to be\nsubservient to them.\nBut now we shall proceed to consider the sense of those scriptures,\nbrought to support the objection, in consistency with what has been\npremised. The first scripture mentioned, is that in which it is said,\n_Thou gavest them thy good Spirit to instruct them_; where the Holy\nGhost is described with a personal character, and probably it is not to\nbe understood metonymically for his gifts and graces; accordingly the\nmeaning of it seems to be this; that the Spirit\u2019s efficiency, in guiding\nand instructing them, was a special gift of God conferred upon them;\nand, in this respect, though he was a sovereign Agent, yet he is said to\nact by the will of the Father, which is the same with his own will: for\nthough the Persons in the Godhead are distinct, yet they have not\ndistinct wills; and it is no improper way of speaking to say, that when\na divine Person displays his glory, and therein confers a blessing upon\nmen, that this is given; as when God is said to give himself to his\npeople, when he promises to be a God to them. There is, indeed, in this\nmode of speaking, a discriminating act of favour conferred on men, upon\nwhich account it is called a gift; but this does not militate against\nthe divinity of the Holy Ghost, though he is said to be given to them.\nAs for the other scripture, in which it is said, _God gave them the like\ngift, as he gave to us_, meaning the Holy Ghost, that is plainly taken\nfor the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the conferring whereof is\ncalled, in the foregoing words, a being _baptized with the Holy Ghost_;\nas it is particularly explained in that scripture, referred to, in Acts\nx. 45, 46. where it is said, that _on the Gentiles was poured out the\ngift of the Holy Ghost_; what this gift is, we may learn from the\nfollowing words, _They spake with tongues, and magnified God_.\nAgain, when it is said, in Luke xi. 13. that _your heavenly Father shall\ngive the Holy Spirit to them that ask him_; this is explained by another\nevangelist, in Matt. vii. 11. where it is taken for good things in\ngeneral, and so includes the graces of the Spirit, that accompany\nsalvation, when it is said, your Father, that is in heaven, shall give\n_good things_ to them that ask him; so that here the Spirit is taken for\nall those blessings which he bestows upon his people, in answer of\nprayer.\nAs for those scriptures before mentioned, in which the Spirit is said to\nbe sent, either by the Father, or the Son, they are not, indeed, to be\nunderstood in the same sense, as when the Son is said to be sent in his\nhuman nature, appearing in the form of a servant, to fulfil the will of\nGod; but when God is said to send his Spirit, the word is to be taken in\na metaphorical sense; in which, sending imports as much as giving; and\nwhen the Spirit is said to be given, it has a peculiar reference to the\ngrace which he was to bestow upon them. If we enquire into the reason of\nthis metaphorical way of speaking, it may probably be this; that we may\nunderstand hereby that the Spirit, which was to produce these effects,\nwas a divine Person, and that the effects themselves were subservient to\nthose works which were performed, by which the Personal glories of the\nFather and Son were demonstrated.\nAgain, when it is farther said by our Saviour, in John xvi. 14. that\n_the Spirit shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you_; this plainly\nintends the Spirit\u2019s applying to them those blessings which Christ had\npurchased by his blood, which tended to his glory; and still it\nsignifies only the subserviency of the Spirit to the Son, in working, as\nthe application of redemption tends to render the purchase thereof\neffectual, to answer its designed end.\nAs to the next scripture, before mentioned, in John xvi. 13. where _the\nSpirit_ is said _not to speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear,\nthat shall he speak_; this does not argue, in the least, that the Spirit\nreceives what he communicates, as dependent on the Father, for the\nknowledge of those things he is to impart, or that he has ideas\nimpressed on his mind, as creatures are said to have; for that is\ninconsistent with what has been before proved from scripture, _viz._\n_That the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God, even as the spirit of a\nman knoweth the things of a man_; or, as an intelligent being, is\nconscious of his own thoughts, or actions, not by information, but by an\nimmediate internal perception. The sense therefore of this text is this;\nthat the Spirit shall communicate no other doctrines, or give no other\nlaws, but what Christ had before given in the gospel; or that what he\nrevealeth, is the same that Christ had given them ground to expect:\naccordingly, it is so far from militating against the Spirit\u2019s divinity,\nthat it proves the harmony and consent of what is suggested by one\ndivine Person, with what had been before delivered by another; and as to\nthe mode of expression here used, concerning the Spirit\u2019s speaking what\nhe had heard; this is spoken after the manner of men, and is no more\ninconsistent with his divine omniscience, or the independence thereof,\nthan when God is said, in other scriptures, to know things by searching\nthem, or, as it were, by enquiry, as hath been before observed, in\nconsidering omniscience, as attributed to the Holy Ghost. These, and\nsuchlike expressions, by which God is represented, by words,\naccommodated to our usual way of speaking, when applied to men, are to\nbe understood, notwithstanding, in a way agreeable to the divine\nperfections, by abstracting from them every thing that argues the least\nimperfection in him, when applied to the Holy Ghost; as when some\nexpressions, agreeable to human modes of speaking, are elsewhere used,\nwith a particular application to the Father, without detracting from his\ndivine glory.\nAgain, when it is objected, that the Spirit hath a distinct mind from\nGod, as when it is said, _God knoweth the mind of the Spirit_; and, as\nthough he were represented as engaged in an act of worship, he is, in\nthe following words, described, as _praying_, or, _making intercession\nfor us, according to the will of God_; as, in Rom. viii. 26, 27. it is\nplain, that, by the _mind of the Spirit_, we are to understand those\nsecret desires in prayer, which are wrought in believers by the Spirit,\nwhen they want words to express them; instead of which, they address\nthemselves to God, as it is said, _with groanings that cannot be\nuttered_, which are from the Spirit, as the Author of these secret\ndesires, which are only known to the heart-searching God, who knows the\nmeaning of them, what it is we want, in which respect, this is called\nthe mind of the Spirit, as the Author thereof, though it is subjectively\nour own mind or desires, which we want words to express; and when the\nSpirit is said to make intercession for us, it implies nothing else but\nhis enabling us, whether in more or less proper modes of speaking, to\nplead with God for ourselves.\n_Lastly_, As to those expressions, by which the Spirit is represented,\nas _quenched_, or _extinguished_, these are to be understood in the same\nsense as when by a _metonymy_, as before mentioned, the gifts of the\nSpirit; as when those extraordinary gifts were first promised, they were\nled to expect that they should be _baptized with the Holy Ghost, and\nwith fire_, that is, they should have the extraordinary gifts of the\nHoly Ghost conferred upon them, which were to be signified by the emblem\nof _fiery tongues, that sat on them_, in Acts ii. 3. the reason of which\nemblem might probably be this; that as a necessary qualification from\ntheir preaching the gospel, they should be filled with an holy flame of\nlove to God, and zeal for his glory, as well as with the gift of\ntongues, by which they might communicate his mind to the world. This\nprivilege, which they had received, the apostle exhorts them not to\nforfeit, abuse, or provoke the Holy Ghost to take from them, which is\ncalled a quenching the Spirit; therefore this metaphorical way of\nspeaking, accommodated hereunto, must not be supposed to be inconsistent\nwith his divinity.\nI shall conclude with some inferences, which more especially respect the\npractical improvement of the doctrine of the Trinity. And,\n1. We may take occasion, from hence, to observe the difference that\nthere is between natural and revealed religion. As the former respects\nthe knowledge of God so far, as it may be attained without the help of\ndivine revelation, and that worship, which the heathen, who have nothing\nelse to guide them but the light of nature, are obliged to give to the\ndivine Being; the latter, which is founded on scripture, contains a\ndisplay of the Personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which\nis necessary to be known and believed, as being the foundation of all\nrevealed religion; so that the sum of Christianity consists in our\nsubjection to, and adoring the Godhead, as subsisting in the Father,\nSon, and Holy Spirit.\n2. As this doctrine is eminently displayed in the work of redemption, it\nis necessary for us to consider how it is accommodated to, and\ndemonstrated by all the branches thereof. The price that was given, by\nour great Redeemer, has a value put upon it, in proportion to the\ndignity of his Person, and lays a sure foundation for our hope of being\naccepted in the sight of God, on account of his obedience and sacrifice,\nwhich was of infinite value: and the application of redemption being a\nwork which the Spirit, who is a divine Person, has undertaken to\nperform, encourages us to expect that it shall be brought to perfection;\nso that they, who are the objects of redeeming love and sanctifying\ngrace, shall, in the end, be completely saved.\n3. As it is necessary for us to adore and magnify the Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost, for the hope which we have of this inestimable privilege in\nthe gospel; so we must observe the distinct glory that is to be given to\neach of these divine Persons for this work; to the Father, in that\nwhatever is done by the Mediator, to procure this privilege for us, is\nconsidered, in scripture, as taking its rise from him, 1 Cor. i. 30. _Of\nhim are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and\nrighteousness, and sanctification, and redemption_: And whatever was\ndone in the human nature, or by God incarnate; that is, in a peculiar\nmanner, the work of the Son, and a revenue of glory is due to him for\nit, who gave his life a ransom for many, and herein expressed the\nhighest instance of condescension, which is enhanced by the infinite\ndignity of his Person. Moreover, whatever work is performed in\nsubserviency to the Mediator\u2019s glory, whereby the Spirit demonstrates\nhis distinct Personal glory; this gives us occasion to adore him, in all\nthe displays of his power, in beginning, carrying on, and completing the\nwork of grace in the souls of men.\n4. As to what respects that fellowship or communion, which believers\nhave with the Father, Son, and Spirit, this depends on the account we\nhave, in scripture, of the distinct methods, in which their Personal\nglory is set forth therein: Thus we have access to God the Father,\nthrough the Mediation of the Son, by the powerful influence of the Holy\nSpirit, as the apostle says, in Eph. ii. 18. _Through him we have an\naccess, by one Spirit unto the Father_; and our hope of blessedness\nproceeds this way, as it is the gift of the Father, who has prepared an\ninheritance for us, the purchase of the Son, on whose death it is\nfounded, and the work of the Holy Ghost, as bringing us to and putting\nus into the possession of it.\n5. This directs us as to the way of performing the great duty of\nself-dedication, to the Father, Son, and Spirit; to the Father, as our\ncovenant God in Christ; to the Son, as the Mediator, Head, and Surety of\nthis covenant; and to the Spirit, by whom we are made partakers of the\nblessings promised therein; in all these, and many other respects, we\nare to have a particular regard to the persons in the Godhead, in such a\nway, as their Personal glory is set forth in scripture.\n6. Since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one, though we distinguish\nthem as Persons, yet we must consider them as having the same divine\nperfections, the same divine understanding and will, lest, while we give\nglory to each of the Persons in the Godhead, we should suppose that\nthere are more Gods than one; therefore, though the Person of the Father\nis distinct from that of the Son and the Holy Ghost, we are not to\nsuppose the power, wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, or any other\ndivine perfections, belong, in a more or less proper sense, to one\nPerson than another.\n7. This doctrine is of use to direct us how we are to address ourselves\nto God in prayer: thus, when therein we call him our Father, we are not\nto consider him in the same sense, as when he is represented as the\nFather of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we address ourselves to him, as the\nAuthor of our being, the God of all grace, and the Fountain of\nblessedness; in which respect, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not to be\nexcluded, especially unless we consider him as our Father in Christ, and\nso express our faith with respect to his distinct Personality, from that\nof the Son and the Spirit. And though only one divine Person be\nparticularly mentioned in prayer, the blessed Trinity is to be adored;\nor whatever Personal glory we ascribe to one, as subsisting distinctly\nfrom the other, we must, notwithstanding, consider the Father, Son, and\nSpirit, as the one only living and true God.\nThus we have gone through this great and important subject, and therein\nhave taken occasion, particularly, to insist on the chief matters in\ncontroversy relating to the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and\nconsider the various methods taken to oppose it both by the Socinians\nand Arians, and endeavoured, not only to defend the Deity of our\nSaviour, and the Holy Ghost by enquiring into the sense of those many\nscriptures, in which our faith therein is founded, but to answer the\nmost material objections that are brought against it; and our enlarging\nmore on it, than we shall do on several following answers, cannot be\nreckoned a needless work, inasmuch as a great deal hath been written in\nopposition to it, whereby the faith of some has not only been shaken,\nbut overthrown. I would never attempt to speak of this doctrine, or any\nof the divine perfections, without being sensible of the difficulty of\nthe subject, it being such as is not to be comprehended by a finite\nmind. I hope nothing will appear to have been suggested inconsistent\nwith the essential, or Personal glory of the Father, Son, or Spirit; and\nit may reasonably be expected that there should be allowances made for\ngreat defects, since it is but a little of God that can be known by us;\ntherefore, when we pretend to speak concerning him, it will not be\nthought strange if we give occasion to any to say, that we have the\ngreatest reason to acknowledge, that, in many instances, we cannot order\nour words, by reason of darkness.\nFootnote 76:\n  \u201cGod is One: a most pure, most simple, and most perfect Being.\n  \u201cThe absolute unity and simplicity of this glorious Being is strictly\n  exclusive of any division of perfections. Yet, as human knowledge is\n  not intuitive but discursive, we find it necessary to form and\n  communicate our conceptions, by referring them to distinct and\n  infinite attributes. Such are independence, spirituality, eternity,\n  immutability, power, knowledge, rectitude, and benevolence.\n  \u201cIt is absurd to say, that either the abstract essence, or any of the\n  infinite perfections of God, in themselves, or in their exercise, can\n  be grasped, included, or comprehended (or whatever equivalent term be\n  used) by a limited intellect. \u2018A _part_ of His ways, a _little\n  portion_ of Him,\u2019 we know; for He has unveiled it. The knowledge of\n  the best and greatest finite mind can only be, to immortality, an\n  approximation; and therefore must for ever be infinitely small. God\n  alone is CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING His own nature, mode of existence,\n  and perfections.\n  \u201cThe only questions, therefore, that we have to ask, are, Has Deity,\n  in fact, communicated to man _any_ information concerning HIMSELF? And\n  _what_ has He communicated? Whatever such revelation may be, it is\n  impossible that it should be self-contradictory, or any other than\n  most becoming to infinite wisdom and purity.\n  \u201cThis revelation authorizes us, by a variety of inductive proofs, to\n  conclude, that, with regard to the mode of existence of the ONE Divine\n  Essence, the Unity of the Godhead includes a Trinity of Persons (so\n  denominated for want of any better terms) who are scripturally styled\n  the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Distinct, not in essence or\n  in perfections, but only personally: One, not personally, but in the\n  common possession of the same identical nature and attributes.\n  \u201cNo contradiction or absurdity is involved in this doctrine, because\n  the unity refers to one respect, and the trinity to another. But we\n  make no difficulty in professing our incapacity to include in our\n  knowledge, or express by any possible terms, _the respect_ in which\n  the Trinity of persons subsists in the perfect Oneness of the Deity.\n  Such pretension would imply a contradiction.\u201d\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\nFootnote 77:\n  \u201cThat which is taught in the scriptures concerning the\n  incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God ought to suffice, not\n  only to overthrow the foolish errors of the common people, but also to\n  confute the fine subtilties of profane philosophy. One of the old\n  writers seemed to have said very well, \u2018That God is all that we do\n  see, and all that we do not see.\u2019 But by this means he hath imagined\n  the Godhead to be diffused into all the parts of the world. Although\n  God, to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speak but sparingly of\n  his own essence, yet, by those two names of addition that I have\n  rehearsed, he doth both take away all gross imaginations, and also\n  repress the presumptuous boldness of man\u2019s mind. For surely his\n  immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt not to\n  measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbiddeth us to\n  imagine any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he\n  often assigneth his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he\n  is incomprehensible, he filleth the earth also: yet because he seeth\n  our minds by reason of their dulness to lie still in the earth, for\n  good cause he lifteth us up above the world, to shake off our sloth\n  and sluggishness. And here falleth to ground the error of the\n  Manichees, which, in appointing two original beginnings, have made the\n  devil in a manner equal with God. Surely, this was as much as to break\n  the unity of God, and restrain his unmeasurableness. For where they\n  have presumed to abuse certain testimonies, that sheweth a foul\n  ignorance, as their error itself sheweth a detestable madness. And the\n  Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted, who have imagined God to\n  consist of a body, because oftentimes the scripture ascribeth unto him\n  a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, yea, though he be\n  slenderly witted, doth not understand that God doth so with us speak\n  as it were childishly, as nurses do with their babes? therefore such\n  manner of speeches do not so plainly express what God is, as they do\n  apply the understanding of him to our slender capacities. Which to do,\n  it behoved of necessity that he descended a great way beneath his own\n  height.\n  \u201c2. But he also setteth out himself by another special mark, whereby\n  he may be more nearly known. For he so declareth himself to be but\n  one, that he yet giveth himself distinctly to be considered in three\n  persons: which, except we learn, a bare and empty name of God without\n  any true God fleeth in our brain. And that no man should think that he\n  is a threefold God, or that the one essence of God is divided in three\n  persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition, to deliver us\n  from all error. But because many do make much about this word Person,\n  as a thing invented by man, how justly they do so, it is best first to\n  see. The apostle naming the Son the engraved form of the hypostasis of\n  his Father, he undoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some being,\n  wherein he differeth from the Son. For to take it for essence (as some\n  expositors have done, as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a\n  seal did represent the substance of the Father) were not only hard,\n  but also an absurdity. For since the essence of God is single or one,\n  and indivisible, he that in himself containeth it all, and not by\n  piece-meal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very\n  improperly, yea, foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But\n  because the Father, although he be in his own property distinct, hath\n  expressed himself wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that\n  he hath given his hypostasis to be seen in him. Wherewith aptly\n  agreeth that which by and by followeth, that he is the brightness of\n  his glory. Surely by the apostle\u2019s words we gather, that there is a\n  certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shineth in the Son:\n  whereby also again is easily perceived the hypostasis of the Son, that\n  distinguisheth him from the Father. The like order is in the holy\n  Ghost. For we shall by and by prove him to be God, and yet he must\n  needs be other than the Father. Yet this distinction is not of the\n  essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold. Therefore, if the\n  apostle\u2019s testimony be credited, it followeth that there be in God\n  three hypostasis. This term seeing the Latins have expressed by the\n  name of Person, it were too much pride and frowardness to wangle about\n  so clear a matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may\n  call it subsistance. Many in the same sense have called it substance.\n  And the name of Person hath not been in use among the Latins only, but\n  also the Grecians, perhaps to declare a consent, have taught that\n  there are three _Prosopa_, that is to say Persons, in God. But they,\n  whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another in the\n  word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.\n  \u201c3. Now howsoever the hereticks cry out against the name of Person, or\n  some overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned\n  by the device of men; since they cannot get of us to say, that there\n  be three, whereof every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many\n  gods: what unreasonableness is this, to dislike words, which express\n  none other thing but that which is testified and approved by the\n  scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our\n  meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to\n  devise strange terms, that may be the beginnings of disagreement and\n  brawling: so do we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the\n  truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling\n  together. If they call that a strange word, which cannot be shewed in\n  scripture, as it is written in number of syllables; then they bind us\n  to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not pieced\n  together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they\n  mean that to be strange, which, being curiously devised, is\n  superstitiously defended, which maketh more for contention than\n  edification, which is either improperly, or to no profit, used, which\n  withdraweth from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my\n  heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no\n  less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much\n  as whatsoever we do of ourselves think of him is foolish, and\n  whatsoever we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be\n  kept. We ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and\n  speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind, and words of\n  our mouth. But what hindereth us, but that such as in scripture are to\n  our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express\n  them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the\n  truth of the scripture, and be used sparingly, modestly, and not\n  without occasion? Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas\n  it shall by proof appear that the church of great necessity was forced\n  to use the names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault\n  with the newness of words, shall he not be justly thought to be\n  grieved at the light of the truth, as he that blameth only this, that\n  the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?\n  \u201c4. Such newness of words, if it be so called, cometh then chiefly in\n  use, when the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock\n  it out with cavils. Which thing we have at this day too much in\n  experience, who have great business in vanquishing the enemies of true\n  and sound doctrine. With such folding and crooked winding, these\n  slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly gripped and\n  holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers, being troubled\n  with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to shew their\n  meanings in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked\n  byeways to the wicked, to whom the doubtful constructions of words\n  were hiding-holes of errors. Arius confessed Christ to be God, and the\n  Son of God, because he could not gainsay the evident words of God,\n  and, as if he had been so sufficiently discharged, did feign a certain\n  consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter\n  abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning, as other\n  creatures. But to the end that they might draw forth his winding\n  subtilty out of his den, the ancient fathers went further, pronouncing\n  Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with\n  the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the Arians began to\n  hate and detest the name _Omoousion_, consubstantial. But if in the\n  beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ\n  to be God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial\n  with the Father. Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and\n  contentious, because, for one little word\u2019s sake, they were so keen in\n  disputation, and disturbed the peace of the church? But that little\n  word shewed the difference between the true believing Christians, and\n  the Arians, who were robbers of God. Afterwards rose up Sabellius, who\n  accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the Son,\n  and Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to shew\n  any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of\n  which sort there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed\n  that he believed the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But\n  afterwards he would readily slip away with saying, that he had in no\n  otherwise spoken than as if he had named God, a powerful God, just\n  God, and wise God: and so he sung another song, that the Father is the\n  Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order, without any\n  distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to\n  subdue his wickedness, cried out on the other side, that there ought\n  to be acknowledged in one God three properties: and to the end to\n  fence themselves against the crooked winding subtilties with plain and\n  simple truth, they affirmed, that there did truly subsist in one God,\n  or (which is the same thing) that there did subsist in the unity of\n  God, a Trinity of Persons.\n  \u201c5. If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought\n  to take heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud\n  presumptuousness. I would to God they were buried indeed, so that this\n  faith were agreed of all men, that the Father, and the Son, and the\n  Holy Ghost, be one God: and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor\n  the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinctly, by certain property. Yet I am\n  not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words.\n  For I observe, that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spake very\n  religiously of such matters, did not every where agree one with\n  another, nor every one with himself. For what forms of speech used by\n  the councils doth Hillary excuse? To how great liberty doth Augustine\n  sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the Latins? But of\n  this disagreement one example shall suffice for this time. When the\n  Latins wanted to express the word _Omoousion_, they called it\n  _Consubstantial_, declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to\n  be one, thus using the word substance for essence. Whereupon Hierom to\n  Damasus saith, it is sacrilege to say, that there are three substances\n  in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall find in Hillary, that\n  there are three substances in God. In the word _hypostasis_, how is\n  Hierom difficulted? for he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in\n  naming three hypostasis in God. And if a man do use this word in a\n  godly sense, yet he plainly saith that it is an improper speech, if he\n  spake unfeignedly, and did not rather wittingly and willingly seek to\n  charge the bishops of the East, whom he sought to charge with an\n  unjust slander. Sure this one thing he speaketh not very truly, that\n  in all profane schools, _Ousia_, essence, is nothing else but\n  hypostasis, which is proved false by the common and accustomed use.\n  Augustine is more modest and gentle, who, although he says, _De trint.\n  li. 5. cap. 8, 9._ that the word hypostasis in that sense is strange\n  to Latin ears, yet so far is it off, that he taketh from the Greeks\n  their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently beareth with the\n  Latins who had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates\n  writeth in the fifth book of the Tripartite history tendeth to this\n  end, as though he meant that he had by unskilful men been wrongfully\n  applied unto this matter. Yea, and the same Hillary himself layeth it\n  as a great fault to the heretics charge, _De trin. li. 2._ that by\n  their frowardness he is compelled to put those things in peril of the\n  speech of men, which ought to have been kept in religiousness of\n  minds, plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak\n  what ought not to be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little\n  after, he excuseth himself with many words, for that he was so bold to\n  utter new names. For after he had used the natural names, Father, Son,\n  and Holy Ghost, he addeth, that whatsoever is sought further is beyond\n  the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense, and beyond the\n  capacity of understanding. And in another place he saith, that happy\n  are the bishops of Gallia, who had not received, nor knew any other\n  confession but that old and simple one, which from the time of the\n  apostles was received in all churches. And much like is the excuse of\n  Augustine, that this word was wrung out of necessity, by reason of the\n  imperfection of men\u2019s language in so great a matter: not to express\n  that which is, but that it should not be unspoken, how the Father, the\n  Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three. This modesty of the holy men ought\n  to warn us, that we do not forthwith so severely, like censors, brand\n  them with infamy, who refuse to subscribe and swear to such words as\n  we propound them: so that they do not of pride, or frowardness, or of\n  malicious craft. But let them again consider, by how great necessity\n  we are driven to speak so, that by little and little they may he\n  enured with that profitable manner of speech. Let them also learn to\n  beware, lest since we must meet on the one side with the Arians, on\n  the other side with the Sabellians, while they be offended that we cut\n  off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in\n  suspicion, that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius.\n  Arius saith that Christ is God, but he muttereth that he was created,\n  and had a beginning. He saith Christ is one with the Father, but\n  secretly he whispereth in the ears of his disciples, that he was made\n  one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative. Say\n  once that Christ is consubstantial with his Father, then pluck you off\n  his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the\n  scripture. Sabellius saith, that the several names, Father, Son, and\n  Holy Ghost, signify nothing in God severally distinct. Say that they\n  are three, and he will cry out that you name three gods. Say that\n  there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you in one\n  word both say what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vain\n  babbling. Now if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they\n  cannot abide these names, yet is there no man, though he would never\n  so fain, that can deny but that when we hear of one, we must\n  understand an unity of substance: when we hear of three in one\n  essence, that, it is meant of the persons of the Trinity. Which thing\n  being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I\n  have long ago found, and that often, that whosoever do obstinately\n  quarrel about words, do keep within them a secret poison: so that it\n  is better willingly to provoke them, than for their pleasure to speak\n  darkly.\u201d\n  CALVIN.\nFootnote 78:\n  \u201cThere are some doctrines in the gospel the understanding could not\n  discover; but when they are revealed, it hath a clear apprehension of\n  them upon a rational account, and sees the characters of truth visibly\n  stampt on their forehead: as the doctrine of satisfaction to divine\n  justice, that pardon might be dispensed to repenting sinners. For our\n  natural conception of God includes his infinite purity and justice;\n  and when the design of the gospel is made known, whereby he hath\n  provided abundantly for the honour of those attributes, so that He\n  doth the greatest good without encouraging the least evil, reason\n  acquiesces, and acknowledges. This I sought, but could not find. Now,\n  although the primary obligation to believe such doctrines ariseth from\n  revelation, yet being ratified by reason, they are embraced with more\n  clearness by the mind.\n  \u201c2. There are some doctrines, which as reason by its light could not\n  discover; so when they are made known, it cannot comprehend; but they\n  are by a clear and necessary connexion joined with the other that\n  reason approves: as the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of\n  the Son of God, which are the foundations of the whole work of our\n  redemption. The nature of God is repugnant to plurality, there can be\n  but one essence; and the nature of satisfaction requires a distinction\n  of persons: For he that suffers as guilty, must be distinguished from\n  the person of the judge that exacts satisfaction; and no mere creature\n  is able by his obedient sufferings to repair the honour of God: So\n  that a divine person, assuming the nature of man, was alone capable to\n  make that satisfaction, which the gospel propounds, and reason\n  consents to. Now, according to the distinction of capacities in the\n  Trinity, the Father required an honourable reparation for the breach\n  of the divine law, and the Son bore the punishment in the sufferings\n  of the human nature; that is peculiarly his own. Besides, \u2019tis clear\n  that the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, of three glorious relations\n  in the Godhead, and of the Incarnation, are most firmly connected with\n  all the parts of the christian religion, left in the writings of the\n  apostles, which as they were confirmed by miracles, the divine\n  signatures of their certainty, so they contain such authentic marks of\n  their divinity, that right reason cannot reject them.\n  \u201c3. Whereas there are three principles by which we apprehend things,\n  Sense, Reason and Faith; these lights have their different objects\n  that must not be confounded. Sense is confined to things material;\n  Reason considers things abstracted from matter; Faith regards the\n  mysteries revealed from heaven: and these must not transgress their\n  order. Sense is an incompetent judge of things about which reason is\n  only conversant. It can only make a report of those objects, which by\n  their natural characters are exposed to it. And reason can only\n  discourse of things, within its sphere: supernatural things which\n  derive from revelation, and are purely the objects of faith, are not\n  within its territories and jurisdiction. Those superlative mysteries\n  exceed all our intellectual abilities. \u2019Tis true, the understanding is\n  a rational faculty, and every act of it is really or in appearance\n  grounded on reason. But there is a wide difference between the proving\n  a doctrine by reason, and the giving a reason why we believe the truth\n  of it. For instance, we cannot prove the Trinity by natural reason;\n  and the subtilty of the schoolmen, who affect to give some reason of\n  all things, is here more prejudicial than advantageous to the truth:\n  For he that pretends to maintain a point by reason, and is\n  unsuccessful, doth weaken the credit which the authority of revelation\n  gives. And \u2019tis considerable, that the scripture, in delivering\n  supernatural truths, produces God\u2019s authority as their only proof,\n  without using any other way of arguing: But although we cannot\n  demonstrate these mysteries by reason, yet we may give a rational\n  account why we believe them.\n  \u201cIs it not the highest reason to believe the discovery that God hath\n  made of himself, and his decrees? For he perfectly knows his own\n  nature and will; and \u2019tis impossible he should deceive us: this\n  natural principle is the foundation of faith. When God speaks, it\n  becomes man to hear with silence and submission. His naked word is as\n  certain as a demonstration.\n  \u201cAnd is it not most reasonable to believe that the Deity cannot be\n  fully understood by us? The sun may more easily be included in a spark\n  of fire, than the infinite perfections of God be comprehended by a\n  finite mind. The angels, who dwell so near the fountain of light,\n  _cover their faces_ in a holy confusion, not being able to comprehend\n  Him. How much less can man in this earthly state, distant from God,\n  and opprest with a burthen of flesh? Now from hence it follows;\n  \u201c1. That ignorance of the manner how divine mysteries exist is no\n  sufficient plea for infidelity, when the scripture reveals that they\n  are. For reason that is limited and restrained cannot frame a\n  conception that is commensurate to the essence and power of God. This\n  will appear more clearly by considering the mysterious excellencies of\n  the divine nature, the certainty of which we believe, but the manner\n  we cannot understand: As that his essence and attributes are the same,\n  without the least shadow of composition; yet his wisdom and power are\n  to our apprehensions distinct, and his mercy and justice in some\n  manner opposite.[79] That his essence is intire in all places, yet not\n  terminated in any. That he is above the heavens, and beneath the\n  earth, yet hath no relation of high or low, distant or near. That he\n  penetrates all substances, but is mixed with none. That he\n  understands, yet receives no ideas within himself: That he wills, yet\n  hath no motion that carries him out of himself. That in him time hath\n  no succession; that which is past is not gone, and that which is\n  future is not to come. That he loves without passion, is angry without\n  disturbance, repents without change. These perfections are above the\n  capacity of reason fully to understand; Yet essential to the deity.\n  Here we must exalt faith, and abase reason. Thus in the mystery of the\n  incarnation, (_1 Tim._ iii. 16.) that two such distant natures should\n  compose one person, without the confusion of properties, reason cannot\n  reach unto; but it is clearly revealed in the word: (_John_ i. 14.)\n  Here therefore we must obey, not enquire.\n  \u201cThe obedience of faith is, to embrace an obscure truth with a firm\n  assent, upon the account of a divine testimony. If reason will not\n  assent to revelation, till it understands the manner how divine things\n  are, it doth not obey it at all. The understanding then sincerely\n  submits, when it is inclined by those motives, which demonstrate that\n  such a belief is due to the authority of the revealer, and to the\n  quality of the object. To believe only in proportion to our narrow\n  conceptions is to disparage the divine truth, and debase the divine\n  power. We can\u2019t know what God can do; he is omnipotent, though we are\n  not omniscient: \u2019Tis just we should humble our ignorance to his\n  wisdom, _and that every lofty imagination, and high thing, that exalts\n  itself against the knowledge of God, should be cast down, and every\n  thought captivated into the obedience of Christ_; 2 Cor. x. 5. \u2019Tis\n  our wisdom to receive the great mysteries of the gospel in their\n  simplicity: for in attempting to give an exact and curious explication\n  of them, the understanding, as in an hedge of thorns, the more it\n  strives, the more \u2019tis wounded and entangled. _God\u2019s ways are far\n  above ours, and his thoughts above ours as heaven is above the earth._\n  To reject what we can\u2019t comprehend, is not only to sin against faith,\n  but against reason, which acknowledges itself finite, and unable _to\n  search out the Almighty to perfection_; Job xi. 7.\n  \u201c2. We are obliged to believe those mysteries that are plainly\n  delivered in scripture, notwithstanding those seeming contradictions\n  wherewith they may be charged. In the objects of sense, the\n  contrariety of appearances doth not lessen the certainty of things.\n  The stars to our sight seem but glittering sparks, yet they are\n  immense bodies. And it is one thing to be assured of a truth, another\n  to answer to all the difficulties that encounter it: a mean\n  understanding is capable of the first; the second is so difficult,\n  that in clear things the profoundest philosophers may not be able to\n  untie all the intricate and knotty objections which may be urged\n  against them. \u2019Tis sufficient the belief of supernatural mysteries is\n  built on the veracity and power of God; this makes them prudently\n  credible: this resolves all doubts, and produces such a stability of\n  spirit, as nothing can shake. A sincere believer is assured, that all\n  opposition against revealed truths is fallacious, though he cannot\n  discover the fallacy. Now the transcendent mysteries of the Christian\n  religion, the Trinity of persons in the divine nature, the incarnation\n  of the Son of God, are clearly set down in the scripture. And although\n  subtile and obstinate opponents have used many guilty arts to dispirit\n  and enervate those texts by an inferior sense, and have rackt them\n  with violence to make them speak according to their prejudices, yet\n  all is vain, the evidence of truth is victorious. A heathen, who\n  considers not the gospel as a divine revelation, but merely as a\n  doctrine delivered in writings, and judges of its sense by natural\n  light, will acknowledge that those things are delivered in it: And\n  notwithstanding those who usurp a sovereign authority to themselves,\n  to judge of divine mysteries according to their own apprehensions,\n  deny them as mere contradictions, yet they can never conclude them\n  impossible: for no certain argument can be alledged against the being\n  of a thing without a clear knowledge of its nature: Now, although we\n  may understand the nature of man, we do not the nature of God, the\n  \u0153conomy of the persons, and his power to unite himself to a nature\n  below him.\n  \u201cIt is true, no article of faith is really repugnant to reason; for\n  God is the author of natural, as well as of supernatural, light, and\n  he cannot contradict himself: They are emanations from him, and though\n  different, yet not destructive of each other. But we must distinguish\n  between those things that are above reason and incomprehensible, and\n  things that are against reason and utterly inconceivable: Some things\n  are above reason in regard of their transcendent excellency, or\n  distance from us; the divine essence, the eternal decrees, the\n  hypostatical union, are such high and glorious objects, that it is an\n  impossible enterprise to comprehend them: the intellectual eye is\n  dazzled with their overpowering light. We can have but an imperfect\n  knowledge of them; and there is no just cause of wonder that\n  supernatural revelation should speak incomprehensible things of God.\n  For he is a singular and admirable Being, infinitely above the\n  ordinary course of nature. The maxims of philosophy are not to be\n  extended to him. We must adore what we cannot fully understand. But\n  those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable, that\n  involve a contradiction, and have a natural repugnancy to our\n  understandings, which cannot conceive any thing that is formally\n  impossible: and there is no such doctrine in the Christian religion.\n  \u201c3. We must distinguish between reason corrupted, and right reason.\n  Since the fall, the clearness of the human understanding is lost, and\n  the light that remains is eclipsed by the interposition of sensual\n  lust. The carnal mind cannot, out of ignorance, and will not from\n  pride and other malignant habits, receive things spiritual. And from\n  hence arises many suspicions and doubts, (concerning supernatural\n  verities) the shadows of darkened reason, and of dying faith. If any\n  divine mystery seems incredible, it is from the corruption of our\n  reason, not from reason itself; from its darkness, not its light. And\n  as reason is obliged to correct the errors of sense, when it is\n  deceived either by some vicious quality in the organ, or by the\n  distance of the object, or by the falseness of the medium, that\n  corrupts the image in conveying of it. So it is the office of faith to\n  reform the judgment of reason, when either from its own weakness, or\n  the height of things spiritual, it is mistaken about them. For this\n  end supernatural revelation was given, not to extinguish reason, but\n  to redress it, and enrich it with the discovery of heavenly things.\n  Faith is called wisdom and knowledge: it doth not quench the vigour of\n  the faculty wherein it is seated, but elevates it, and gives it a\n  spiritual perception of those things that are most distant from its\n  commerce. It doth not lead us through a mist to the inheritance of the\n  saints in light.\u201d\n  BATES.\nFootnote 79:\n  Infinitus, immensus & soli sibi tantus, quantus est notus, nobis vero\n  ad intellectum pectus angustum est, & ide\u00f2 sic cum dign\u00e8 estimamus,\n  c\u00f9m inaestimabilem dicimus. _Min. Fel._\nFootnote 80:\n  He who has marked the differences between truth and error, good and\n  evil, made them discoverable, and formed human minds susceptible of\n  their impressions, thereby discovers his will that we should attend to\n  them, and has made it our duty to do so. With this sentiment sacred\n  revelation is expressly accordant; \u201cprove all things, hold fast that\n  which is good.\u201d The Gospel requires not faith without evidence, it\n  demands no more assent than is proportioned to the weight of\n  probability, and charges as a crime only our refusing to attend to the\n  evidence, or our coming to it with hearts prejudiced against, and\n  therefore insensible to, its evidence. The exercise of reason is\n  essential to faith, for how sudden soever our convictions, still it is\n  the judgment which is convinced.\n  Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the\n  genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures.\n  When this is done, she cannot correctly delay her assent, because she\n  may not fully comprehend the promises or works of God, for this would\n  require wisdom no less than Divine. But suppose she should presume to\n  try them, by what balances shall she weigh them? To what shall she\n  compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things? what are these but\n  circumstances and relations springing from the works of God? His\n  creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent\n  on them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has\n  been already discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from\n  effecting any thing which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such\n  judgment is not the work of reason, it is irrational. Reason can only\n  make an induction, where there exists premises from which a conclusion\n  can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded, she has no standard by\n  which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly infer from the\n  works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural,\n  perfections; we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we\n  may fairly say that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that\n  all his works will be conformed to such principles. We can go no\n  farther than unto generals, we have no right to question any word or\n  act of his, and say it is not conformed to such perfections, because\n  this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He may have ways\n  of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are not\n  acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it\n  is an extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our\n  duty in such case is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At\n  God\u2019s command we must, like him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to\n  him both to accomplish his promises and to justify the action. It is\n  evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially revealed to\n  man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the\n  plan of redemption.\nFootnote 81:\n  _Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys._\nFootnote 82:\n  _Vid. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12._\nFootnote 83:\n  _Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3._\nFootnote 84:\n  _See Dr. Berriman\u2019s Historical account, &c. page 94._\nFootnote 85:\n  \u201cPhilo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead,\n  which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He\n  speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No!\n  He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to\n  other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was\n  known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which\n  was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him \u2018the LOGOS of\n  God.\u2019 This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea\n  annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of\n  them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the _Dabar_ of\n  Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the _Memra_ of Jehovah in the\n  Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely \u2018the WORD of God.\u2019\n  This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the\n  inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the\n  Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered\n  either the _Word_ or the _Reason_ of God; yet the English Bible, with\n  a strict adherence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient\n  Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental\n  signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet,\n  even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved\n  intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in\n  the days of Philo, the _philosophical_ denomination of Him, who was\n  _popularly_ called the Son of God.\n  \u201cThe use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in\n  concurrence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the\n  Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of\n  the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews\n  concerning it, in all the four; and the _acknowledged_ use of it\n  through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John\n  himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed\n  too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its\n  import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the\n  Son of God. Originating from the _spiritual_ principle of connexion,\n  betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this,\n  by a _spiritual_ idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close\n  and as necessary as the _Word_ is to the energetick _Mind_ of God,\n  which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put\n  them forth in speech; it is too _spiritual_ in itself, to be addressed\n  to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our\n  _bodily_ ideas, and so positive a _filiation_ of the Second Being to\n  the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring\n  to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more\n  ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a _spiritual_\n  denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been\n  considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and\n  therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.\n  \u201cSt. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the\n  denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory\n  passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his\n  Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use\n  of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels\n  antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet,\n  not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same\n  instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct\n  from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. \u2018In the\n  beginning,\u2019 he says, \u2018was THE WORD; and THE WORD was _with_ God; and\n  THE WORD was GOD.\u2019 Having thus secured the two grand points relating\n  to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than\n  to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He\n  accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; \u2018THE\n  SAME was in the beginning _with_ God.\u2019 His divinity also he again\n  inculcates, thus: \u2018ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS\n  NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.\u2019 Here the very repetition itself, of\n  enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is\n  plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of\n  the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated\n  nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the\n  mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other\n  existences. These were MADE, but he himself WAS; _made_ by Him, who\n  _was_ with God, and _was_ God. Nor would all this precaution suffice,\n  in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences\n  against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in\n  confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of\n  all to our Saviour: \u2018HE was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY\n  HIM, and the world knew him not; HE came unto HIS OWN [PROPER\n  DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER DOMESTICKS] received him not.\u2019 And he\n  closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his\n  assertions before into one full point; and with additionally\n  explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that\n  popular one which he uses ever afterwards: \u2018and THE WORD was made\n  flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of\n  THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.\u2019\n  \u201cYet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use\n  this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The\n  title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined\n  spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the\n  service of _such_. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation\n  in Philo\u2019s works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it\n  was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore\n  adopted it himself, for the more easy access to _their_ conviction. It\n  was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of\n  St. John\u2019s mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other\n  Evangelists upon the _doctrines_ of our Saviour; and who has drawn out\n  so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would\n  naturally prefer the _spiritual_ term of relationship for God the Son\n  and God the Father, before the _bodily_, whenever the intellect was\n  raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was\n  sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose,\n  that induced St. John to use it a _few_ times. And these were equally\n  (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use\n  it only a few.\n  \u201cNor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we\n  misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason\n  is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of\n  conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may\n  boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the\n  truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath _already_\n  determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a\n  Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given\n  by a Heathen of the third century to this passage of St. John. \u2018Of\n  modern philosophers,\u2019 says Eusebius, \u2018_Amelius_ is an eminent one,\n  being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the philosophy of\n  Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews _a Barbarian_, as if he\n  would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.\u2019\n  Such is Eusebius\u2019s account of our referee. But what are the terms of\n  his award? They are these. \u2018And such indeed was the Logos,\u2019 he says,\n  \u2018by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as\n  also Heraclitus has said; and who by Jupiter, _the Barbarian_ says,\n  being constituted in the rank and dignity of a Principle, is with God\n  and is God, by whom all things absolutely were created; in whom the\n  created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, and fell\n  into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing\n  the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again\n  deified and is God, such as he was before he was brought down into the\n  body and the flesh and a man. These things, if translated out of _the\n  Barbarian\u2019s_ theology, not as shaded over there, but on the contrary\n  as placed in full view, would be plain.\u2019 In this very singular and\n  very valuable comment upon St. John\u2019s Gospel in general, and upon his\n  preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure\n  language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold\n  air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine\n  must strike at once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him,\n  to have been known to the _philosophers_ of antiquity _later_ than the\n  Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the\n  world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him\n  down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF\n  ALL THINGS, as WITH GOD, and as GOD; as one likewise, \u2018_in whom_ the\n  created living Thing,\u2019 or the human soul of our Saviour, \u2018and\u2019 even\n  \u2018Life and Existence\u2019 themselves, those primogenial principles of\n  Deity, \u2018had _a birth_, and _fell into a body_, and _putting on flesh\n  appeared a man_,\u2019 who was therefore man and God in one; who\n  accordingly \u2018showed the greatness of his nature\u2019 by his miracles, was\n  \u2018wholly dissolved,\u2019 and then \u2018was _again_ DEIFIED, and IS GOD,\u2019 even\n  \u2018SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was _brought down into the body_ and _the\n  flesh_ and _a man_.\u2019 And St. John is attested to have declared this,\n  \u2018not even as _shaded over_,\u2019 but \u2018on the contrary as _placed in full\n  view_.\u2019 We have thus a testimony to _the plain meaning_ of St. John,\n  and to the _evident Godhead_ of his Logos, a _Godhead_ equally\n  _before_ and _after_ his death; most unquestionable in its nature,\n  very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St.\n  John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have\n  been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries of Amelius, as a writer,\n  as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of _Divinity_ for his Logos.\u201d\n  WHITAKER.\nFootnote 86:\n  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 \u00a7. 8._\nFootnote 87:\n  _Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. person\u00e6 ge._\nFootnote 88:\n  _Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. \u00a7. 5._\nFootnote 89:\n  \u201cThe doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of\n  inspiration. God would not record the history of _creation_, without\n  informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to\n  be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is\n  taught in the words rendered _God created_, where we have a noun in\n  the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly\n  expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the\n  passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the\n  Spirit of God, who is said to have \u2018moved on the face of the waters.\u2019\n  By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression\n  has been rendered, \u2018a wind of God,\u2019 or \u2018a mighty wind.\u2019 But the\n  firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This\n  includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is\n  said to \u2018fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.\u2019 Now, it\n  cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or\n  any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.\n  \u201cIf we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as\n  engaged in the work of creation. \u2018All things were made by\u2019 that Word,\n  who \u2018in the beginning existed with God.\u2019\n  \u201cThis plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred\n  historian gives an account of the creation of man: \u2018And God said, Let\n  _us_ make man in _our_ image, after _our_ likeness.\u2019 But it is a\n  plurality in unity: \u2018So God created man in _his_ own image.\u2019 It has\n  been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the\n  royal Preacher, agrees: \u2018None saith, Where is God my _Makers_;\u2019 and,\n  \u2018Remember now thy _Creators_.\u2019 Nothing can be more absurd than the\n  various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may\n  be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to\n  angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were\n  addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine\n  work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew\n  expressly says that these words, _Let us make_, declare a plurality.\n  That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a\n  mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously\n  concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been\n  elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I\n  shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the\n  doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to\n  alter the reading. Instead of _Let us make man_, they incline to read,\n  _Let man be made_; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the\n  Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern,\n  express the language in the same manner with our version.\n  \u201cThe same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the\n  _Fall_. That three-one God, who said, \u2018Let us make man after our\n  image,\u2019 in the same character laments the loss of this image. \u2018JEHOVAH\n  God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;\u2019 or, as some read\n  the passage, \u2018Behold the man, who was as one of us!\u2019 Here Philo\n  observes; \u2018These words, _as one of us_, are not put for one, but for\n  more than one.\u2019 The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish\n  writers maintain, that God \u2018speaks not this to the angels, who had no\n  common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the\n  celestial Adam, who is one with God.\u2019 To whom this character applies,\n  we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of\n  \u2018the only begotten in heaven.\u2019\n  \u201cThis doctrine is also taught in the history of the _Confusion of\n  Tongues_. \u2018JEHOVAH said,\u2014Go to, let us go down, and there confound\n  their language.\u2019 Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge,\n  that God addresses his \u2018house of judgment,\u2019 that is, created angels.\n  For it is an established doctrine with them, that \u2018God does nothing\n  without previously consulting with his family above.\u2019 But it has\n  justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would\n  imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same\n  manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to\n  change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of\n  men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should\n  entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far\n  surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but\n  that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.\n  \u201cIt must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old\n  Testament with any degree of attention, that an _Angel_ is often\n  introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and\n  accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being.\n  In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears\n  in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this\n  manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption,\n  he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine\n  essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different\n  occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites\n  at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a\n  particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to\n  illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place.\n  There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the\n  Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable\n  Trinity, in the character of the Angel of JEHOVAH. It deserves\n  particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel\n  gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all\n  the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to\n  preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;\u2014at the very time that he\n  pronounced that leading precept, \u2018Thou shalt have no other gods before\n  me;\u2019 he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion,\n  sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate\n  the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent\n  contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of\n  God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing\n  essential unity and personal plurality?\n  \u201cThe more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were\n  engaged in promulgating the law. They say; \u2018The two first precepts\n  were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his\n  Glory, who is called _El Shaddai_, known to the fathers; by whom the\n  prophets foretold future events; who is called _Jah_: in whom the Name\n  of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth\n  of the LORD; and the Face of the LORD; and the Rock; and that Goodness\n  which Moses saw, when he could not see God.\u2019 Elsewhere they call him\n  \u2018the _Schechinah_, by whom we draw near to God, and present our\n  supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is,\n  who is himself called God and JEHOVAH.\u2019 The change of person, in the\n  promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a\n  mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how\n  fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity,\n  when they introduced it in this manner.\n  \u201cIt has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that\n  the great end which God hath in view in the work of _Redemption_ is\n  the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless\n  another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this,\n  nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the\n  manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of\n  subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must\n  undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the\n  all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still\n  kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially\n  in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may\n  trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old\n  creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of\n  the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and\n  to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.\n  \u201cSuch was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full\n  manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the\n  patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the\n  general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state\n  of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations\n  to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But\n  \u2018when the fulness of the time was come,\u2019 that the gospel should be\n  preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning\n  from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such\n  impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine.\n  The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had\n  now \u2018sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to\n  redeem them that were under the law.\u2019 The ends of this mission could\n  not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of\n  this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage\n  from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was\n  necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as\n  essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger,\n  could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the\n  paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation,\n  according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory,\n  voluntarily \u2018emptied himself.\u2019 Nor could the unity of the work of\n  redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church,\n  and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise\n  displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it\n  have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of\n  God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the\n  Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to\n  his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so\n  frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?\n  \u201cIf this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in\n  Christ as the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not\n  that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to\n  identity of essence, while at the same time there is a distinction of\n  persons, denies the voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father in\n  the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of his merit and\n  of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and in\n  the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the\n  divine persons towards each other, as well as those of an external\n  nature. The Father appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for\n  his Son; the Son undertakes, gives himself, comes, assumes this\n  nature.\n  \u201cFrom the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that\n  three divine persons were engaged in the creation of this \u2018new thing\n  in the earth.\u2019 The Father appears in the character of \u2018the Highest;\u2019\n  the Third Person, as \u2018the Holy Ghost,\u2019 and \u2018the Power of the Highest;\u2019\n  and the Second, as \u2018the Son of God.\u2019 When this wonderful Person, the\n  incarnate Word, was to be manifested to Israel at his baptism, each\n  divine Person concurred in the work. The Father testified his presence\n  and approbation by a voice from the excellent glory, announcing Jesus\n  as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and\n  rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion,\n  affords a proof of a similar kind. As \u2018it pleased JEHOVAH,\u2019 in the\n  person of the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the\n  Son as our Surety; and as he, having power over his own life,\n  commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, thus presenting\n  unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; he did so \u2018through\n  the Eternal Spirit.\u2019 The same thing appears from the resurrection of\n  Jesus. He was \u2018powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his\n  resurrection from the dead;\u2019 for he had \u2018power to take again\u2019 that\n  which no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to\n  God, where the term evidently denotes the First Person. \u2018God hath\n  raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou\n  art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.\u2019 As he was \u2018put to death in\n  the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,\u2019 by that Spirit of\n  holiness, \u2018by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in\n  prison.\u2019 Nor is this less evident from the account given of the\n  effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is\n  described as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold\n  that the Comforter should come, that himself should send him, and that\n  he should at the same time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from\n  the account given of this wonderful event by the apostle Peter, which\n  is left on record for the instruction of the Church, we find that each\n  divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it: \u2018Jesus, having received\n  of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this\n  which ye now see and hear.\u2019\n  \u201cIt is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in\n  his miraculous works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his\n  equality with the Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus,\n  before raising him from the dead, it was because of the people who\n  stood by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him; and\n  sent him as a Messenger invested with divine power, because\n  essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously said\n  to his disciples: \u2018This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory\n  of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;\u2019 and taught\n  Martha, that if she \u2018would believe, she would see the glory of God,\u2019\n  in seeing the manifestation of that power which essentially belonged\n  to himself, as \u2018the Resurrection and the Life.\u2019 When he cured the man\n  sick of the palsy, it was in order to prove that he had \u2018power on\n  earth to forgive sin;\u2019 while he admitted the principle held by the\n  scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different\n  occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences\n  of his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual\n  inexistence, as some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and\n  of the Son in the Father, in respect of this essential unity, while\n  there is at the same time a real distinction of persons. When his\n  enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, \u2018I am the Son of\n  God,\u2019 \u2018making himself God;\u2019 he replied, \u2018If I do not the works of my\n  Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe\n  the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and\n  I in him.\u2019 To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said,\n  \u2018Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else\n  believe me for the very work\u2019s sake.\u2019 The Evangelist John, when\n  referring to the signs recorded in the preceding history, subjoins\n  this declaration; \u2018These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus\n  is the Son of God.\u2019 That he appropriates this character to Jesus, as\n  expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor of the\n  gospel which bears his name.\n  \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history\n  of redemption; as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons\n  as engaged in this work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each\n  Person. The contrivance of our redemption is ascribed to the Father;\n  the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual application of this\n  purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father sends his Son as\n  our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the Holy\n  Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately\n  ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in\n  Christ; and they, who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time\n  chosen out of the world, and separated for himself, by the renewing\n  and sanctifying work of the Spirit.\n  \u201cNor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work\n  of our salvation, is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence\n  in the Holy Trinity; and thus beautifully illustrates the mutual\n  relations of the divine Persons. All the external works of God,\n  indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is the same\n  indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly\n  ascribed to the three Persons, because each Person operates according\n  to the order of subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called\n  all things into being by his co-essential Word, communicating life\n  immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a generating power on the\n  unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person formed him by\n  the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural and\n  moral, by the Third, as \u2018the Spirit of life.\u2019 Yet this implies no\n  inferiority, or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons;\n  but only the most perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in\n  the new creation. It seems most consistent with divine wisdom, that he\n  who is first in the order of subsistence should rather _send_ than be\n  _sent_; that the Son, who is \u2018the image of the invisible God,\u2019 should\n  procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin; and that\n  he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both,\n  to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation\n  indeed, as it corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully\n  harmonizes with the distinguishing character belonging to each Person.\n  He, who is essentially the Father, assumes the character of paternity,\n  in a federal respect, towards those who are orphans and aliens. The\n  only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the law, that they\n  may \u2018receive the adoption of sons,\u2019 and appears as \u2018the first-born\n  among many brethren.\u2019 The adorable Spirit, \u2018the breath of JEHOVAH,\u2019\n  breathes on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and\n  a right spirit. He, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites\n  the sinner to both.\n  \u201cIs it \u2018life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom\n  he hath sent?\u2019 Hath no one the Father, who \u2018denieth the Son?\u2019 Can no\n  one honour the Father, \u2018who honoureth not the Son?\u2019 Is it the Spirit\n  alone who quickeneth, and who teacheth us to \u2018know the things that are\n  freely given us of God?\u2019 Can no man \u2018say that Jesus is the Lord, but\n  by the Holy Ghost?\u2019 Is it through Christ that \u2018we have access by one\n  Spirit unto the Father?\u2019 Let us bless God for the revelation of the\n  mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he hath revealed\n  it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that\n  work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in\n  which the love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in\n  which we discern so blessed a harmony, not only of divine perfections,\n  but of divine Persons! In all our worship, let us view God according\n  to this revelation, ascribing glory to him \u2018who is, and who was, and\n  who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are before his throne,\n  and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the\n  first-begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the\n  earth.\u2019 Let us earnestly desire communion with this three-one God;\n  with the Father, in his love as the spring of our salvation; with the\n  Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased by his blood; and with\n  the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious operation. In\n  order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him we\n  may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both,\n  and who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us\n  cultivate love to the brethren, as members of the same mystical body,\n  desiring to be \u2018one heart and one soul;\u2019 that although many, we may be\n  one, and thus be assimilated, in our weak measure, to the blessed\n  Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf of his\n  Church;\u2014\u2018That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I\n  in thee; that they also may be one in us.\u2014I in them, and thou in me,\n  that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that\n  thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.\u2019\u201d\n  JAMIESON.\nFootnote 90:\n  _See Le Clerc\u2019s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament,\n  preface to John i._\nFootnote 91:\n  _See Biddle\u2019s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article\nFootnote 92:\n  _Some have thought, that_ \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _being of the masculine gender,\n  because it refers immediately to_ \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, _which is of the neuter,\n  implies, that the Spirit is taken personally, which is the reason of\n  this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the reason why\n  it is masculine is, because it agrees with_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _it,\n  notwithstanding, proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a\n  Comforter is a personal character. The same thing is observed in the\n  grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i. 13, 14. speaking\n  concerning the Holy Spirit of promise_, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2; _it\n  is said_, \u1f41\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _which denotes the personal character of\n  the Spirit, otherwise it would have been_ \u1f41 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _unless you\n  suppose_ \u1f41\u03c2 _agrees with_ \u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, _which seems to be a more strained\n  sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which proves his\n  personality._\nFootnote 93:\n  \u201cTHAT the Holy Scriptures make mention of _Three_ by way of great\n  _eminence_ and _distinction_ may appear from many passages, out of\n  which I shall only produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed\n  Virgin\u2019s conception, which was to be without the concurrence of a man,\n  the divine message is delivered in these words: _The Holy Ghost shall\n  come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;\n  Therefore, also that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be\n  called the Son of God_. Here are plainly distinguished from each\n  other, the _Holy Ghost_, or _Power_ overshadowing; the _Highest_,\n  whose Power that Spirit is; and the _Holy Thing_, or _Person_, who is\n  _called the Son of God_, because born of a mother, impregnated by that\n  Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord\u2019s Baptism, _the Spirit of God_, we\n  read, _descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from\n  Heaven_ declared him to _be the Son of God_: Nothing can be plainer\n  than three _Personalities_ in this transaction; the _Father_ speaking\n  from Heaven, the _Son_ coming out of _Jordan_, and the _Spirit_\n  descending from above. In the Promise, which our blessed Saviour makes\n  his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was coming upon\n  them, _I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another\n  comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of\n  Truth_; and _when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you\n  from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the\n  Father, he shall testify of me_, there are manifestly Acts, and\n  Persons, and capacities, different. The _Father_, from whom the Spirit\n  _proceeds_, whom the Son _prays_, and by whom, at the Son\u2019s Request,\n  the _Comforter was given_: The _Son, praying_ the Father; _sending_\n  the Comforter from the Father, and _testified_ of by the _Spirit_ so\n  sent: And the _Spirit, given_ by the Father, _sent_ by the Son,\n  _testifying_ of the Son, and, upon the Son\u2019s Departure, _abiding_ for\n  ever with the Disciples.\n  \u201cThe great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the\n  resurrection, tells the _Romans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised\n  Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the\n  dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that\n  dwelled in them_; where he evidently refers to _Jesus_, the Son of\n  God; raised from the Dead; to the _Spirit_ of God, by which he was\n  raised; and to _him_ that raised _Jesus_, and at the last great day\n  shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle,\n  to satisfy the _Corinthians_ of the benefits of their _conversion_,\n  after having enumerated several ranks of sinners, _and_ such _were\n  some of you_, says he, _but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but\n  ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the\n  Spirit of our God_, _i. e._ God the Father. It cannot be denied that\n  _Sanctification_ and _Justification_ are the gifts of God alone; for\n  none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only:\n  But then the Apostle tells the _Corinthians_, that this benefit they\n  received not only from God the _Father_, but from the _Lord Jesus_\n  likewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other\n  Passage in the same epistle; _There are diversities of gifts, but the\n  same Spirit_, (there is the _third_ Person in the Trinity) _there are\n  differences of Administration, but the same Lord_, (there is the\n  _second_ Person) _and there are diversities of operations, but it is\n  the same God_, (or _first_ person in the _Trinity_) _that worketh all\n  in all_. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for the\n  _Thessalonians_, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity:\n  _Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct\n  our way unto you, and the Lord_, (_i. e._ the Holy Ghost) _make you to\n  increase and abound in love one towards another_: For that by the\n  _Lord_ we are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain\n  from the next verse; \u2018_to the end, that he may establish your hearts\n  unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of\n  our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints_;\u2019 since he is the\n  _Sanctifier_, and to _establish our hearts in holiness_ is his proper\n  work and office: And if so, then is there a plain _enumeration_ of the\n  three Persons of the _Trinity_ in this passage.\n  \u201cThe great Apostle of the _Jews_ begins his first Epistle _general_ to\n  his _dispersed_ Brethren with a declaration of the same article, when\n  he calls them _elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,\n  through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling\n  of the blood of Jesus_; for there we may observe, that the three\n  _Persons_ are not only expressly _named_, but their distinct\n  _employments_, with reference to man\u2019s salvation, are particularly\n  _specified_, while the Father is said to _elect_, the Spirit to\n  _sanctify_, and the holy Jesus to _shed his blood_. The beloved\n  Apostle _St. John_, in his _Salutation_ to the Churches, _Grace, and\n  Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and\n  from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus\n  Christ_ has given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in\n  the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that\n  by the _Seven Spirits_, which was a _sacred_ number among the _Jews_,\n  that _one_ Person (_viz._ the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from\n  whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then\n  conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be,\n  \u2019tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of the _Three which bear\n  record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost_, are as\n  full and plain a _Testimony_ and declaration of this _Mystery_, as can\n  be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the\n  authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and\n  seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith\n  against the _Arians_ and _Macedonians_, yet the contrary to this is\n  most evident. _Tertullian_, _St. Cyprian_, and _Fulgentius_ quote it\n  in their writings: _Athanasius_ made use of it in the council of\n  _Nice_ against _Arius_; and the reason why it was left out in some\n  ancient copies _Socrates_ acquaints us with in his _Ecclesiastical_\n  history, when he tells us, \u2018That the _Christian_ Church had all along\n  complained, that the Epistle of _St. John_ had been corrupted by the\n  first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s divinity.\u2019 \u2019Twas by\n  their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned\n  pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest,\n  that it was[94] _originally_ in the text, and that the most and\n  ancientest _copies_ always had it.\n  \u201cBut we need not be so tenacious of one _text_, when, besides these\n  already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther\n  enquiry, the very form of our _admission_ into the Christian covenant\n  is _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_;\n  the form of our _prayers_ is thus directed, that _through the Son we\n  have an access by one Spirit to the Father_; and the form of our\n  _dismission_ from them is, every day, with this _benediction_, _The\n  grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of\n  the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore_; as if the Wisdom of God had\n  intended to inculcate this notion of the _Trinity_, and, in every act\n  of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of his\n  _subsistence_.\n  \u201cThus it appears that there are _Three_, very often occurring in\n  scripture, under the different appellations of _Father_, _Son_, and\n  _Holy Ghost_: and that these three are not _one_ and the _same Being_,\n  under _different respects_ and considerations, but _three_ real and\n  distinct _persons_, with a _peculiar_ manner of _subsisting_, is plain\n  from the very names of _Father_, _Son_, and _Holy Ghost_, if we\n  understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are\n  opposite _relations_, which can never meet in the same _subject_: for\n  a _Father_ cannot be Father to himself, but to his _Son_; nor can a\n  _Son_ be Son to himself, but to his _Father_; nor can the Holy Ghost\n  _proceed_ from himself, or (in this sense) be his own _Spirit_, but\n  the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and\n  therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son\n  the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son.\n  The only question is, whether these _names_, when spoken of the\n  Trinity have a _proper_ and _natural_, or only an _allusive_ and\n  _metaphorical_ signification.\n  \u201cThe divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted\n  above our conception) may be brought down by _metaphors_, taken from\n  some things, that are _analagous_ in creatures; in which sense we may\n  allow _Father_ and _Son_ to be _metaphorical_ names, when applied to\n  God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect\n  sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son;\n  but because the _divine generation_ is so perfect a communication of\n  the divine nature and being from Father to Son, that _human\n  generations_ are but obscure and imperfect _images_ and resemblances\n  of it. The truth is, when any thing is spoken _metaphorically_ of God,\n  the metaphor and image are always in the _creatures_; the truth,\n  perfection, and reality of all, in _God_: and if so, then if God be a\n  Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of\n  himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we\n  can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is\n  more _properly_ and _perfectly_ a Father, and God the Son more\n  properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever\n  were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father\n  and Son, they must be truly and perfectly _distinct_ beings; for the\n  Father cannot be the Son whom he _begets_; nor the Son the Father that\n  _begat_ him; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from\n  whom he _proceeds_: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and\n  proper _persons_; for he that _begets_, and he that is _begotten_, and\n  he that _proceeds_ from both, cannot be one and the same person.\n  \u201cAnd as this _difference_ of _relations_ makes a manifest distinction\n  between the three persons; so the different _offices_ and\n  _employments_, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farther\n  _note_ of discrimination. For who sees not, that the work of\n  _creation_ of all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise,\n  and merciful _disposal_ of them, are attributed to the _Father_; that\n  the great undertaking of our _redemption_ is the care and employment\n  of the _Son_; and the business of _enlightening_ and _sanctifying_\n  those, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of the _Holy\n  Ghost_? Without supposing them to be three distinct persons, I say, no\n  satisfactory solution can be given, why, in the great work of man\u2019s\n  salvation, a distinct office and operation should be proper to each of\n  them; why the Father only should be said to _elect_; the Son only to\n  _have shed and sprinkled his blood_; and the Holy Ghost only to\n  _sanctify_ us unto obedience. So far then as a diversity of names,\n  offices, and operations, distinguishes one being from another, there\n  is plainly a distinction of persons subsisting in the Godhead. But\n  this is not all. Those, who pretend to state[95] the true notion of a\n  _person_ as a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it is\n  _a being, which has understanding, and is a distinct, entire substance\n  of itself; an individual substance of a rationed nature, or a complete\n  intelligent substance, with a peculiar manner of subsistence_: so that\n  there is a _common_ nature, which must be joined by a _peculiar_\n  manner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a mere\n  _mode_; for _we never conceive a person without the essence in\n  conjunction with it_. And this notion may haply be of use, not only to\n  _state_ the true _distinction_ of the Persons in the Godhead, but to\n  account likewise for some _dubious_ passages in the fathers, and\n  reconcile the different parties that contend about them: only we must\n  take care (as I said before) that, when we discourse of the sacred\n  _Trinity_, the word _person_ be not conceived in the same sense as\n  among men. The _persons_ of men are _distinct_ men, as well as\n  distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that the\n  _persons_ in the divine nature are distinct _Gods_. The distinction of\n  the persons of men is founded in a _separate_ and divided subsistence;\n  but this cannot be the foundation of the _distinction_ of the _divine_\n  persons, because _separation_ and _division_ cannot belong to an\n  _infinite_ Being. In a word, three human _persons_ are three _men_,\n  because, though they have the same _specific_ nature, yet they have\n  not the same _numerical_ nature: but the three Persons in the Godhead\n  are not three _Gods_, because they have the same _numerical_ essence,\n  which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all\n  hands, that _nature_ and _subsistence_ go to the making up of a\n  _person_, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as\n  the _human_ and _Divine_ natures (one _finite_, and the other\n  _infinite_) are confessed to be? Though therefore in things _created_\n  it is necessary for one single essence to subsist in one single\n  person, and no more; yet this does not at all prove that the same must\n  be necessary in _him_, whose _nature_ is wholly different from\n  _theirs_, and, consequently, may differ as much in the _manner_ of his\n  subsistence. For \u2019tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare\n  reason to imagine, that the _divine_ nature has a way of subsisting\n  very _different_ from the subsistence of any _created_ being, and\n  consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three\n  distinct persons: but _how_, and in what manner _this_ is effected;\n  how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes\n  theirs; how of one and the same _essence_, there can be three persons\n  _numerically_ different; this is the _difficulty_, and what made the\n  holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, \u2018That the _mystery_\n  of the Trinity is _immense_ and incomprehensible, beyond the\n  expression of words, or reach of sense; that it blinds our sight, and\n  exceeds the capacity of our understanding: I understand it not, says\n  he; nevertheless I will comfort myself in this, that angels are\n  ignorant of it, nor do ages apprehend it; that neither the apostles\n  enquired after it, nor the Son himself has thought fit to declare it.\u2019\n  \u201cThe only valid objection (and to which all others are reducible)\n  against these _personalities_, so often occurring in scripture, is\n  taken from the _simplicity_ of the divine nature, which, in the\n  opinion of some, will not admit of any _distinction_. But though the\n  simplicity of God excludes all _mixture_, _i. e._ all composition of\n  things _heterogeneous_ in the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but\n  what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction of\n  _hypostases_ in the Godhead, provided they are _homogeneous_, and of\n  the same nature. Nay, the simplicity of the divine nature, if rightly\n  considered, is so far from excluding, that it necessarily infers a\n  distinction of _hypostases_ in the Godhead: for, since the simplicity\n  of the Godhead consists chiefly in this, that God is a pure eternal\n  Mind, free from the mixture of all kind of matter whatever; an eternal\n  Mind must needs have in it, from all eternity, _a notion or conception\n  of itself_, which the schools call _verbum mentis_; nor can it, at any\n  time, be conceived without it. Now this _word_ cannot be in God, what\n  it is in us, a _transient vanishing_ accident; for then the divine\n  nature would be compounded of _substance_ and _accident_, which would\n  be repugnant to its _simplicity_; and therefore must be a _substantial\n  subsisting word_, and though not divided, yet distinct from the\n  eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is no _novel subtlety_ of\n  the _schools_, but a notion, that[96] runs through all the Fathers of\n  the first ages, and is not destitute of a sufficient foundation in\n  scripture. It proves indeed only two Persons in the Godhead, not a\n  _Trinity_; but then it proves, that a _distinction_ of persons in the\n  Godhead is very consistent with its _simplicity_; nay, that from the\n  true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction\n  necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction of _two_, there may\n  be of _three_; and that there is of _three_, the full evidence of\n  scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.\u201d\n  STACKHOUSE.\nFootnote 94:\n  To confirm this we may add, that, if the difference of copies happened\n  by the negligence of transcribers, such a mistake is much more easily\n  made by _omitting_ a clause, than by _inserting one_, especially when\n  the same words occur twice very near together, which is the present\n  case: and that, without this clause, the next verse is maimed, and\n  hardly good sense, the words, _in earth_, standing disjointed by\n  themselves; whereas the words, _in heaven_, (as we now read them) make\n  a clear, strong, and elegant antithesis: and for these reasons, those\n  copies, in which this passage is found, are more likely to be true,\n  than those in which it is wanting.\u2014_Trapp\u2019s Doctrine of the Trinity._\nFootnote 95:\n  A late learned author has given us this definition of a _single\n  person_, \u201cThat it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive\n  characters of _I_, _thou_, and _he_, and not divided or distinguished\n  into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.\u201d\n  [_Waterland\u2019s_ second Defence,] and thereupon he thus argues in\n  another place, \u201cOur ideas of person are plainly taken from our\n  conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other\n  subjects, though they do not strictly answer in every circumstance.\n  Properly speaking, _he_ and _him_, are no more applicable to a divine\n  person, than _she_ or _her_;\u201d but we have no third way of denoting a\n  person, and so, of the two, we choose the best, and custom\n  familiarizes it.\u2014_His Sermons at Lady Moyer\u2019s Lectures._\nFootnote 96:\n  It has, with good reason, been supposed by the _Catholick_ writers,\n  that the design of the word \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 was to intimate, that the relation\n  of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that of\n  _thought_, _viz._ that as thought is _co-eval_ with the mind, so the\n  Son is co-eval with the Father; and that as thought is closely united\n  to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind, so also may we\n  understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from\n  him, and yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with\n  him.\u2014_Waterland\u2019s Sermons at Lady Moyer\u2019s Lectures._\nFootnote 97:\n  _Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to\n  explain it, call the former a_ \u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd, stans; _the latter_, fluens.\nFootnote 98:\n  \u201cIn the Saviour\u2019s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God\n  comes chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word,\n  rational creatures are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons\n  or Children of God; and that in various respects, and for obvious\n  reasons. But certainly that name in Christ signifies something higher.\n  John x. 35-38. He is not only _a_ Son of God, but _the_ Son, by way of\n  eminence above all \u03bf \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and\n  proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that\n  the Son of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.\u2014He is God\u2019s\n  only-begotten Son. John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God\u2019s own Son. Rom. viii.\n  32. \u2018To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this\n  day have I begotten thee?\u2019 Heb. i. 5. When Christ spoke to his\n  disciples concerning the Father, he never said, _our Father_, (as he\n  had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction _my\n  Father_. Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.\u2014\u2014From the\n  prophetic doctrine, that name was known in Israel, as in its full\n  force applicable to the Messias; which can be clearly evinced from\n  various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63. Mark iii. 11. John vi.\n  69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions,\n  they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was\n  among them a ground of _adoration_, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so\n  that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine\n  works, called God _his Father_, they thence concluded, which the\n  Saviour did not contradict, that he held God for his own Father, and\n  thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36. Indeed, however\n  intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ, and\n  being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different,\n  something more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son\n  of God[99]. In the love of the truth, let us observe the divine\n  testimony, he did not become the Son of God by or after his coming in\n  the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry; but herein is\n  God\u2019s great mercy celebrated, that \u2018he sent him who was his Son, made\n  him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.\u2019 This is evident,\n  from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1\n  John iv. 9, 10. It is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the\n  vineyard sent to the husbandmen many servants, some of whom they beat,\n  and others they slew. Having therefore yet one son who was dear to\n  him, he sent him last of all to them, saying, \u2018they will surely\n  reverence my son.\u2019 Mark xii. 6.\u2014\u2014In his supreme excellence, as the Son\n  of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, \u2018he\n  is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.\u2019\n  Heb. i. 3. On the self-same account, he is, according to the language\n  of men, his heir, that is, has a natural right to all the works of\n  God, especially to his church; which are also made by him, in\n  communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty strain by the\n  apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus\n  himself. Mark xii. 6, 7.\u2014\u2014Though, therefore, a further theological\n  illustration of Christ\u2019s divine sonship should best be preceded by the\n  proof of his true Deity, yet in the meantime, the name Son of God, as\n  ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished elevation\n  above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to his unity\n  of nature with the Father,[100] and to the ground of his existence in\n  the eternal and necessary existence of the Father.\u201d\n  WYNPERSSE.\nFootnote 99:\n  Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however,\n  there is a different reading in the Greek. But compare Jesus\u2019 first\n  accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the Christ. (Luke xxiii.\n  2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John\nFootnote 100:\n  _Unity of nature with the Father._ In the original it is equality of\n  his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid\n  is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as\n  above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the\n  worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express\n  words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where\n  he says, \u201cwe dare not esteem Christ less than \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, that is, of\n  the _same nature_ or essence with God.\u201d\nFootnote 101:\n  \u201cThe meaning of the terms, _Son of God_, _only-begotten Son of God_,\n  must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea\n  signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive\n  professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1\n  John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians,\n  there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the\n  apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the\n  only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of\n  God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would\n  have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian\n  faith.\n  \u201cIt has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ\u2019s sonship\n  is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous\n  conception: _The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\n  Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which\n  shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God_.\n  \u201cIt is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy\n  Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does\n  not follow that by this he became the _Son_, or _only-begotten Son of\n  God_. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has\n  been thought that the phrase _Son of God_, in this place, is used in a\n  peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ\u2019s human\n  nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the\n  extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of\n  God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being\n  produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in\n  the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be\n  peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from\n  it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that\n  the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same\n  sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it\n  does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It\n  may be a reason given why Christ is _called_ the Son of God; but not\n  why he _is_ so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the\n  dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i.\n  4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is\n  impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from\n  his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his\n  resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose\n  from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his\n  miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby\n  _proved_, _acknowledged_, or, as the scriptures express it, _declared_\n  to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.\n  \u201cWhether the terms, _Son of God_, and _only-begotten Son of God_, be\n  not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all\n  consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb\n  of the Virgin, let the following things determine.\n  \u201c_First_: The glory of the _only-begotten of the Father_, and the\n  glory of the _Word_, are used as convertible terms, as being the same:\n  but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ,\n  antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of\n  the former. _The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory_; that\n  is, the glory of the Word, _the glory as of the only-begotten of the\n  Father, full of grace and truth_. John i. 14. It is true, it was by\n  the Word being _made flesh, and dwelling amongst us_, that his glory\n  became _apparent_; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word,\n  and this is the same as _the glory of the only-begotten of the\n  Father_.\n  \u201c_Secondly_: The Son of God is said to _dwell in the bosom of the\n  Father_; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and\n  designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men.\n  _The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath\n  declared him._ John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, or\n  _that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to\n  us_, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience\n  as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became\n  the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by\n  any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.\n  \u201c_Thirdly_: God is frequently said to have _sent_ his Son into the\n  world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he\n  was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no\n  less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth\n  his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of\n  his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.\n  \u201c_Fourthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his\n  miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by\n  it.\u2014_In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,\n  made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the\n  law\u2014God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh._ Gal. iv.\n  4. Rom. viii. 3.\u2014The terms, _made of a woman_, _made under the law_,\n  are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his\n  Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman,\n  and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken,\n  expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great\n  end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the\n  sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was the _Son\n  of God_ before he was _made of a woman_, as that he was _the Word_\n  before he was _made flesh_. The phraseology is the same in the one\n  case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the\n  Son of God _on account_ of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so,\n  it is also on account of his being _made under the law_, which is too\n  absurd to admit of a question.\u2014Moreover: To say that _God sent his own\n  Son in the likeness of sinful flesh_, is equal to saying that the Son\n  of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of\n  God before his incarnation.\n  \u201c_Fifthly_: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: but he was manifested\n  to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature;\n  consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature\n  being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John\n  iii. 8. that he was the _Son of God_ antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to destroy the works of the devil_, as there is from that\n  of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was _God_ antecedent to his being\n  _manifested in the flesh_; or from 1 John i. 2, that _that eternal\n  life, which was with the Father_, was such antecedent to his being\n  _manifested to us_.\n  \u201c_Sixthly_: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered\n  _in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit_.\n  Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, _Father_ and _Holy Spirit_, will be\n  allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given\n  for another idea being fixed to the term _Son_?\n  \u201c_Seventhly_: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of\n  Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise\n  of _condescension_. But the same is true of his sonship: _He maketh\n  the Son a High Priest\u2014Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience_.\n  Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to\n  the same thing as his being a divine person.\n  \u201c_Eighthly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _dignity_ to\n  his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the\n  _Son of God_. _We have a_ GREAT _High Priest; Jesus, the_ SON _of_\n  GOD. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the\n  same thing as his being a divine person.\n  \u201c_Lastly_: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives _efficacy_ to\n  his sufferings\u2014_By_ HIMSELF _he purges our sins_. Heb. i. 3. But this\n  efficacy is ascribed to his being the _Son of God_\u2014_The blood of Jesus\n  Christ_, HIS SON, _cleanseth us from all sin_. 1 John i. 7. His being\n  the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a\n  divine person.\n  \u201cThose who attribute Christ\u2019s sonship to his miraculous conception,\n  (those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow\n  that the term _implies_ proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from\n  John v. 18, where his saying that _God was his own Father_ is supposed\n  to be _making himself equal with God_. But if the miraculous\n  conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it\n  contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the\n  over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a\n  creature; _i. e._ he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son\n  of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to\n  pretend to be nothing more than a man.\n  \u201cIt has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is\n  commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply\n  as a divine person antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the\n  rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the\n  commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his\n  equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby\n  became the king\u2019s son.\n  \u201cIt is further objected, that sonship implies _inferiority_, and\n  therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.\u2014But,\n  whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of Sonship, it is not\n  an inferiority of _nature_, which is the point in question: and if any\n  regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ\u2019s\n  claiming to be the Son of God was _making himself_, not inferior, but\n  _as God_, or _equal with God_.\n  \u201cOnce more: Sonship, it is said, implies _posteriority_, or that\n  Christ, as Son, could not have existed till after the Father. To\n  attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by\n  sonship, is attributing none to him; as nothing can be divine which is\n  not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the\n  divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in\n  duration, in which God was without thought, purpose or design. For it\n  is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he\n  could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son: but\n  if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a\n  point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or\n  design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of\n  this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing\n  between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of\n  nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the\n  order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a\n  single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have\n  existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time, or\n  duration, he never existed without his purpose: for a God, without\n  thought or purpose, were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the\n  Father must have existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he\n  never existed without the Son, The Father and the Son therefore are\n  properly eternal.\u201d\n  FULLER.\nFootnote 102:\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 _is used six times in the New Testament; in two or three of\n  which places it might be rendered, without deviating from the sense of\n  the respective texts,_ & quidem, _as well as_ quamvis; _and I see no\n  reason why the enclitic particle_ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, _being added to_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, _should\n  always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when\n  it is joined to_ \u03c9\u03c2, \u03b5\u03b1\u03bd, _or_ \u03b5\u03b9. _And whereas I render_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, _in\n  ver. 9._ But, _instead of_ And, _that may be justified by several\n  scriptures, where it is so rendered; as Luke vii. 35. Matth. xii. 39.\nFootnote 103:\n  Dr. Ridgley differs from the most of his brethren on the Sonship of\n  Christ as Mediator. The following note, and the two preceding,\n  represent, it is presumed, the orthodox doctrine on this important\n  head.\n  \u201cThe Redeemer is the Son of God, in a peculiar and appropriated sense,\n  and by which he is distinguished from every other person in the\n  universe. He is therefore called the _first begotten_, or first born\n  son of God: his _only begotten son_, _his own son_; and eminently _The\n  Son_, and _The Son of the Father_. His _dear Son_; or, as it is in the\n  original, _The Son of his love_; His _beloved Son, in whom he is well\n  pleased_. \u2018For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when\n  there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my\n  beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\u2019 2 Pet. i. 17. He is \u2018The only\n  begotten Son, _which is in the bosom of the Father_.\u2019 John i. 18. Who\n  only knows the Father; and none does or can reveal and make him known\n  but the Son. Matt. xi. 27. John i. 18. He being the brightness of his\n  glory, and the express image of his person; he that hath seen the Son,\n  hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9. Heb. i. 3. Which epithets and\n  declarations distinguish him from all other sons; as much as his\n  Father is distinguished from all other fathers. He is mentioned as the\n  Son of God above _an hundred times_ in the New Testament; and fifty\n  times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is\n  mentioned above _two hundred and twenty times_; and more than one\n  hundred and thirty times in the gospel and epistles of St. John. Jesus\n  Christ often makes use of the epithets, _The Father_, _My Father_, &c.\n  This character is represented as essential to the Redeemer and\n  peculiar to him, and is an essential article of the Christian faith.\n  This confession Peter made as the common faith of the disciples of\n  Christ. \u2018We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son\n  of the living God,\u2019 John vi. 69. Matt. xvi. 16. This was the Eunuch\u2019s\n  faith, required in order to his being baptized. \u2018I believe that Jesus\n  Christ _is the Son of God_.\u2019 And he who believes with all his heart,\n  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, hath the Son, and with him\n  eternal life. When Peter made this confession, \u2018Thou art Christ, the\n  Son of the living God,\u2019 Christ said to him, \u2018Blessed art thou; for\n  flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is\n  in heaven.\u2019 Matt. xvi. 16, 17. \u2018He that believeth on the Son, hath\n  everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see\n  life.\u2019 John iii. 36. And John says, \u2018Whosoever shall confess that\n  Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Who is he\n  that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son\n  of God! He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son\n  of God, hath not life. These things have I written unto you _that\n  believe on the name of the Son of God_: that ye may know ye have\n  eternal life, and that ye may _believe on the name of the Son of\n  \u201cIt must be farther observed, that this title, the Son of God, is the\n  _highest title_ that is given to the Redeemer, and denotes his\n  divinity, or that he is himself God, and therefore equal with the\n  Father, if his divinity be any where expressed in the Bible; and that\n  it is there abundantly declared, we have before shewed. He styles\n  himself, and is called _The Son of Man_, more than _eighty times_ in\n  the New Testament, by which epithet his humanity is more especially\n  denoted, but not excluding his divinity. And, on the contrary, he is\n  called the Son of God, more particularly to express his infinitely\n  superior character, his divinity or godhead. In this view, let the\n  following passages be considered. When the angel, who declared to the\n  virgin Mary that she should be the mother of the Messiah, expressed to\n  her the greatness of this her Son, he does it by saying that he should\n  be called _the Son of the Highest_, _the Son of God_. \u2018He shall be\n  great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Therefore also that\n  holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of\n  God.\u2019 Luke i. 32, 35. If this were not his greatest, his highest title\n  and character, he most certainly would have given him a higher, and\n  one that did fully express divinity. This, therefore, did express it\n  in the fullest and strongest manner. And no one, who believes in the\n  divinity of Christ, can, consistently, have any doubt of it. And when\n  the Father gives him the highest encomium, and recommends him to men,\n  as worthy of their highest regards, implicit obedience, and unlimited\n  trust and confidence, and commands them thus to regard, love, trust\n  in, and obey him, this is the highest character he gives him, by which\n  his divinity is expressed, \u2018This is _my beloved_ SON, in whom I am\n  well pleased: Hear ye him.\u2019 If this does not express his divinity, we\n  may be sure divinity is no part of his character; and that he is not\n  God. So, when Peter undertakes to express the idea he had of the high\n  and glorious character of his Lord and Master, he does it in the\n  following words, \u2018Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\u2019 If\n  Peter believed the divinity of Christ, he certainly expressed this in\n  these words; for he did not conceive of any higher character, that\n  could be given in any other words. This also appears by Nathaniel\u2019s\n  using this epithet, when he was struck with wonder and surprise at the\n  omniscience of Christ. \u2018Rabbi, thou art _the_ SON _of God_, thou art\n  the King of Israel.\u2019 John i. 49. When our Lord Jesus Christ proposed\n  himself to the man whom he had restored to sight, as the proper object\n  of his faith and trust, he said to him, \u2018Dost thou believe on the Son\n  of God?\u2019 And when he told the man that he himself was the person, he\n  said, \u2018Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.\u2019 John ix. 35, 38. It\n  appears from this, that _Son of God_ was the highest title which Jesus\n  assumed, and that this had special reference to, and expressed his\n  divinity; and therefore in this character, and as the Son of God, this\n  pious man paid him divine honour, and worshipped him. When the\n  disciples of our Lord, and all that were in the ship with them, had\n  seen him walking upon the sea, in the midst of a terrible storm, and\n  reducing the boisterous winds, and raging waves, to a calm, by his\n  word and presence, they were struck with a fresh and affecting\n  conviction of his divinity, that he was God, and expressed it by\n  coming to him, falling down and worshiping him, \u2018saying, of a truth,\n  thou art the Son of God.\u2019 Matt. xiv. 33. In which words they expressed\n  his divinity, and gave a reason for their worshipping him, as their\n  Lord and their God, _viz._ that they were sure from clear and abundant\n  evidence, that he was the Son of God. The apostle John, when he would\n  represent Jesus Christ in his highest and most glorious character,\n  gives him this title, and adds, \u2018This is the true God.\u2019 He says, \u2018We\n  know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding,\n  that we may know him that is true: And we are in him that is true,\n  _even_ in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal\n  life.\u2019 1 John v. 20.\n  \u201cIt is to be farther observed, that when our Lord said to the Jews,\n  \u2018My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,\u2019 the Jews, therefore sought\n  the more to kill him, _because he said that God was his Father_, (_his\n  own proper Father_, as it is in the original) \u2018MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL\n  WITH GOD.\u2019 This is to be understood as the sense which St. John the\n  Evangelist puts upon the words of Christ, \u2018My Father worketh hitherto,\n  and I work.\u2019 For this was making himself equal with God the Father, as\n  doing the same work with him: And this is represented as implied in\n  God\u2019s being _his own Father_; or in his being the Father\u2019s own Son,\n  the Son of God. But if we understand it as the sense which the Jews\n  put upon the words of Christ, and that they said this was making\n  himself equal with God, it amounts to the same thing; for it appears\n  that their inference was just; and our Saviour is so far from denying\n  it to be true, that in his reply to them, he confirms it, and asserts\n  that whatsoever the Father does, the Son does the same; and instances\n  in his raising the dead, and judging the world, and having all things,\n  and all power in his hands. \u2018That all men should honour the Son, even\n  as they honour the Father.\u2019 John v. 13-17. Thus he makes the Son equal\n  with the Father. Hence it appears that to be the Son of God, and God\u2019s\n  own Son, is the same with a divine person, and denotes one who is\n  truly God; and that this title is used to express the divinity, rather\n  than the humanity of Jesus Christ.\n  \u201cThe same appears from what passed between our Lord and the Jews at\n  another time. He said to them, \u2018I and my Father are One.\u2019 This, they\n  said, was blasphemy, because being a man, he made himself God. It is\n  plain from the answer which he makes to them that they considered him\n  as a blasphemer, because he claimed to be the Son of God, by calling\n  God his Father. \u2018Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and\n  sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, _I am the Son\n  of God_?\u2019 This was the blasphemy with which they charged him; because\n  they considered his saying, that he was the Son of God, by calling God\n  his Father, as an assertion that he was God. John x. 30, 33, 36. And\n  it appears, not only from this passage, but from others, that the\n  Jews, and others, did affix the idea of divinity to the Son of God,\n  and considered this title as expressing a character infinitely above a\n  mere creature. When Jesus was arraigned before the Jewish council, the\n  High Priest charged him with the solemnity of an oath, saying, \u2018I\n  adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the\n  Christ, the Son of the living God.\u2019 And when Jesus answered in the\n  affirmative, he with all the members of the council, charged him with\n  blasphemy; and pronounced him worthy of death for making this claim.\n  Matt. xxvi. 64, 65, 66. And they brought this accusation against him\n  to Pilate, \u2018We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he\n  made himself the Son of God. When, therefore, Pilate heard that\n  saying, he was the more afraid.\u2019 John xix. 7, 8. By this, it is\n  evident that Pilate considered the Son of God, to imply divinity. When\n  the Centurion, and the guard who were with him, saw the earthquake and\n  the other supernatural events which attended the crucifixion of Jesus\n  Christ, \u2018they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.\u2019\n  Matt, xxvii. 54. From this, it is evident that they considered the Son\n  of God to be more than a man, at least, if not really God.\n  \u201cThere was some idea and belief propagated among other nations, as\n  well as the Jews, of an extraordinary personage, a divinity, who was\n  denominated _The Son of God_, and who was to make his appearance in\n  the world. To this, Nebuchadnezzar doubtless had reference, when he\n  said, that in a vision, he saw a fourth person, walking in the midst\n  of the fire of the furnace into which he had cast three men; and that\n  none of them had been hurt by the fire; and the form of the fourth was\n  _like the Son of God_. Dan iii. 25. And who but this divine person can\n  be meant by Agur, when he says, \u2018Who hath ascended up into heaven, or\n  descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the\n  waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth?\n  What is his name, _and what is his Son\u2019s name_, if thou canst tell?\u2019\n  Prov. xxx. 4.\n  \u201cThis epithet and character we find expressly mentioned by David, the\n  divinely inspired king of Israel, in the second Psalm. And he is there\n  introduced and described, as a divinity, who claims divine homage,\n  trust, and worship, as the Omnipotent heir, possessor and ruler of the\n  world. \u2018I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou\n  art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give\n  thee the heathen for thine inheritance, _and the uttermost parts of\n  the earth for thy possession_. Thou shalt break them with a rod of\n  iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel. Be wise\n  now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.\n  Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. _Kiss the Son_,\n  lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is\n  kindled but a little. _Blessed are all they that put their trust in\n  him._\u2019[104] From this ancient oracle in Israel, and from a revelation\n  which was made upon the first apostacy, and handed down by tradition,\n  not only the Jews, but also those of other nations who had any\n  particular connexion with them, were taught to consider the expected\n  Messiah as the Son of God in a peculiar and appropriated sense; and as\n  implying real divinity. Therefore, it was supposed on all hands, that\n  this person, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the King of the Jews,\n  was to be worshipped as worthy to receive divine honours. Hence the\n  wise men from the East, being admonished of the birth of this glorious\n  personage, came to worship him, to pay him divine honours; for which\n  they had a particular warrant, having had him pointed out to them by a\n  STAR, which was a known symbol, or hieroglyphic of the Divinity, or a\n  God. And Herod took it for granted, that this person was to be\n  worshipped, and receive divine honours. For he said to the wise men,\n  \u2018When ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come _and\n  worship him also_.\u2019\n  \u201cAll this will be of no weight, indeed, and as nothing with the\n  Anti-trinitarians, the Sabellians; and with all those who deny the\n  divinity of Jesus Christ, the Arians and Socinians. But they who\n  believe in a Trinity of persons in the Deity, and that Jesus Christ is\n  God, the second person of the Trinity, must be sensible that he is\n  called the Son of God, the Son of the Father, with a special reference\n  to his divine nature, and to denote his Godhead, as the second person\n  in the Triune God.\u2014The Arians and Socinians hold that he is the Son of\n  God, considered as a mere creature, being by this distinguished from\n  all other creatures; and consequently that there was no Son of God\n  before this creature did exist. The latter, or Trinitarians, believe\n  that the sonship of Jesus Christ, necessarily includes his divinity;\n  but are not all agreed as to the foundation of his sonship, and in\n  what it consists. It has been generally believed, and the common\n  doctrine of the church of Christ, from the beginning of the fourth\n  century, and so far as appears from the days of the apostles to this\n  time, that Jesus Christ is the _eternal_ Son of God: That his Sonship\n  is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and that _in\n  this sense_, he is _the only begotten Son of the Father_, antecedent\n  to his incarnation, and independent on it, even from eternity. But\n  there are some who think that the Sonship of the Redeemer consists in\n  an union of the second person of the Trinity, or the Word, with the\n  human nature; and that he became the Son of God by becoming man; and\n  therefore before the incarnation, there was no Son of God, though\n  there were a Trinity of persons in the GODHEAD. This opinion seems to\n  be rather gaining ground, and spreading, of late.\n  \u201cThose on each side of this question differ in their opinion of the\n  importance of it, and of the bad tendency of either of these opposite\n  sentiments. Some suppose that the difference is of little or no\n  importance, as both believe the Redeemer to be God and man, in one\n  person, and that he is the Son of God, and that this implies his\n  divinity, though they differ in opinion respecting the time and manner\n  of his filiation. Others think this is a difference so great and\n  important, and attended with such consequences; and that those who are\n  opposed to them on this point embrace such a great and dangerous\n  error, that they ought to be strenuously opposed: and consequently do\n  not desire an accommodation, or think it possible.\n  \u201cThough it be needless and improper here to undertake the labour of\n  entering into all the arguments which have been produced, or may be\n  mentioned in support of each side of this question; yet the following\n  observations may not be altogether useless; but may be of some help to\n  form a judgment upon this point, agreeable to the scriptures.\n  \u201c1. As this question respects the character of the Redeemer, it may\n  justly be considered as an important one; as every thing relating to\n  his character is very important and interesting. Who would be willing\n  to be found at last taking the wrong side of this question; and always\n  to have entertained so unbecoming ideas and conceptions of the\n  Redeemer, which his must be, if on this point he embraces and contends\n  for that which is directly contrary to the truth? Though such an error\n  should not be fatal to him who embraces it, but be consistent with his\n  being a real Christian; yet it must be a very criminal mistake, and\n  dishonourable to Jesus Christ; as every idea of him must be, which is\n  contrary to his true character: For that is so perfect and glorious,\n  that nothing can be taken from it, or added to it, which will not mar\n  and dishonour it. His character, as it respects the question before\n  us, is without doubt properly and clearly stated in divine revelation,\n  and if we embrace that which is contrary to the truth, it must be\n  wholly our own fault, and a very criminal abuse of the advantages\n  which we enjoy, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ his Son,\n  whom he has sent. Those considerations ought to awaken our attention\n  to this subject, and excite a concern and earnest desire to know and\n  embrace the truth; which will be attended with a modest, humble,\n  diligent enquiry, sensible of the danger in which we are, through\n  prejudice, or from other causes, of embracing error; and earnestly\n  looking to the great Prophet to lead us into the truth.\n  \u201c2. What has been observed above, and, it is believed, made evident,\n  _viz._ that the term, Son of God, so often given to Christ, is used to\n  denote his divine nature, and to express his divinity, rather than his\n  humanity, seems naturally, if not necessarily, to lead us to consider\n  this character as belonging to him independent of his union to the\n  human nature, and antecedent to his becoming man; and therefore, that\n  it belongs to him as God, the second person in the Trinity. For if his\n  sonship consists in his union to the human nature, and he became a\n  son, only by becoming a man; then this character depends wholly upon\n  this union, and is derived from his being made flesh: Therefore this\n  epithet could not be properly used to denote his divinity, independent\n  of his humanity, or what he is as a divine person, antecedent to his\n  incarnation; or to express his divine, rather than his human nature.\n  And Son of God, would be no higher a character, and express no more\n  than Son of man; which is contrary to the idea which the scripture\n  gives us on this head, as has been shown.\n  \u201cThis may, perhaps, be in some measure illustrated by the following\n  instance. The son of a nobleman of the first honour and dignity, came\n  from Europe, and married the daughter of a plebian in America, by\n  which he became his son: But as his honour and dignity did not consist\n  in his marrying this woman, or in his being the son of the plebian, by\n  this union with his daughter, but in his original character; no man\n  thought of expressing his highest and most dignified character by\n  which he was worthy of the greatest respect, by using an epithet which\n  denoted only his union to that woman, and which was not applicable to\n  him in any other view; or by calling him _son_, as expressing this new\n  relation: But the highest title which they gave him, was that which\n  had a special respect to, and expressed his original character, which\n  he sustained antecedent to this union; and in which his highest\n  dignity consisted. And he being the son of a nobleman and a lord, in\n  which all his honour and dignity did consist, they used this phrase,\n  My noble Lord, to express their highest respect, and his most worthy\n  character. This epithet was always used to express his original and\n  highest character and relation, and could not, with propriety, be used\n  to express any thing else. He was often called, indeed, the son of the\n  plebian, when they designed particularly to express his union to his\n  wife, and speak of him as standing in this relation.\n  \u201c3. The Son of God is spoken of in many instances, if not in every one\n  where this term is used, so as will naturally lead the reader to\n  consider him as sustaining this character and relation antecedent to\n  his incarnation, and independent of it. \u2018God so loved the World _that\n  he gave his only begotten Son_.\u2019 John iii. 16. Do not these words seem\n  to express this idea, _viz._ that there existed an only begotten son,\n  antecedent to his being given; that God gave this his Son to the world\n  by his becoming flesh, and being united to the human nature; and not\n  that he became his Son by this union? \u2018In this was manifested the love\n  of God towards us, because that God _sent his only begotten Son into\n  the world_, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that\n  we loved God, but that he loved us, _and sent his Son_ to be a\n  propitiation for our sins.\u2019 1 John iv. 9, 10. If God _sent_ his only\n  begotten Son into the world, does not this suppose he had a Son to\n  send, antecedent to his sending him; and that he did not become his\n  Son by his sending him into the world, or only in consequence of this!\n  This is expressed in the same manner by St. Paul. \u2018But when the\n  fulness of time was come God _sent forth his Son_, made of a woman,\n  made under the law.\u2019 Gal. iv. 4. The Son was _sent forth_. Does not\n  this seem at least to imply that there was a Son to be sent forth\n  antecedent to his being made of a woman, and that he was not made a\n  Son, by being made of a woman or becoming man? \u2018No man hath seen God\n  at any time: _The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the\n  Father_, he hath declared him.\u2019 John i. 18. Do not these words\n  naturally lead us to conceive of the only begotten Son as existing in\n  the nearest union with the Father as his Son, independent of the human\n  nature?\n  \u201cIt is said, \u2018God _was manifested in the flesh_.\u2019 1 Tim. iii. 16. It\n  would be unnatural and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that\n  Jesus Christ was not God, antecedent to his being manifested in the\n  flesh, and that by his becoming man, he became a God. Directly the\n  contrary to this is asserted, _viz._ that he who is God from eternity,\n  did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself to be\n  God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said,\n  \u2018For this purpose, the Son of God _was manifested_, that he might\n  destroy the works of the devil.\u2019 1 John iii. 8. These two passages\n  appear to be parallel. God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God\n  manifested, are two expressions of the same thing. From this it may be\n  inferred, that the Son of God, and God, are synonymous here, and of\n  the same import. This serves to confirm what has been said above of\n  the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it not with equal\n  certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together, that\n  the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent\n  to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he\n  did not become the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be\n  manifested in the flesh, there must be a God to be manifested\n  antecedent to such a manifestation, and independent of it. And is it\n  not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested, he must have\n  existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation, and\n  independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by\n  his being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the\n  union of the divine and human natures in one person. His personality\n  existed before this union with the human nature; and he was the Son of\n  God before this: This same Son of God, this same person who existed\n  without beginning, assumed the human nature, not a human person, into\n  a union with himself, his own person, and so appeared, was manifested\n  in the flesh.\n  \u201cWhen David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as\n  saying, \u2018Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,\u2019 so long\n  before his incarnation, the idea which most naturally arises in the\n  mind from this is, that there was then such a person as the Son, who\n  did at that time declare the decree, by the mouth of David; and not,\n  that there should in some future time be a Son begotten, who should\n  _then_ declare the decree. \u2018I will declare the decree: The Lord said\n  unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.\u2019 It is very\n  unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, \u2018this\n  day have I begotten thee,\u2019 means I will beget thee in some future\n  time; and that the Son should be made to declare the decree, long\n  before any such person existed; and when there was in fact no such\n  Son. The decree which the Son declares is not that declaration, \u2018Thou\n  art my son, this day have I begotten thee;\u2019 but what follows, \u2018ask of\n  me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the\n  uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them\n  with a rod of iron, &c.\u2019 \u2018_This day_,\u2019 that is, _now_, not in time\n  which is passed, or which is to come; for with God there is no\n  succession, no time passed or to come; but he exists, as we may say,\n  in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore, when we speak of an\n  eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, \u2018This day,\n  or NOW, have I begotten thee.\u2019 This therefore is the sense in which\n  the best divines have generally understood it.\n  \u201cSt. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the\n  resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that\n  he by the resurrection became the Son of God, and was then begotten:\n  for he had this title before that. His meaning is explained by himself\n  in his epistle to the Romans. \u2018_Declared_ to be the Son of God by the\n  resurrection from the dead.\u2019 Rom. i. 4. That is, this was a fresh and\n  open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what had been\n  often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son\n  of God.\n  \u201cWhat the angel said to the virgin Mary, \u2018He shall be great, and shall\n  he called the Son of the Highest\u2014The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,\n  and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also\n  that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son\n  of God,\u2019 cannot reasonably be understood as a declaration that his\n  sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the union of the\n  second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived:\n  But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin,\n  should appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who\n  had been spoken of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom\n  Isaiah had particularly spoken, when he said, \u2018Behold, a virgin shall\n  conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Unto us a\n  Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: And his\n  name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God:\u2019 Isaiah\n  vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin Mary:\n  the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the\n  people of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall\n  bear, as he is indeed the mighty God.\n  \u201cWe are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this\n  character before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what\n  is said of him in the first chapter of John. \u2018The Word was made flesh,\n  and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of\n  the Father. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,\n  which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John bare\n  witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, he\n  that cometh after me, is preferred before me: _For he was before me_.\n  And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.\u2019 Here John is\n  represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore\n  witness, did exist _before him_, which therefore must be _before his\n  incarnation_; for John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus.\n  But how can this be true, if there were no Son of God, before John\n  existed? But if we consider the Word and the Son of God as synonymous,\n  who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and created all\n  things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy to be understood;\n  and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who existed\n  before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.\n  \u201cWe find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews.\n  \u2018God, who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath\n  in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed\n  heir of all things; _by whom also he made the worlds_. Who being the\n  brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, _and\n  upholding all things by the word of his power_,\u2019 &c. How could God\n  make the worlds _by his Son_, four thousand years before he had a Son;\n  and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this\n  assertion? And how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the\n  word of his power, thousands of years before any Son existed? \u2018And\n  again, _when he bringeth the first begotten into the world_, he saith,\n  And let all the angels of God worship him.\u2019 This expression naturally\n  suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten Son to\n  bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship. How can\n  he be said to _bring_ his first begotten Son _into the world_, when he\n  had no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring\n  this his Son into the world, if he was begotten and received his\n  sonship _in this world_, when he took the human nature in the womb of\n  the virgin, and was not a son before?\n  \u201cAgain, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was \u2018Without father,\n  without mother, without descent, _having neither beginning of days_,\n  nor end of life; _but made like unto the Son of God_.\u2019 Heb. vii. 3. If\n  there were no Son of God till the human nature of Christ existed, then\n  the Son of God did _begin to exist_; consequently there was a\n  beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, but\n  _unlike_ to him, by having no beginning of days.\n  \u201cSince there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many\n  more than have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the\n  Redeemer as the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation, and\n  independent of it, which will naturally lead those who attend to them\n  to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be easily reconciled to\n  the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally\n  received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to\n  this time, _viz._ That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the\n  Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made\n  flesh, by a personal union with the human nature.\n  \u201c4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion,\n  _viz._ That the Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person\n  in the Trinity being united to human nature, and becoming man, does\n  not naturally lead to dangerous and evil consequences; and what good\n  end is to be answered by it? If it be not agreeable to scripture, we\n  know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater or less degree, (as\n  all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer are)\n  and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and of\n  worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly\n  has no bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon\n  it, or from fact and experience, that this opinion tends to evil\n  consequences, and has a bad effect; we may safely conclude that it is\n  wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.\n  \u201c1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer,\n  and lead into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been\n  observed that it appears from scripture, that this title, Son of God,\n  was used to express the highest and most honourable idea which his\n  friends had of his person and character. But if we understand by it,\n  nothing but what takes place by his union to man, by taking flesh upon\n  him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took place by his\n  becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by _Son of man_:\n  And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase,\n  whereby to express the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his\n  equality with the Father. Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of\n  the Redeemer, does it not tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of\n  Christ become an infinitely less and more inconsiderable matter, upon\n  this plan, than that which has always been esteemed the orthodox\n  sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as wholly\n  independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?\n  \u201cWe live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their\n  heads, and are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to\n  cast him out as an impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his\n  divinity: And the careless, ignorant, immoral and profane, treat him\n  with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable to his great enemy,\n  Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree, and has\n  uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and those\n  especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his\n  character. And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning\n  the Sonship of the Redeemer, should spread and prevail _now_, this\n  would be no evidence in favour of it; but, considering what has been\n  now observed, concerning it, would it not give reason to suspect, at\n  least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads to other\n  errors yet more dishonourable to him?\n  \u201cThis leads to observe,\n  \u201c2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the\n  filiation of Jesus Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the\n  Trinity, as it has been held by those who have been called the\n  orthodox in the christian church, and leads to what is called\n  Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to be\n  three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his\n  operations.\n  \u201cThis notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity\n  is the Father of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and\n  that by Father so often mentioned in the New Testament, and generally\n  in relation to the Son is commonly, if not always, meant Deity,\n  without distinction of persons. If this be so, it tends to exclude all\n  distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality of the\n  Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make\n  his union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians\n  admit, _viz._ the same which takes place between God and good men in\n  general; but in a higher and peculiar degree. But if there be no\n  tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the\n  consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident\n  that none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it;\n  yet it remains to be considered _what advantage attends it_, and the\n  good ends it will answer, if it were admitted to be true. None will\n  say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable to the general\n  expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite\n  doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most\n  that any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the\n  scripture may be so construed and understood, as to be consistent with\n  the sonship of Christ, commencing at the incarnation, however\n  inconsistent with it some passages may appear at first view.\n  \u201cIt may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the\n  Redeemer is attended with two advantages, if not with more, _viz._ It\n  frees the doctrine of the Trinity from that which is perfectly\n  incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction and absurdity; that\n  the second person should be Son of the first, who is the Father; the\n  Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which nothing can\n  be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears\n  inconsistent with the second person being equal with the first; for a\n  son begotten of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists\n  after his father, and consequently begins to exist, and is dependent.\n  Both these difficulties are wholly avoided, it is thought, by\n  supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by being\n  united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin.\n  And it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended\n  this scheme of the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led\n  them to reject the commonly received opinion; and not a previous\n  conviction that the former is most agreeable to the scripture. This\n  therefore demands our serious and candid attention. And the following\n  things may be observed upon it.\n  \u201c1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his\n  existence, and the manner of his existence, which to us is\n  incomprehensible and unaccountable, we must reject the doctrine of the\n  Trinity in unity, and even of the existence of a God. The doctrine of\n  three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable by us, and Unitarians\n  consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity imaginable.\n  And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it, and make it\n  more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have\n  really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by \u2018darkening counsel by\n  words without knowledge.\u2019 If we reasoned properly on the matter, we\n  should expect to find in a revelation which God has made of himself,\n  his being and manner of subsistence, mysteries which we can by no\n  means understand, which are to creatures wonderful, and wholly\n  unaccountable. For the being of God, and the manner of his existence,\n  and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension: God\n  is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to search\n  out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are\n  contradictions and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot\n  fathom them; and they appear more unintelligible, the more we try to\n  understand them. \u2018Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou\n  find out the ALMIGHTY to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what\n  canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure\n  thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.\u2019 Job ii.\n  7, 8, 9. \u2018Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say\n  concerning him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.\n  Shall it be told him that _I speak_?\u2019 and attempt to comprehend and\n  explain the mysteries that relate to his existence? \u2018If a man speak,\n  surely he shall be swallowed up.\u2019 Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man\n  undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light, he will be\n  involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.\n  \u201cThey, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus\n  Christ, because it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it\n  appears to be full of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with\n  themselves, for the same reason, reject the doctrine of a Trinity of\n  persons in one God.[105]\n  \u201c2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the\n  second person in the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the\n  light of the foregoing observation, and with a proper sense of our own\n  darkness and infinite inferiority to the divine Being, and how little\n  we can know of him; we shall not be forward to pronounce it\n  inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to do\n  thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and\n  true, notwithstanding any thing we may know; though it be mysterious\n  and incomprehensible. This is a _divine generation_, infinitely above\n  any thing that takes place among creatures, and infinitely different.\n  It is that of which we can have no adequate idea, and is infinitely\n  out of our reach. What incompetent judges are we then of this matter?\n  What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd or inconsistent,\n  when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true,\n  consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God\n  has been pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable\n  mysteries in the existence and manner of subsistence of the infinite\n  Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible, by a finite\n  understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to reveal that of\n  the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the\n  second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best\n  suited to convey those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they\n  should have: And we ought to receive it with meekness and implicit\n  submission, using our reason in excluding every thing which is\n  contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute independence;\n  without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to judge of that\n  which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among\n  creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.\n  \u201cGod is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to\n  be angry, and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands,\n  feet, eyes, mouth, lips and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These\n  words are designed and suited to convey useful ideas, and important\n  instruction to men. But if we should understand these expression as\n  meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they do when applied\n  to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd notions of\n  God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred\n  Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies\n  any change or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the\n  Deity, they will convey nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is\n  unworthy of God. And it will doubtless be equally so in the case\n  before us; if it be constantly kept in mind that the only begotten Son\n  of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above any thing which\n  relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include any\n  beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will\n  effectually exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.\n  \u201cIt will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas\n  of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds,\n  which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any\n  signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following\n  answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and\n  incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the\n  Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens\n  are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different\n  from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a\n  foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that\n  between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which\n  distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and\n  Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is\n  the brightness of the Father\u2019s glory, and the express image of his\n  person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them;\n  and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient\n  to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of\n  conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject;\n  which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the\n  incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the\n  Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right\n  understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer,\n  and of the work of redemption.\n  \u201cWhat has been now said under this second particular, may serve to\n  remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal\n  filiation of the second person in the Trinity, _viz._ that it\n  represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing _after\n  him_, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by\n  the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a _divine\n  filiation_, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and\n  above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits\n  of _before_ or _after_, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be\n  further observed,\n  \u201c3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten\n  Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate,\n  and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great\n  difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater.\n  If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we\n  are examining, wholly ceases.\n  \u201cIf the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human\n  nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much\n  as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin,\n  \u2018The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest\n  shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be\n  born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.\u2019 If we take these words\n  as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be\n  granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity,\n  of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third\n  person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as\n  active in this production as the first person. But if this were no\n  difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce\n  the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ;\n  yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he\n  is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son\n  of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created\n  and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.\n  \u201cIf the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity\n  with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to\n  consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the\n  following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those\n  which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.\n  \u201c1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature\n  generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy\n  or likeness to the other.\n  \u201c2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is\n  as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the\n  second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is\n  gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.\n  \u201c3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person\n  of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and\n  so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy\n  Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it;\n  and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any\n  thing respecting it as such. \u2018The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and\n  the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also, that\n  holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of\n  God.\u2019 \u2018Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his\n  mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, _she\n  was found with child of the Holy Ghost_.\u2019 And the angel of the Lord\n  said unto Joseph, \u2018Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: _For that\n  which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost_.\u2019 Matt. i. 18, 20. And\n  this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed,\n  not to the first, but to the second person. \u2018For as much as the\n  children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part\n  of the same. For verily _he took not on him_ the nature of angels;\n  _but he took on him the seed of Abraham_.\u2019 Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not\n  they speak not only _without scripture_, but _contrary to it_, who say\n  that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the\n  second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by\n  which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the\n  relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and\n  consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any\n  difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent,\n  intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid\n  discerning reader judge.\u201d\n  HOPKINS.\nFootnote 104:\n  This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The\n  Psalmist often says, \u201cBlessed are they, blessed is the man who\n  trusteth in the Lord.\u201d And here he says, Blessed are all they who\n  trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any\n  but God. \u201cPut not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom\n  there is no help. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help,\n  whose hope is in the Lord his God.\u201d Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And he says,\n  \u201cMy soul, wait thou _only_ upon God; for my expectation is from him.\u201d\n  Psalm lxii. 5. They _only_ are blessed, who trust in God; and all\n  others are cursed. \u201cThus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that\n  trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and\n  whose hope the Lord is.\u201d Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust\n  in the Son of God. Therefore he is the Lord.\nFootnote 105:\n  It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of\n  Christ seemed to have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the\n  Trinity; and in what way. But what is here observed, shews how the\n  denial of the former tends, _another way_, to the rejection of the\n  latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible,\n  and appears inconsistent, it may be expected that when the doctrine of\n  the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will appear equally\n  unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it\n  not probable, that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in\n  this way led to give up the doctrine of the Trinity?\nFootnote 106:\n  _See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362._\nFootnote 107:\n  \u039f\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\nFootnote 108:\n  _Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5._\nFootnote 109:\n  _This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to\n  give countenance to, in all those quotations in the New Testament,\n  where the name_ JEHOVAH, _is referred to from the Old._\nFootnote 110:\n  _In two places, indeed, it is rendered by_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God, Gen. iv. 1. and\n  Isa. liv. 13. And there is one place in which some think they attempt\n  a literal translation of it, 2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the\n  people of the Lord, they translate the text_, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1, _in\n  which, some think_, \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1, _is put for_ \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b1, _or_ \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b1, _through the\n  mistake of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication\n  than a literal translation of the words; and whereas some think, the\n  reason of this method used by them in their translation, is, because\n  the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot well be\n  expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a\n  word like it, that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as\n  they attempt to translate other names equally difficult; as in Gen. x.\n  2._ \u0399\u03c9\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd, _for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2._ \u0399\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b5 _for Jehoiada._\nFootnote 111:\n  See Dr. Allix\u2019s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians,\n  chap. xiii. to xvi.\nFootnote 112:\n  _Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix._\nFootnote 113:\n  _It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was\n  manifested, &c._ \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7, _as also in ver. 8. And as for what is\n  said in the last clause of the verse we are considering, that_ he was\n  received up into glory, _it is a very great strain on the sense of\n  these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the\n  words_, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7, _plainly intimate a person\u2019s meeting with a\n  glorious reception when ascending into heaven_; \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n  _signifies_ sursum recipere, _therefore we render it, received up; and\n  so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and his\n  ascension is called, Luke ix. 51._ \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _the time in\n  which he should be received up._\nFootnote 114:\n  _See Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 115:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 86._\nFootnote 116:\n  _Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1\n  Pet. i. 3. wherein_ \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _is put before_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 117:\n  _Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256._\nFootnote 118:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 97._\nFootnote 119:\n  _See Page 307._\nFootnote 120:\n  _It is certain, that_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 _is oftentimes exegetical, as well as\n  copulative; and it appears to be so, by a great many instances in the\n  New Testament; when it is put between two nouns, the first whereof has\n  an article, and the other none; thus it will be acknowledged by all,\n  that it is taken, in 2 Cor._ i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of\n  our Lord Jesus Christ, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1; _so in_ Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes.\n  in_ Col. ii. 2. _In these scriptures, and others of the like nature,\n  the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds good, though they\n  will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour\u2019s Deity, because it\n  militates against their own scheme; as in_ Eph. v. 5. _where the\n  apostle speaks of the_ kingdom of Christ, and of God, _as we render\n  it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered_, even of God; _for it is_,\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 _so in_ 2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our God,\n  and, _or even_, of the Lord Jesus Christ, _the words are_, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. _See among many other scriptures to the\n  like purpose_, 1 Tim. v. 21. _and_ chap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2. _It is\n  true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they are\n  generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter\n  word to contain an explication of the former, though, in other\n  instances, it, for the most part, holds good; and therefore it will,\n  at least, amount to a probable argument, that the words in this text_,\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 _ought to be\n  rendered_, of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ. _Vide\n  Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same\n  subject._\nFootnote 121:\n  _See Dr. Clark\u2019s reply to Nelson, page 85._\nFootnote 122:\n  _The words_, \u1f41 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 _are in the nominative case, which\n  denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation._\nFootnote 123:\n  _See reply to Nelson, page 67._\nFootnote 124:\n  _Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11._\nFootnote 125:\n  _See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27._\nFootnote 126:\n  _See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places._\nFootnote 127:\n  _This is the sense of Dr. Clarke\u2019s first section in Part 2, on which\n  the whole scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same\n  purpose in several other places; and, in particular, in his reply to\n  Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the word_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _God, absolutely\n  taken to import the same, as_ \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 or \u1f41 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _by\n  which he always intends the Father._\nFootnote 128:\n  _See Scripture-doctrine, page 3._\nFootnote 129:\n  _See page 120._\nFootnote 130:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 176._\nFootnote 131:\n  _Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with\n  the defence thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from\n  Heliodorus, where he finds the words_, \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _which he\n  renders_, to snatch at; _and_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _which, he supposes,\n  signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but,\n  however, the words going before, or following, in that author, may\n  determine that to be his sense thereof, as the sense of particular\n  words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby; yet this will not justify\n  the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances, very foreign\n  thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to\n  be; besides, the word is not the same, for it is_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, _which\n  properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd _may signify_, to catch an opportunity, _as a\n  person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the word_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd _had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered\n  the sense thereof; also though_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 _signifies_, to\n  esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, _yet_\n  \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _which are the words in the text we are\n  considering, signify no such thing, but rather_ to reckon a thing\n  unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to; _and that is the\n  sense thereof in our text_, q. d. _He did not think it unlawful to\n  pursue, or lay claim to that divine honour, of being equal with God,\n  or, as we render it_, thought it not robbery, _&c. For the justifying\n  of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the Greek\n  words, will find that_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _signifies_, the action of robbing,\n  _and_ \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 _the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other\n  words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the\n  effect: as in_ \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _and_ \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,\n  \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _and_ \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1; _and, in the New Testament_, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n  _signifies the_ action of baptizing, _and_ \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 _the ordinance in\n  which it is performed. See Mark vii. 8. compared with Matt. iii. 7.\n  and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might have been given, but\n  these are sufficient._\nFootnote 132:\n  _Grotius in loc._\nFootnote 133:\n  \u201cIt may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick\n  man, in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the\n  Christians of those times, with great dispatch, _immediately_ on its\n  publication. This is a natural and indefeasible position, since it\n  arises from a principle in human nature itself. It is natural, too,\n  that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such\n  churches as were then extant. And this _first_ edition would be\n  circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were\n  established afterwards were more likely to receive the _second_\n  edition of such a writer\u2019s works; especially, if they had intercourse\n  with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their\n  copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one\n  copy of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or\n  50, or 100 copies of the first edition; since not only would it have\n  the advantage of priority, but not one reader in a hundred would think\n  of the second as different from the first. And this has led our\n  translators to mark, as _doubtful_, the first quotation which I\n  selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I\n  have no doubt of the genuineness of the _addition_; but possibly there\n  may be 50 copies without it to _one_ which contains it.\n  \u201cAdmitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part\n  of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we\n  have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle,\n  early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would\n  spread _first_, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor:\n  _secondly_, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity,\n  Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia,\n  Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go\n  every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular\n  intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia\n  Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:\u2014from Ephesus to Smyrna was\n  easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently,\n  and therefore, there was an _immediate_ conveyance of such addresses\n  as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians,\n  from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire,\n  where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his\n  writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the\n  first to translate his writings into their current language, for the\n  use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek\n  (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many)\n  because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired\n  to be acquainted with their contents.\n  \u201cIt is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their\n  basis the _first_ edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle\n  thought proper to add in his _second_ addition. The Syriac version,\n  for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would\n  represent the _first_ edition, as would also, all versions made from\n  it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those\n  parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would\n  at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) the\n  _second_ edition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence\n  against an _addition_. The Armenian version is an evidence _for_ it.\n  This version contains 1 John v. 7.\n  \u201cAlso, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years _after_\n  those of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was\n  irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct.\n  If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then\n  it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse\n  between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to\n  think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in\n  any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio\n  upward was met by brethren _from Rome_; which when he saw, he thanked\n  God, and _took courage_. Certainly, then, he had not met with many\n  friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been\n  somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity\n  in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which\n  was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there;\n  and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the\n  western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think\n  that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was\n  christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The\n  natural inference is, that these parts would receive _later_ copies of\n  any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts\n  which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at\n  least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions\n  were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its\n  variations, whatever they might be.\n  \u201cAs to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if\n  any place had, _both_ editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the\n  _first_ edition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city\n  for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from\n  Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies would _not_\n  contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the\n  _second_ edition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could\n  hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the\n  one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so\n  decidedly opposed then, as it is now, _minus_ the testimony of this\n  text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a\n  passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least,\n  alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.\n  \u201cIn short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity\n  of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after\n  it is once conceded to those who use them, that the _first_ edition,\n  together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose,\n  had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a\n  negative argument, at best.\n  \u201cI must now observe, that the African churches being planted long\n  after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts\n  of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the\n  time of their being founded; _i. e._ the _second_ edition of the\n  letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact; _the African\n  bishops quote the passage_. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius,\n  with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so\n  that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century\n  downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these\n  divines _found_ the passage in their copies, or they _put_ it there.\n  The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to\n  Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which\n  may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.\u2014But\n  further:\n  \u201cI have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most\n  excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It\n  had, then, the _first_ edition, because that was the _earliest_ which\n  could be procured; and the _second_ because the influx of persons to\n  Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable\n  of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had\n  an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the old\n  _Italic version_. It is not of any consequence to our argument,\n  whether this version contained the text of the _heavenly witnesses_,\n  since it was made very early; but if the _revised_ Roman version of\n  the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as\n  before, in reference to the African bishops\u2014The reviser of this\n  edition (Jerom) either _found_ it, or _forged_ it. The same arguments\n  that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the\n  character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading\n  the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the\n  mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin\n  version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was\n  adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the\n  time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever\n  since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and\n  text of the second edition, and followed it.\n  \u201cThese, moreover, are _independent_ witnesses; for, the African\n  bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from\n  his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African\n  bishops received this passage from the old _Italic_ version, then the\n  authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to\n  whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.\u201d\n  SELECT REVIEWS.\nFootnote 134:\n  _Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity,\n  Part. I. chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in\n  defence thereof, which is, at least, sufficient to remove the boasts\n  and insults of those who wonder that we should not give up the cause\n  entirely to them._\nFootnote 135:\n  _See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204._\nFootnote 136:\n  _See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith.\n  Miscellan. contra Simon._\nFootnote 137:\n  _Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. \u00a7 v._\nFootnote 138:\n  _See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53._\nFootnote 139:\n  _Contra Praxeam, cap. 25._\nFootnote 140:\n  _See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine,\n  &c. as also Trigland de tribus in c\u00e6lo testibus._\nFootnote 141:\n  Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.\nFootnote 142:\n  _See Quest._ vii.\nFootnote 143:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture doctrine, page 127._\nFootnote 144:\n  _Reply to Nelson, page 169._\nFootnote 145:\n  _See a parallel scripture, Prov._ xxx. 2, 3.\nFootnote 146:\n  \u1f41 \u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9, is admitted by Griesback into his text.\nFootnote 147:\n  By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God\n  essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.\nFootnote 148:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 63._\nFootnote 149:\nFootnote 150:\n  _Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106._\nFootnote 151:\n  \u201cThat Christ was not a _mere instrument_ which God used in the work of\n  creation, as the _Arians_ pretend, is plain from this, that the\n  Scriptures not only teach, that Christ was the very supreme God\n  himself that created all things; Psal. cii. 25. Heb. i. 10. but also\n  that _no instrument was used_ in that work. It was wrought immediately\n  by _God himself_. As it is written, \u2018God himself formed the earth and\n  made it.\u2019 Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And\n  this God was Jesus Christ.) \u2018He alone spread out the heavens.\u2019 Job ix.\n  8. Not by an instrument, but by _himself alone_, Isa. xliv. 24. with\n  _his own hands_. Isa. xlv. 12.\u201d\n  BELLAMY.\nFootnote 152:\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 are omitted by Griesbach.\nFootnote 153:\n  _Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc\n  omnes ad se vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum\n  instaurat._\nFootnote 154:\n  _See_ Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. _and_ chap. ii. 7. Heb.\n  vi. 5. _and_ chap. ix. 26. _the apostle speaking of_ the foundation of\n  the world, _meaning the first creation, uses the word_ \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; _but\n  when, in the following words, he speaks of_ Christ\u2019s appearing in the\n  end of the world, to put away sin, &c. _he uses the words_ \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\nFootnote 155:\n  _See page 304._\nFootnote 156:\n  _See Quest._ lxvii. _and_ lxxv.\nFootnote 157:\n  \u201cThe Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is\n  the head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23.\n  xi. 3. He calleth the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx.\n  17.\u2014The Father raised him to Israel; Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with\n  the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x. 38. spared him not, but\n  delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised him from the\n  dead. Acts ii. 24.\u2014God had appointed him to execute his saving\n  designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John\n  iii. 16, 17. vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he\n  was faithful to the Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x.\n  9.\u2014Therefore, God hath also exalted him above measure; Phil. ii. 9.\n  set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph. i. 20. and gave him all\n  power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and Christ; Acts ii.\n  36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel\n  repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained\n  him to judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him,\n  Christ shall then be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv.\n  \u201cTo be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to\n  be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture\n  itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however,\n  they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a\n  way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in\n  the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well\n  considered, agree, and even support one another. The human\n  constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is,\n  upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to\n  reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the\n  Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of\n  proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of\n  that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something\n  not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father,\n  and something finite are testified concerning him. \u2018He who was in the\n  form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took\n  upon him the form of a servant.\u2019 Phil. ii. 6, 7. \u2018The Word who was\n  with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested\n  a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and\n  truth.\u2019 John i. 1, 14.\u2014According to the infallible testimony, he is\n  therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances\n  are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the\n  power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven\n  and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of\n  their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general\n  judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine\n  perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he\n  finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his\n  priestly sacrifice.\u2014And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and\n  majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty\n  ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all\n  opposition, occur as an _exaltation_; in as far as the human nature,\n  according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and\n  reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and\n  receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both\n  natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest\n  humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.\u2014\u2018I was dead\n  and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell\n  and of death.\u2019 Rev. i. 18. \u2018To this end Christ died, and rose, and\n  revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.\u2019 Rom,\n  xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6.\n  WYNPERSSE.\nFootnote 158:\n  _See Quest._ vii.\nFootnote 159:\n  _Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning\n  John the Baptist, in Mark_ xi. 31. _says_, Why did ye not believe him?\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9; _and, in Acts_ viii. 12. _the\n  Samaritans believed Philip_, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9; _and, in John_ v.\n  46. _Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed_; Had ye\n  believed Moses, _&c. says our Saviour_, \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7; _but\n  it is never said that a creature is_ believed in. _This was Augustin\u2019s\n  observation; upon which occasion he says_, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan.\n  Tract. 29. \u201c_Though we may be said to believe Paul and Peter, yet we\n  are never said to believe_ in them.\u201d _But as for our Saviour, we are\n  not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but_ \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _to believe in him._\nFootnote 160:\n  _The words are_, \u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c3\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bf \u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5; _where_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 _seems to be exegetical, according to the\n  rule laid down, page 318. and therefore I would render the words_,\n  God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ; _and, if this be a\n  just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and\n  therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour_.\nFootnote 161:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77._\nFootnote 162:\n  _The chief opposers of Christ\u2019s being the object of worship, were\n  Jacobus Pal\u00e6ologus, Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon\n  Budu\u00e6us; and, on the other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and\n  several others, though not in the same sense in which we maintain it._\nFootnote 163:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture Doctrine, page 132._\nFootnote 164:\nFootnote 165:\n  _See Dr. Waterland\u2019s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm._ iv.\n  _pag._ 127. & seq. _where he proves, that the exclusive terms of_ One,\n  only, _&c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same\n  Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures_,\n  _viz._ _Mat._ xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any\n  one the Father, save the Son; _it does not follow from hence, that the\n  Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said,\n  in 1 Cor._ ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of\n  God; _this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the\n  scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son\u2019s only knowing the\n  Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this\n  scripture; so in Rev._ xix. 12. _it is said, that the Son had_ a name\n  written which no one knew but he himself: _none ever thought that the\n  Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father\n  saith, in Isa._ xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that\n  stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by\n  myself: _this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of\n  the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it.\n  Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal._\n  lxxxiii. 18. _that_ his name alone is Jehovah, _we must set aside all\n  those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is\n  contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said\n  sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of\n  judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well\n  observed in page 33. \u201cThat, perhaps the word God in those places,\n  namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be\n  understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular\n  consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word_ man\n  _often stands not for any particular human person, but the whole\n  species, or human nature; as when we say_, man is frail; man is\n  mortal, _or the like.\u201d_\nFootnote 166:\n  \u03a4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5. _Beza speaks of two or three of the most\n  ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also\n  adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and\n  correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version\n  renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use\n  of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it_, Why callest\n  thou me good, _he endeavours to reconcile this different reading\n  therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them\n  which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had\n  it, as we read it_, why callest thou me good; _from whence, it is\n  probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time._ Vid. Agust. de\n  Consensu. Evan. _lib._ ii. _cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the\n  ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew._\nFootnote 167:\n  \u201cIf Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the\n  Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so\n  short of \u2018complete victory;\u2019 it may be presumed, that the failure\n  would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early\n  Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate\n  performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the\n  personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be\n  closely, interwoven.\n  \u201cThis large and capital work was given to the world under\n  circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the\n  controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued\n  diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He\n  digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he\n  was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into\n  the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able\n  Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the\n  publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge,\n  affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was,\n  of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the\n  Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and\n  candid opponents should produce.\n  \u201cIt is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have\n  not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes\n  every hope that they will be so.\n  \u201cEarly in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168]\n  addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of\n  the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered\n  reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method\n  calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy\n  almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an\n  insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly\n  refuted;[169] that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it\n  is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is\n  illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of\n  amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very\n  candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it\n  was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.\n  \u201cIn 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of\n  the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the\n  very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and\n  challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and\n  public notice. At the time of this work\u2019s appearance, Dr. Priestley\n  was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But\n  when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years\n  of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be\n  informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.\n  \u201cAs the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed\n  illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in\n  reading this large work of Dr. Priestley\u2019s. I am the more inclined to\n  do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a\n  question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on\n  Dr. Priestley\u2019s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?\n  \u201cYou, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley\n  attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and\n  divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have\n  been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the\n  apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them\n  at the close of the apostolic age.\n  \u201cDr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this\n  assertion.[170] But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might\n  easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley\u2019s remarkable inattention to\n  rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.\n  \u201cThe instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much\n  astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this\n  truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be\n  the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a\n  very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very\n  interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an\n  author\u2019s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede\n  personal delicacies.\n  \u201cThis duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and\n  respectable authority, that, \u2018in all the most important controversies\n  in which\u2019 Dr. Priestley \u2018was engaged, he had studied the subject\n  thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:\u2019 and\n  that, in his reasoning, \u2018there was nothing artificial and ambiguous;\n  no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater\n  stress upon a topic than it would well bear.\u2019[171]\n  \u201cThe doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is\n  most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the\n  divinity of Christ. \u2018Chrysostom,\u2019 says Dr. Priestley, \u2018represents all\n  the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but\n  did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and\n  childish sports, but John,\u2019 he says, \u2018taught what the angels\n  themselves did not know before he declared it.\u2019[172]\n  \u201cAt the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the\n  Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is\n  materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus:\n  \u2018All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not\n  understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish\n  sports.\u2019 The omission of the clause \u2018all the rest,\u2019 (\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) does not _appear_ of much consequence. The insertion of it\n  would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr.\n  Priestley has provided a ready answer: \u2018all the preceding writers of\n  the New Testament.\u2019\n  \u201cDo me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom,\n  and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative\n  clause to be any \u2018writers of the New Testament,\u2019 or any persons at all\n  connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to be _the\n  effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the\n  auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists!_[173]\u201d\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\nFootnote 168:\n  Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams\u2019 edition of Owen\n  on the Hebrews.\nFootnote 169:\n  Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the\n  liberty of adding, that M. Daille\u2019s admirable work _On the Use of the\n  Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies_, is deserving of the\n  most careful perusal with reference to this subject.\nFootnote 170:\n  See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in\n  Reply to Dr. Priestley\u2019s Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.\nFootnote 171:\n  Mr. Belsham\u2019s Disc. p. 24, 25.\nFootnote 172:\n  Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.\nFootnote 173:\n  Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the\n  exceptive clause in question, and conceives that it refers to the mass\n  of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition to \u201cthe\n  spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are\n  desirous of becoming such.\u201d But the Greek fathers give some additional\n  features of their character. \u201cThese,\u201d he says, \u201care devoted to\n  merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and gluttony.\u201d\n  The candid reader will judge whether this description be more\n  applicable to plain and honest christians, than to the gay and\n  dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of the discourse.\nFootnote 174:\n  _In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians,\n  from Macidonius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle\n  of the fourth century, who entertained such sentiments of the Holy\n  Ghost, and had a considerable party that adhered to him, who were also\n  called Pneumatomachi._\nFootnote 175:\nFootnote 176:\n  _See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers_, in loc. _and Dr. Clarke\u2019s\n  Scripture-doctrine, page 13. where he inserts this among those\n  scriptures; in all which he supposes that the word_ God _is applied to\n  the Father_.\nFootnote 177:\n  _See page 358._\nFootnote 178:\n  _Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words_, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in\n  particular, Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost.\n  in loc._\nFootnote 179:\nFootnote 180:\nFootnote 181:\n  _See Dr. Clarke\u2019s Scripture-doctrine, page 198._\nFootnote 182:\n  _See Quest._ lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.\n    QUEST. XII. _What are the decrees of God?_\n    ANSW. God\u2019s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel\n    of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory,\n    unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time;\n    especially concerning angels and men.\n    QUEST. XIII. _What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and\n    ANSW. God, by an eternal and immutable decree out of his mere love,\n    for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time,\n    hath elected some angels to glory, and, in Christ, hath chosen some\n    men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to\n    his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will\n    (whereby he extendeth, or with-holdeth favour, as he pleaseth) hath\n    passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be\n    for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.\nHaving considered the perfections of the divine nature, and the Personal\nglories of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the next thing to be insisted on\nis, what God has purposed to do from eternity, or does, or will do, in\npursuance thereof; the former we call his decrees; the latter, the\nexecution of them. The object of his decree is whatever comes to pass,\nwhich is the most large and comprehensive sense of his purpose: but\nwhereas his determinations, in a particular manner, respect angels and\nmen, or the intelligent part of the creation, and more especially the\neternal happiness of some, or the display of his righteous judgments\nagainst others; in these respects, they being taken in a more limited\nsense, are called as relating to the former, election, and, with respect\nto the latter, reprobation, which is the subject matter of these two\nanswers. And, before we proceed to insist on this sublime and difficult\nsubject, it may not be inexpedient for us to premise some things\nconcerning it in general.\n1. It is well known that there is no doctrine, contained in scripture,\nwhich is more contested than this, which lies before us; and it is not\nonly denied by some, but treated with the utmost dislike or detestation,\nand that to such a degree, that we must either wholly forbear to mention\nit in public discourses, or writings, or else must be liable to the hard\nfate of being censured by those who will not do that justice to the\nargument, to consider what may be advanced in defence thereof, as though\nit were to be taken for granted that we are maintaining a doctrine that\nis not only indefensible, but injurious to mankind, and subversive of\nall religion.\n2. If there be any who give just occasion to these prejudices, by the\nmethods which they have used in explaining, as well as the weakness of\ntheir arguments in defending it, or by laying themselves open to those\npopular objections, which are usually brought against it, we cannot but\nconclude that they are highly to blame; and therefore we are far from\napproving of any unguarded expressions, which are to be met with in some\nwritings, whereby a stumbling-block is laid in the way of those who are\ndisposed to make men offenders for a word, rather than to judge\nimpartially of the main drift of their discourse: it is to be owned,\nthat this has done dis-service to the cause, which might have been\nbetter defended.\n3. If these prejudices against this doctrine are ill grounded, and the\nobjections only founded on the popular cry, by which it is endeavoured\nto be run down, and condemned with reproach and censure; and if persons\nknow not, nor desire to know what may be said in defence thereof, how\nsuch-like objections may be answered; the disgust and opposition is both\nunreasonable and uncharitable, and contains a capricious resolution not\nto be undeceived, and consequently renders the person thus prejudiced,\nhighly culpable in the sight of God, especially if there be any ground\nto conclude that his cause is therein maintained.\n4. Let it be farther considered, that it is not a new doctrine, or such\nas was altogether unheard of in the world before; nor has it been only\ndefended by the more ignorant or licentious part of mankind, or those\nwho have been bold and presumptuous in affirming that for truth, which\nthey had not duly weighed, or been convinced of, from the strongest\nevidence. Whether it be as ancient as scripture, and, indeed, founded\nupon it, we shall leave others to judge, when we have considered what\nmay be said from it in defence thereof.\n5. It was generally asserted, and publicly owned in most of the\nconfessions of faith of the reformed churches in the last age, and, in\nparticular, in the church of England, as contained in one of the\narticles thereof, and there is no apparent ambiguity in the words\nthemselves, however, some have endeavoured, of late, to strain the sense\nthereof, and put such a meaning on them, as is very different from the\nwritings of those who compiled them, which might serve as a comment on\nthem.\nAnd to this we may add, that it was maintained by far the greatest\nnumber of divines, in their public discourses and writings in the last\ncentury, how much soever the contrary doctrines are maintained at this\nday: however, we do not insist on this as a proof of the truth thereof,\nas though it needed to be supported by numbers of advocates for it, or\nwere founded thereon; nor do we suppose, that when it has been most\nstrenuously, and almost universally defended, there were not at the same\ntime, others who opposed it. This I only mention, that I may, if\npossible, remove those prejudices that are inconsistent with persons\njudging impartially of it.\nSince we are considering the head of prejudices against this doctrine,\nwe think it necessary to add, that we shall endeavour to vindicate it,\nfrom the reproach that is generally cast on it, by those who suppose\nthat it cannot be defended, without asserting God to be the author of\nsin, or supposing him to be severe, cruel, and unjust to his creatures,\nas some conclude we represent him to be, by unjust consequences deduced\nfrom it. We are far from asserting, as will hereafter appear, that God\nfrom all eternity, purposed to damn a great part of the world, as the\nresult of his mere sovereign will, without the foresight of sin, which\nwould render them liable to that condemnation.\nMoreover, we shall endeavour to make it appear, in opposition to the\ncalumnies of some, that the decree of God does not destroy, or take\naway, the liberty of man\u2019s will, with respect to things, within its own\nsphere; or that considered in itself, it doth not lay a natural\nnecessity on him, to rush into inevitable damnation, as though the\ndestruction of sinners were only to be resolved into the divine purpose,\nand not their own wickedness. In considering which, we shall maintain,\nthat the decree of God does not lay any force on the will of man, nor\npreclude the means of grace, as ordained by him, for the salvation of\nthem that do, or shall hereafter, believe unto life everlasting; nor\ndoes it obstruct the preaching of the gospel, and therein proclaiming\nthe glad tidings of salvation, to those who set under the sound thereof,\nas an ordinance for their faith.\nAnd inasmuch as many are prejudiced against this doctrine, as being\ninfluenced by that popular out-cry, which is made by some, as though it\nwere of a very pernicious tendency, either, on the one hand, to lead men\nto presumption, as giving occasion to persons to conclude that they may\nbe saved as being elected though they live as they list; or, on the\nother hand, that it leads to despair, as supposing, that if there be\nsuch a decree, as that of reprobation, they must necessarily be included\nin it, and, by this means, instead of promoting holiness of life, it is\ninconsistent therewith: if we cannot maintain this doctrine, without\ngiving just ground for such exceptions, we shall not only think our\nlabour lost, but condemn it as pernicious and unscriptural, as much as\nthey do, as it must of necessity be, if it cannot be defended from\nsuch-like exceptions; which, I hope, we shall be able to do, and at the\nsame time, make it appear, that it is not only consistent with, but a\nvery great motive and inducement to practical godliness: and, if this\ncan be made to appear, the greatest part of the censorious prejudices,\nthat are entertained against it, will be removed, and persons will be\nbetter able to judge whether truth lies on that side of the question,\nwhich we shall endeavour to defend, or the contrary.\nI could not but premise these things in our entrance on this subject, as\nbeing sensible that such-like reproaches, as these we have mentioned,\nare brought by many, without duly weighing whether they are well\ngrounded or no; so that this doctrine is often opposed, in such a way of\nreasoning, that the premises, as well as the conclusions drawn from\nthem, are rather their own than ours; or, at least, if some ideas\nthereof may be found in the writings, or taken from the unguarded\nexpressions, which some who have defended this doctrine, have made use\nof; yet they have appeared in such a dress that even they, who are\nsupposed to have advanced them, would have disowned and rejected them.\nIf persons who are in another way of thinking, resolve not to lay aside\nthese misrepresentations, it plainly appears that they are not disposed\nto lie open to conviction, and then all attempts to defend this doctrine\nwill be to no purpose; the preventing whereof has rendered these\nprefatory cautions needful.\nWe shall only add, to what has been said, some rules, by which we desire\nthat the truth, either of this or the opposite doctrine, may be judged\nof.\n1. If we do not confirm what we assert, by proofs taken from scripture,\nlet it not be received; but if we do, whatever may be said of our method\nof managing this controversy, the greatest deference ought to be paid to\nthe sacred oracles: But since it is very common for persons to answer\nthe arguments taken from one scripture, by producing other scriptures,\nwhich seems to assert the contrary, as desirous to shift aside in the\ndispute, and put us upon solving the difficulties which they suppose to\nbe contained in them; though this is not to be declined, yet a more\ndirect answer must be given before the doctrine itself is overthrown.\nWhether our explication of those scriptures, on which our faith therein\nis founded, be just, we shall leave others to judge; and also whether\nthe sense we give of other scriptures that are brought as objections\nagainst it, be not equally probable with that of those that bring them;\nwhich is all that need be insisted on in such cases.\n2. Let that doctrine be received, and the contrary rejected, on which\nside of the question soever it lies, that is most agreeable to the\ndivine perfections, and explains those scriptures, brought in defence of\nit, most consistently therewith; which is a fair proposal; and such as\nought not only to be applied to this particular head of doctrine, but to\nthe whole of religion, as founded on scripture, which is far from\noverthrowing the divine glory, the advancement whereof is the great end\nof it.\n3. Let that doctrine be rejected, as inconsistent with itself, and not\nworthy to be believed or embraced, whether it be ours, or the contrary\nthereunto, that shall detract from the harmony of the divine perfection,\nor pretend to set up, or plead for one, and, at the same time militate\nagainst the glory of another; and I desire nothing more than that our\nwhole method of reasoning on this subject may be tried by these rules,\nand be deemed true or false, agreeably to what is contained therein.\nIn considering this subject, relating to the decrees of God, as in the\ntwo answers, which we are explaining, we shall proceed in the following\nmethod; and shew,\nI. What we are to understand, by God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to\npass, according to the counsel of his own will; wherein we shall compare\nthe decree with the execution thereof, and observe how one exactly\nanswers to the other, and is to be a rule for our judging concerning it.\nII. We shall prove the truth of that proposition, that God hath\nfore-ordained whatever shall come to pass, either in time, or to\neternity.\nIII. We shall then particularly consider intelligent creatures, such as\nangels and men, and that both good and bad, with respect to their\npresent, or future state, as the objects of God\u2019s eternal decree or\npurpose, and so shall proceed to speak concerning the decree of\nelection, and reprobation, as contained in the latter of these answers.\nIV. We shall lay down some propositions concerning each of these,\ntending to explain and prove them, and that more especially as to what\nrespects the election and reprobation of men.\nV. We shall consider the properties thereof, and how the divine\nperfections are displayed therein, and endeavour to make it appear, in\nvarious instances, that the account we shall give thereof is agreeable\nthereunto, as well as founded on scripture.\nVI. We shall enquire whether the contrary doctrine defended by those who\ndeny election and reprobation, be not derogatory to, and subversive of\nthe divine perfections, or, at least, inconsistent with the harmony\nthereof; or whether it doth not, in many respects, make God altogether\nsuch an one as ourselves.\nVII. We shall endeavour to prove that their reasoning from scripture,\nwho maintain the contrary doctrine, is not sufficiently conclusive; and\nthat the sense they give of those scriptures, generally brought to\nsupport it, does not so well agree with the divine perfections, as it\nought to do, but that they may be explained in a different way, more\nconsistent therewith.\nVIII. We shall endeavour to answer the most material objections that are\nusually brought against the doctrine that we are maintaining. And,\nIX. Shew how it is practically to be improved by us, to the glory of\nGod, and our spiritual good and advantage.\nI. What we are to understand by God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to\npass, according to the counsel of his own will.\n1. By God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatever comes to pass, we do not understand\nbarely his fore-knowledge of all things, that are, or shall be done in\ntime, and to eternity, although this be included in, and inseparably\nconnected with his eternal purpose, since no one can purpose to act\nwithout the foreknowledge thereof; yet more than this is certainly\ncontained therein; therefore,\n2. God\u2019s pre-determining, or fore-ordaining whatsoever comes to pass,\nincludes not only an act of the divine understanding, but an act of his\nsovereign will: It is not only his knowing what shall come to pass, but\nhis determining, by his own agency, or efficiency, what he will produce\nin time, or to eternity. Accordingly, some call the decrees of God his\neternal providence, and the execution thereof his actual providence; by\nthe former, he determines what he will do; by the latter, he brings his\ndeterminations to pass, or effects what he before designed to do. It\nfollows therefore,\n3. That God\u2019s fore-ordaining whatsoever shall come to pass, is vastly\ndifferent from his bringing things to pass: the one is an internal act\nof his will; the other, an external act of his almighty power: He\nfore-ordained that they should come to pass, and therefore, till then,\nthey are considered as future; though this determination necessarily\nsecures the event, unless we suppose it possible for his eternal purpose\nto be defeated, which is disagreeable to the divine perfections, as will\nfarther appear under some following heads. And, on the other hand, when\nwe consider him, as bringing all things to pass, or producing them by\nhis power, this renders what was before future, present. With respect to\nthe former, he decrees what shall be; and, with respect to the latter,\nhis decree takes effect, and is executed accordingly.\nThey who treat of this matter, generally consider things, either as\npossible or future. Things are said to be possible, with respect to the\npower of God, as every thing that he can do, is possible to be done,\nthough some things, which he could have done, he never will do. As for\ninstance: He could have made more worlds, had he pleased; or have\nproduced more men upon earth, or more species of creatures; or have\ngiven a greater degree of perfection to creatures, than he has done, or\nwill do; for it is certain, that he never acted to the utmost of his\npower, accordingly he could have done many things that he will never do;\nand those things are said to be possible, but not future.\nMoreover, things future are rendered so, by the will of God, or his\nhaving fore-ordained, or determined to produce them; this is what we\ncall the decree of God, which respects the event, or determines whatever\nshall come to pass.\nWe are now to consider, what we are to understand by God\u2019s\nfore-ordaining all things, according to the counsel of his will; which\nis a mode of speaking used in scripture, in Eph. i. 11. _Being\npredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things\nafter the counsel of his own will._\n1. We are not hereby to understand that the decrees of God are the\nresult of deliberation, or his debating matters within himself, as\nreasoning in his own mind about the expediency, or inexpediency of\nthings, or calling in the advice of others, as creatures are said to do,\nwhen acting with counsel; for he must not be supposed to determine\nthings in such a way, since that would argue an imperfection in the\ndivine mind; _With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and\ntaught him in the paths of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and\nshewed to him the way of understanding?_ Isa. xl. 14. But,\n2. It implies, that his decrees are infinitely wise. As what is done\nwith counsel is said, according to human modes of speaking, to be done\nadvisedly, in opposition to its being done rashly, or with\nprecipitation; accordingly all the works of God are done with wisdom,\ntherefore all his purposes and determinations to do what is done in\ntime, are infinitely wise, which, according to our way of speaking, is\ncalled the counsel of his will: thus it is said, _He is wonderful in\ncounsel, and excellent in working_, chap. xxviii. 29.\nWe are now to consider the object of God\u2019s decree; This, as has been\nbefore observed, is every thing that has, or shall come to pass, and it\nmay be considered in different respects. There are some things which he\nhas determined to effect, namely, such as are the objects of his power;\nor all things, which have a natural or moral goodness in them, which are\nbecoming an infinitely holy God to produce: and this includes in it\nevery thing but sin, which God does not produce, it not being the object\nof power: Nevertheless, this must be supposed to be committed by his\npermission, and therefore it is the consequence of his decree to permit,\nthough not, as other things, of his decree to effect; it is one thing to\nsuffer sin to be committed in the world, and another thing to be the\nauthor of it. But this we shall have occasion to enlarge on, under a\nfollowing head.\nII. We shall now proceed to prove the truth of what is laid down in this\nanswer, namely, that God hath fore-ordained whatever comes to pass. This\nwill evidently appear, if we consider the five following propositions in\ntheir due connexion.\n1. Nothing comes to pass by chance, with respect to God, but by the\ndirection of his providence, which we are bound to assert against the\nDeists, who speak of God, as though he were not the Governor of the\nworld. This cannot be denied by any, who think, with any degree of\nmodesty, concerning, or pay a due deference to the divine perfections,\nsince God may as well be denied to be the Creator as the Governor of the\nworld.[183]\n2. It follows from hence, that nothing is done without the divine\ninfluence, or permission. The former (as was before observed) respects\nthings that are good, which are the effects of his power; the latter,\nsin. That nothing comes to pass without the divine influence, or\npermission, is evident; for if any thing came to pass, which is the\nobject of power, without the divine influence, then the creature would\nbe said to exist, or act independently on the power of God; and, if so,\nthen it would follow, that it would exist, or act necessarily; but\nnecessary existence is a perfection appropriate to God.\nAs to what respects the latter, namely, sins being committed by divine\npermission, it is evident, that if it might be committed without the\ndivine permission, it could not be restrained by God: and to suppose\nthat he could not hinder the commission of sin, is to suppose that sin\nmight proceed to the greatest height, without any possible check or\ncontroul, which would argue a great defect in the divine government of\nthe world, as it is also contrary to daily experience, as well as\nscripture. Certainly he who sets bounds to the sea, and says to its\nproud waves, _Hitherto shall ye come, and no farther_, must be supposed\nto set bounds to the corrupt passions of wicked men: thus the Psalmist\nsays, _Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath\nshalt thou restrain_, Psal. lxxvi. 10.\nNotwithstanding, this does not argue his approbation of sin, or that he\nis the author of it; since it is one thing to suffer, or not to hinder,\nand another thing to be the author of any thing. Thus it is said, _These\nthings hast thou done, and I kept silence_, Psal. l. 21. that is, I did\nnot restrain thee from doing them, as I could have done; so it is said,\n_in times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways_. Acts\n3. God never acts or suffers any thing to be done, but he knows,\nbeforehand, what he will do or suffer. This an intelligent creature,\nacting as such, is said do, therefore it must not be denied of him, who\nis omniscient, and infinitely wise: He who knows all things that others\nwill do, cannot but know what himself will do, or what others will do by\nthe interposition of his providence, or what he will suffer to be done,\nbefore it is acted.\n4. Whatever God does, and consequently knows before-hand that he will do\nit, that he must be supposed to have before determined to do: This must\nbe allowed, or else it argues him defective in wisdom. As no wise man\nacts precipitantly or without judgment, much less must the wise God be\nsupposed to do so; concerning whom it is said, that _all his ways are\njudgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4.\n5. It therefore appears, even to a demonstration, that God before\ndetermined, or fore-ordained, whatever comes to pass, which was the\nthing to be proved.\nAnd inasmuch, as he never began to determine, as he never began to\nexist, or as he never was without purposes of what he would do;\ntherefore it is evident, that he before ordained, from eternity,\nwhatever should come to pass, either in time, or to eternity.\nIt farther appears, that God fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass,\notherwise he did not determine to create all things before he gave being\nto them; and then it could not be said, _O Lord, how manifold are thy\nworks! in wisdom hast thou made them all_, Psal. civ. 24. There are,\nindeed, many admirable discoveries of wisdom, as well as power, in the\neffects produced; but to suppose that all this was done without\nfore-thought, or that there was no eternal purpose relating thereunto,\nwould be such a reflection on the glory of this perfection, as is\ninconsistent with the idea of a God. Moreover, if herein he designed his\nown glory, as he certainly did, since every intelligent being designs\nsome end, and the highest and most excellent end must be designed by a\nGod of infinite wisdom; and, if he did all this for his own glory, then\nit must be allowed, that it was the result of an eternal purpose: all\nwhich, I am persuaded, will not be denied by those on the other side of\nthe question, who defend their own cause with any measure of judgment.\nTo this we may farther add, that to deny that God fore-ordained whatever\ncomes to pass, is, in effect, to deny a providence, or, at least, that\nGod governs the world in such a way, as that what he does therein was\npre-concerted. And herein we expect to meet with no opposition from any\nbut the Deists, or those who deny a God; and if it be taken for granted\nthat there is a providence, or that God is the Governor of the world, we\ncannot but conclude from hence, that all the displays of his glory\ntherein, are the result of his eternal purpose. This is also agreeable\nto what is said concerning him, that _he doth according to his will in\nthe army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth_, Dan. iv.\n35. the meaning of which is not barely this, (which is a great truth)\nthat he acts without controul, inasmuch as his power is infinite: But\nthat all he does is pursuant to his will; and, indeed, it cannot be\notherwise, if we suppose that the divine power, and will, are so\ninseparably connected, that he cannot be said to produce any thing, but\nby the word of his power; or when he willeth that any thing should come\nto pass, it is not in an efficacious will, as ours is, for want of\npower, to effect what we have done. Therefore for God to will the\npresent existence of things, is to effect them, which seems to be the\nreason of that mode of speaking, which was used when he produced all\nthings at first; he said, let them exist in that form, or perfection,\nwhich he had before designed to give them, and the effect immediately\nfollowed, Gen. i. 3, 6, 9, &c.\nHitherto, I presume, our argument will not be much contested; for the\nmain thing in controversy is what relates to the divine determination\nrespecting intelligent creatures, which will be considered under a\nfollowing head: What I have hitherto attempted to prove is, the\nproposition in general, namely, that whatever God brings to pass, or is\nthe effect of power, is the result of his determinate purpose. And\nherein, I think, I have carefully distinguished between God\u2019s will to\neffect, and his will to permit; but that will be farther explained, when\nwe speak of the decrees of God, with a particular application to angels\nand men, under the head of election.\nHaving endeavoured to prove that God hath fore-ordained whatever comes\nto pass, we shall lay down the following propositions relating to his\nend and design in all his purposes, together with the nature of things,\nas coming to pass pursuant thereunto, and the method in which we are to\nconceive of the decree, when compared with the execution thereof.\n1. God cannot design any thing, in his eternal purpose, as the highest\nend, but his own glory, which is here assigned, as the end of his\ndecrees. As this is the principal motive, or reason, inducing him to\nproduce whatever comes to pass; so it must be considered as the end of\nhis purpose relating thereunto: This is very evident; for since the\ndivine glory is the most excellent of all things, he cannot, as an\ninfinitely wise God, design any thing short of it, as the great motive\nor inducement for him to act; therefore, whatever lower ends are\ndesigned by him, they are all resolved into this as the principal, to\nwit, the advancement of his divine perfections. Though God designs his\nown glory as the highest end, yet he has purposed not only that this\nshould be brought about, by means conducive thereunto, but that there\nshould be a subserviency of one thing to another, all which are the\nobjects of his decree, as well as the highest end, namely, his own\nglory. As, for instance, he determines that the life and health of man\nshall be maintained by the use of proper means and medicine, or that\ngrace shall be wrought instrumentally by those means, which he has\nordained, in order thereunto: thus his purpose respects the end and\nmeans, together with the connexion that there is between them.\n2. According to the natural order of things, the divine purpose is\nantecedent to the execution thereof. Therefore it seems very absurd to\ndistinguish the decree of God, as some do, into antecedent and\nconsequent, one going before the use of means, the other following, of\nwhich more hereafter: It is certain, that every intelligent being first\ndetermines to act, and then executes his determinations; so that nothing\ncan be more absurd, than to say, that a person determines to do a thing\nwhich is already done. Therefore we conclude, that God first decreed\nwhat shall come to pass, and then brings it to pass: Accordingly he\nfirst determined to create the world, and then created it; he first\ndetermined to bestow the means of grace on men, and to render them\neffectual to the salvation of all who shall be saved, and then he does\nthis accordingly; so, with respect to his judicial actings, he first\ndetermined by a permissive decree, not to prevent the commission of sin,\nthough infinitely opposite to his holiness, and then, knowing the\nconsequence of this permissive decree, or that men, through the\nmutability or corruption of their nature, would rebel against him, he\ndetermined to punish sin after it should be committed. Thus the decree\nof God is, in all respects, antecedent to the execution of it; or his\neternal providence, as his decrees are sometimes called, is antecedent\nto, and the ground and reason of, his actual providence.\n3. Though the purpose of God be before the execution thereof, yet the\nexecution of it is first known by us; and so it is by this that we are\nto judge of his decree and purpose, which is altogether secret, with\nrespect to us, till he reveals it; therefore we first observe the\ndiscoveries thereof, as contained in his word, or made visible in his\nactual providence, and from thence we infer his eternal purpose relating\nthereunto. Every thing that is first in the order of nature, is not\nfirst with respect to the order of our knowing it: thus the cause is\nbefore the effect, but the effect is often known before the cause; the\nsun is, in the order of nature, before the enlightening the world by it;\nbut we first see the light, and then we know there is a sun, which is\nthe fountain thereof: or, to illustrate it by another similitude, which\ncomes nearer the matter before us; A legislator determines first to make\na law, which determination is antecedent to the making, and that to the\npromulgation of it, whereby his subjects come to the knowledge thereof,\nand act in conformity thereunto; but, according to our method of judging\nconcerning it, we must first know that there is such a law, and from\nthence we conclude, that there was a purpose relating to it, in him that\ngave it; Thus we conclude, that though the decree of God be the ground\nand reason of the execution thereof, yet we know that there was such a\ndecree by its execution, or, at least, by some other way designed to\ndiscover this to us.\nThese things being duly considered, may obviate an objection, which is\nno other than a misrepresentation of the doctrine we are maintaining, as\nthough we asserted, that our conduct of life, and the judgment we are to\npass concerning ourselves, relating to our hope of future blessedness,\nwere to be principally, if not altogether regulated, by God\u2019s secret\npurpose or decree; as though we were first to consider him as\ndetermining the event, that is, as having chosen or rejected us, and,\nfrom this supposition, to encourage ourselves to attend upon the means\nof grace; or otherwise that we should take occasion to neglect them;\nsince it is a preposterous thing for a man, who considers himself as\nreprobated, to attend on any of those means, which are ordained to\nsalvation.\nWhat has been said under the foregoing heads, is sufficient to take away\nthe force of this objection; but this will be more particularly\nconsidered, when we come to answer several objections against the\ndoctrine of election: Therefore all I shall add at present is, that\nsince our conduct and hope is to be governed by the appearances of\nthings, and not by God\u2019s secret purpose relating to the event thereof,\nwe are to act as those who have not, nor can have, any knowlege of what\nis decreed, with relation thereunto, till it is evinced by the execution\nthereof; or, at least, those graces wrought in us, which are the objects\nof God\u2019s purpose, as well as our future blessedness; and our right to\none is to be judged of by the other.\nThis leads us to consider the properties of these decrees of God, as\nmentioned in the former of the answers we are now considering; in which\nit is said, they are _wise_, _free_, and _holy_. This is very evident,\nfrom the wisdom, sovereignty, and holiness, which appear in the\nexecution of them; for whatever perfections are demonstrated in the\ndispensations of providence, or grace, these God designed to glorify in\nhis eternal purpose; therefore if his works, in time, are wise, free,\nsovereign, and holy, his decree, with respect thereunto, which is\nfulfilled thereby, must be said to be so likewise. These things we shall\nhave occasion to speak more particularly to, under a following head,\nwhen we consider the properties of election, and particularly that it is\nwise, sovereign, and holy; I shall therefore, at present, only add, that\nwhatever perfections belong to the nature of God, they are demonstrated\nby his works, since he cannot act unbecoming himself; for that would\ngive occasion to the world to deny him to be infinitely perfect, that\nis, to be God. If we pass a judgment on creatures by what they do, and\nso determine him to be a wise man, who acts wisely, or a holy man, who\nacts holily, or a free and sovereign agent, who acts without constraint,\ncertainly the same must be said of the divine Majesty; and consequently,\nsince whatever he does has the marks of infinite wisdom, holiness, and\nsovereignty, impressed upon it, it is evident that these properties, or\nperfections, belong to all his purposes. If all his works are performed\nin wisdom, as the Psalmist observes, Psal. civ. 24. then we have reason\nto admire that wisdom which appears, from hence, to be contained in all\nhis purposes relating thereunto, as the apostle doth, Rom. xi. 33. _O\nthe depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How\nunsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!_ If he be\n_righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 17.\nand therein demonstrates a divine sovereignty, as acting without any\nobligation, or constraint laid upon him to bestow the favours he confers\non mankind; then we must certainly conclude, that his eternal purpose\nwhich is executed hereby, is free and sovereign. This leads us to\nconsider,\nIII. That intelligent creatures, such as angels and men, with respect to\ntheir present or future state, are the objects of God\u2019s eternal decree,\nor purpose, which is generally called _predestination_. And this, as it\nrelates to the happiness of some, or misery of others, is distinguished\ninto election or reprobation, which is a very awful subject, and ought\nnever to be thought of, or mentioned, but with the utmost caution and\nreverence, lest we speak those things that are not right concerning God,\nand thereby dishonour him, or give just occasion to any to deny or\nreproach this doctrine, as though it were not founded on scripture.\nHitherto we have considered the purpose of God, as including in it all\nthings future, as the objects thereof; and now we are to speak of it in\nparticular, as it relates to angels and men. When we confine the objects\nof God\u2019s purpose to those things that come to pass, which have no\ndependence on the free-will of angels or men, we do not meet with much\nopposition from those, who are in other respects, in the contrary scheme\nof doctrine; for most of them, who are masters of their own argument,\nand consider what may be allowed without weakening their cause, do not\ndeny that God fore-ordained whatever comes to pass, nor that he did this\nfrom all eternity, if we except what respects the actions of free\nagents. Thus they will grant that God, from all eternity, determined to\ncreate the world, and then to govern it, and to give laws to men, as the\nrule of government, and a free-will, or power to yield obedience\nthereunto: but when we consider men\u2019s free actions, as the objects of a\ndivine decree, and the final state of men, as being determined by it,\nhere we are like to meet with the greatest opposition, and therefore\nmust endeavour to maintain our ground in the following part of this\nargument.\nThe decree of God, respecting intelligent creatures, is to be considered\nas containing in it two branches, namely, _election_ and _reprobation_:\nthe former of which is contained in those words, that God, out of his\nmere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, hath elected some to\nglory in Christ, and also to the means thereof; and as for reprobation,\nthat is described in the following words; that according to his\nsovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, he hath\npassed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be, for\ntheir sin, inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. Both\nthese are to be considered; and,\n_First_, What respects the doctrine of election. To elect, or choose,\naccording to the common use, or acceptation of the word, signifies the\ntaking a small number out of a greater, or a part out of the whole; and\nthis is applied, either to things or persons.\n(1.) To things. As when a person has a great many things to choose out\nof, he sets aside some of them for his own use, and rejects the others,\nas refuse, that he will have nothing to do with.\n(2.) To persons. As when a king chooses, out of his subjects, some whom\nhe will advance to great honours; or when a master chooses, out of a\nnumber of servants offered to him, one, or more, whom he will employ in\nhis service; this from the nature of the thing, implies, that all are\nnot chosen, but only a part, in which there is a discrimination, or a\ndifference put between one and another.\nBut we are more particularly to consider the meaning of the word\n_election_, as we find it in scripture, wherein it is used in several\nsenses.\nTo elect or choose, according to the acceptation of the word, does not\nconnote the particular thing that a person is chosen to, but that is to\nbe understood by what is farther added to determine the sense thereof;\nas sometimes we read of persons being chosen to partake of some\nprivileges, short of salvation; at other times, of their being chosen to\nsalvation; sometimes it is to be understood as signifying their being\nchosen to things of a lower nature, at other times their being chosen to\nperform those duties, and exercise those graces that accompany\nsalvation; and we may, very easily, understand the sense of it by the\ncontext.\nAgain, it is sometimes taken for the execution of God\u2019s purpose, or for\nhis actual providence, making choice of persons to fulfil his pleasure,\nin their various capacities; at other times, as we are here to\nunderstand it, for his fixing his love upon his people, and purposing to\nbring them to glory, making choice of some out of the rest of mankind,\nas the monuments of his discriminating grace; we have instances of all\nthese senses of the word in scripture; and,\n1. It is sometimes taken for God\u2019s actual separation of persons, for\nsome peculiar instances of service, which is a branch of his\nprovidential dispensation, in time: thus we sometimes read in scripture,\nof persons being chosen, or set apart, by God, to an office, and that\neither civil or sacred: thus, upon the occasion of Saul\u2019s being made\nking, by God\u2019s special appointment, Samuel says, _See ye him whom the\nLord hath chosen_, 1 Sam. x. 24. so it is said elsewhere, _He chose\nDavid also his servant, and took him from the sheep-fold; from following\nthe ewes great with young, he brought him to feed Jacob, his people, and\nIsrael his inheritance_. Psal. lxxviii. 70, 71.\nIt also signifies his actual appointment of persons to perform some\nsacred office: thus it is said, concerning the Levites, that _the Lord\nhad chosen them to carry the ark, and to minister unto him_, 1 Chron.\nxv. 2. and our Saviour says, to his disciples, _Have not I chosen you_,\nnamely, to be my disciples, and as such to be employed in preaching the\ngospel, _and one of you is a devil_, John vi. 70.\n2. It is sometimes taken for God\u2019s providential designation of a people,\nto be made partakers of those external privileges of the covenant of\ngrace, which belong to them as a church, which, as such, is the peculiar\nobject of the divine regard: thus the people of Israel are said to have\nbeen chosen, or separated, from the world, to enjoy the external\nblessings of the covenant of grace, as Moses tells them, _Because the\nLord loved your fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them_,\nDeut. iv. 37. and elsewhere, _Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy\nGod; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto\nhimself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth_, chap.\nvii. 6, 7. And, in many other places in the Old Testament, the word\n_election_ is taken in this sense, though something more than this seems\nto be included in some particular scriptures in the prophetic writings,\nin which the Jews are described, as God\u2019s chosen people, as we shall\nendeavour to shew under a following head.\n3. It also signifies God\u2019s bestowing special grace on some, who are\nhighly favoured by him, above others, as having called, or set them\napart for himself, to have communion with him, to bear a testimony to\nhim, and to be employed in eminent service, for his name and glory in\nthe world. Thus it seems to be taken, in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27. where the\napostle speaks of their _calling_, which imports some special\nprivileges, that they were made partakers of, as the objects of divine\npower, and grace, to whom Christ was _made wisdom, righteousness,\nsanctification, and redemption_; which therefore signifies the powerful,\ninternal, effectual call, and not barely the external call of the\nGospel, as appears, by the foregoing and following verses, ver. 24.\ncompared with 30. and they, whose calling he speaks of, are said to be\nchosen: _You see your calling, how that not many wise men_, &c. _are\ncalled_, but _God hath chosen the foolish things of this world_, &c. so\nthat to be chosen, and effectually called there, seem to import the same\nthing.\nAnd sometimes it is taken, for some peculiar excellency, which one\nChristian has above another; as that hospitable, or public-spirited\nperson, to whom the apostle John directs his second epistle, is called\nby him, _The elect lady_, ver. 1. as an excellent person is sometimes\nstyled a choice person.\nBut, though the word is taken, in scripture, in these various senses\nabove mentioned, yet it is not confined to any, or all of them; for we\nshall endeavour to make it appear, that it is often taken, in scripture,\nas it is expressed in this answer; for God\u2019s having fore-ordained\nparticular persons, as monuments of his special love, to be made\npartakers of grace here, and glory hereafter, as it is styled, their\nbeing chosen to eternal life, and the means thereof. This is what we\nshall endeavour to prove, and accordingly shall consider the objects\nthereof, namely, angels and men, and that it is only a part of mankind\nthat is chosen to salvation, to wit, that remnant which shall be\neventually saved; and that these are chosen to the means thereof, as\nwell as the end; and how this is said to be in Christ.\nThe objects of election are _angels_ and _men_. A few words may be said\nconcerning the election of angels, as being particularly mentioned in\nthis answer; we have not, indeed, much delivered concerning this matter\nin scripture, though the apostle calls those who remain in their state\nof holiness and happiness, in which they were created, _elect angels_, 1\nTim. v. 21. But, had we no mention of their election in scripture, their\nbeing confirmed in their present state of blessedness, must, from the\nforegoing method of reasoning, be supposed to be the result of a divine\npurpose, or the execution of a decree relating thereunto; though there\nis this difference between their election, and that of men, in that the\nlatter are chosen unto salvation, which the angels are not subjects\ncapable of, inasmuch as they were never in a lost, undone state; neither\nare they said to be chosen in Christ, as men are.\nBut we shall proceed, to that which more immediately concerns us, to\nconsider men as the objects of election. This is variously expressed in\nscripture; sometimes it is called their being _appointed to attain\nsalvation_, or being _ordained to eternal life_ or their _names_ being\n_written in the book of life_; and it is also called, _the purpose of\nGod, according to election_, or his having _loved them before the\nfoundation of the world_, or his having _predestinated_ them, (who have\nbeen blessed with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places in Christ)\n_unto the adoption of children_, by him, according to the good pleasure\nof his will. That the scriptures speak of persons as elect, and that\nthis is always represented as a great instance of divine favour and\ngoodness, is not denied: But the main thing in controversy is, whether\nthis relates to the purpose of God, or his providence; and whether it\nrespects particular persons, or the church of God in general, as\ndistinguished from the world; and, if it be supposed to relate to\nparticular persons, how these are considered in God\u2019s purpose, or what\nis the order and reason of his determination to save them.\nThat election sometimes respects the disposing providence of God, in\ntime, has been already considered, and some particular instances\nthereof, in scripture, referred to; but when they, on the other side of\nthe question, maintain, that this is the only, or principal sense in\nwhich it is used therein, we must take leave to differ from them. There\nis a late writer[185], who sometimes misrepresents, and at other times,\nopposes this doctrine, with more assurance and insult, than the strength\nof his reasoning will well allow of; and his performance on this head,\nand others, that have some affinity with it, is concluded, by many of\nhis admirers, to be unanswerable; and the sense that he has given of\nseveral scriptures therein, as well as in his paraphrase on the New\nTestament, in which he studiously endeavours to explain every text, in\nconformity to his own scheme, has tended to prejudice many in favour\nthereof; and therefore we shall take occasion sometimes to consider what\nhe advances against the doctrine that we are maintaining; and\nparticularly, as to this head of election, he supposes, \u201c1. That the\nelection, mentioned, in scripture, is not of particular persons, but\nonly that of churches and nations, or their being chosen to the\nenjoyment of the means of grace, rather than a certainty of their being\nsaved by those means; that it does not contain any absolute assurance of\ntheir salvation, or of any such grace, as shall infallibly, and without\nany possibility of frustration, procure their salvation. 2. That the\nelection to salvation, mentioned in scripture, is only conditional, upon\nour perseverance in a life of holiness[186]; and he attempts to prove,\nthat election, in the Old Testament, belongs not to the righteous and\nobedient persons only, but the whole nation of the Jews, good and bad;\nand that, in the New Testament, it is applied to those who embrace the\nChristian faith, without any regard had to their eternal happiness.\u201d\nThese things, ought to be particularly considered, and therefore we\nshall endeavour to prove,\n1. That though election oftentimes, in the Old Testament, respects the\nchurch of the Jews, as enjoying the external means of grace, yet it does\nnot sufficiently appear that it is never to be taken in any other sense;\nespecially when, there are some of those privileges which accompany\nsalvation mentioned in the context, and applied to some of them, who are\nthus described; or when there are some promises made to them, which\nrespect more than the external means of grace; therefore if there were\nbut one scripture that is to be taken in this sense, it would be a\nsufficient answer to the universal negative, in which it is supposed,\nthat the Old Testament never intends by it, any privilege, but such as\nis external, and has no immediate reference to salvation. Here I might\nrefer to some places in the evangelical prophecy of Isaiah, which are\nnot foreign to our purpose; as when it is said, _Thou Israel, art my\nservant, Jacob, whom I have chosen_; and _I have chosen thee, and not\ncast thee away_, Isa. xli. 8, 9. that this respects more than the\ncontinuance of their political and religious state, as enjoying the\nexternal means of grace, seems to be implied in those promises that are\nmade to them, in the following words, which not only speak of their\ndeliverance from captivity, after they had continued sometime therein,\nbut their being made partakers of Gods special love, which had an\nimmediate reference to their salvation: thus it is said, in the\nfollowing, _Fear not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy\nGod; I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold\nthee with the right hand of my righteousness_; and elsewhere God,\nspeaking to the Jews, says, _I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy\ntransgressions for mine own sake, and I will not remember thy sins_,\nchap. xliii. 25. and, _Israel shall be saved in the Lord, with an\neverlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world\nwithout end_, chap. xlv. 17. There are also many other promises, which\nseem to import a great deal more than the external privileges of the\ncovenant of grace, which many very excellent Christians have applied to\nthemselves, as supposing that they contain those blessings which have a\nmore immediate reference to salvation; and it would detract very much\nfrom the spirituality and usefulness of such-like scriptures, to say\nthat they have no relation to us, as having nothing to do with the\nJewish nation, to whom these promises were made.\n_Object._ To this it may be objected, that these promises are directed\nto the church of the Jews, as a chosen people; and therefore to suppose\nthat there were a number elected out of them to eternal salvation, is to\nextend the sense of the word beyond the design of the context, to\ndestroy the determinate sense thereof, and to suppose an election out of\nan election.\n_Answ._ Since the word _election_, denotes persons being chosen to enjoy\nthe external means of grace, and to attain salvation by and under them,\nit may, without any impropriety of expression, be applied in these\ndifferent senses, in the same text; so that Israel may be described as a\nchosen people in the former sense, and yet there might be a number\nelected out of them, who were chosen to eternal life, to whom this\npromise of salvation more especially belonged, who are distinguished\nfrom the general body of the Jewish nation, who are called, in the other\nsense, God\u2019s elect; as when it is said, _I will leave in the midst of\nthee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of\nthe Lord; the remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies_,\n&c. Zeph. iii. 12, 13. So that as Israel was an elect people, chosen out\nof the world to enjoy the external privileges conferred upon them, as a\nchurch, which they are supposed to have mis-improved, for which they\nwere to be carried captive into Babylon; there was a remnant chosen out\nof them to be made partakers of the blessings that accompany salvation,\nsuch as are here promised; these are not considered as a church,\ngoverned by distinct laws, from those that Israel was governed by; and\ntherefore not as a church selected out of that church, but as a number\nof people among them whom God had kept faithful, as having chosen them\nto enjoy better privileges than those which they had as a professing\npeople; or as a number elected to be made partakers of special grace,\nout of those which had been made partakers of common grace, which they\nhad miserably abused, and were punished for it.\n2. Our Saviour speaking concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem by\nthe Roman army, and a great time of distress that should ensue hereupon,\ntells them, in Matt. xxiv. 22. that those days should be shortened _for\nthe elect\u2019s sake_, that is, those who were chosen to eternal life, and\naccordingly should be converted to the Christian faith, not from among\nthe heathen, but out of the Jewish nation; for it is to them that he\nmore particularly directs his discourse, forewarning them of this\ndesolating judgment; and he advises them to pray that their _flight be\nnot on the Sabbath-day_, ver. 20. intimating thereby, that that nation\ndeemed it unlawful to defend themselves from the assaults of an enemy on\nthe Sabbath-day, though their immediate death would be the consequence\nthereof; therefore this advice was suited to the temper of the Jews, and\nnone else: No people in the world, except them, entertained this\nsuperstitious opinion concerning the prohibition of self-defence on the\nSabbath-day; from whence it may therefore be inferred, that our Saviour\nspeaks of them in particular, and not of the Christians, which were\namongst them; upon which account it seems probable, that these are not\nintended by _the elect_, namely, that small number for whose sake those\ndays of distress and tribulation were to be shortened;[187] therefore\nthere were an elect people whom God had a peculiar regard to, who should\nafterwards be converted to Christianity, namely, a number elected to\neternal life out of that people, who were elected to the external\nprivileges of the covenant of grace. And this farther appears from what\nfollows, where our Saviour speaks concerning _false Christs, and false\nprophets, that should shew great signs, and wonders, insomuch that, if\nit were possible, they should deceive the very elect_, Matt. xxiv. 24.\nNow it cannot be supposed of them that are called false Christs, that\nthey would attempt to pervert the Christians, by pretending to be the\nMessiah; for that would be impracticable, inasmuch as they did not\nexpect any other to come with that character since our Saviour; whereas\nthe Jews did, and many of them were perverted thereby to their own ruin;\nbut it is intimated here, that the elect people, which was among them,\nshould be kept from being deceived by them, inasmuch as they were chosen\nto obtain salvation, and therefore should believe in Christ by the\ngospel.\nThere is also another scripture, which seems to give countenance\nhereunto, where the apostle shews, that _God had not cast away his\npeople_, Rom. xi. 2. to wit, the Jews, that is, he had not rejected the\nwhole nation, but had made a reserve of some who were the objects of his\nspecial love, as chosen to salvation; and these are called, _A remnant\naccording to the election of grace_, ver. 5. and this seems still more\nplain from what follows, ver. 7. _What then? Israel hath not obtained\nthat which he seeketh for_, that is, righteousness and life, which they\n_sought after, as it were, by the works of the law_, which, as is\nmentioned in the foregoing verse, is inconsistent with the attaining it\nby grace; _but the election_, that is, the elect among that people _have\nobtained it_; for they sought after it in another way, _and the rest\nwere blinded_, that is, the other part of the Jewish nation, which were\nnot interested in this privilege, were left to the blindness of their\nown minds, which was their ruin.\nTo this let me add one scripture more, Rom. ix. 6, 7. where the apostle,\nspeaking concerning the nation of the Jews, distinguishes between the\nnatural and spiritual seed of Abraham, when he says, _All are not Israel\nthat are of Israel_, that is, there was a remnant according to the\nelection of grace, who were chosen to eternal life out of that people,\nwho were in other respects, chosen to be made partakers of the external\nprivileges that belonged to them, as God\u2019s peculiar people. The sum of\nthis argument is, that though, it is true, there are some scriptures\nthat speak of the church of the Jews, as separated from the world, by\nthe peculiar hand of divine providence, and favoured with the external\nmeans of grace, yet there are others in which they are said to be chosen\nto partake of privileges of an higher nature, even those which accompany\nsalvation; therefore election, in the Old Testament, sometimes signifies\nGod\u2019s purpose, relating to the salvation of his people.\n2. We shall proceed to consider how _election_ is taken in the New\nTestament, in opposition to those who suppose that it is there used only\nto signify God\u2019s bringing persons to be members of the Christian church,\nas being instructed in the doctrines relating thereunto by the\napostles:[188] The principal ground of this opinion is, because\nsometimes whole churches are said to be elected, as the apostle speaks\nof the church at Babylon, as elected together with them, to whom he\ndirects his epistle, 1 Pet. i. 2. compared with chap. v. 13. by which it\nis supposed that nothing is intended, but that they were both of them\nChristian churches. If this be the sense of every scripture in the New\nTestament, that treats of election, then we must not pretend that the\ndoctrine we are maintaining is founded on it: But on the other hand, we\nthink we have reason to conclude, that when we meet with the word in the\nNew Testament, it is to be understood, in most places, for God\u2019s eternal\npurpose relating to the salvation of his people. I will not pretend to\nprove an universal negative, _viz._ that it is never taken otherwise,\nbut shall refer to some scriptures, in which it is plainly understood\nso, and endeavour to defend this sense thereof.\nThe first scripture that we shall refer to, is in Eph. i. 4. _He hath\nchosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be\nholy, and without blame before him in love_; and, in ver. 5. he speaks\nof their being _predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus\nChrist_; that this respects not the external dispensation of God\u2019s\nprovidence, in constituting them a Christian church, or giving them the\nknowledge of those doctrines, on which it was founded; but their being\nchosen to salvation and grace, as the means thereof, according to God\u2019s\neternal purpose, will very evidently appear from the context, if we\nconsider that they who are thus chosen, are called _faithful in Christ\nJesus_, which implies much more than barely to be in him by external\nprofession: they are farther described, as _blessed with all spiritual\nblessings in Christ_, in ver. 3. or blessed with all those blessings\nwhich respect heavenly things; grace, which they had in possession, and\nglory, which they had in expectation; and they are farther described, as\nhaving _obtained redemption through the blood of Christ, and forgiveness\nof sins_; and all this is said to be done, _according to the riches of\nhis grace_, and _the good pleasure of his will, who worketh all things\nafter the counsel thereof_; and certainly all this must contain much\nmore than the external dispensation of providence relating to this\nprivilege, which they enjoyed as a church of Christ.\nAgain, in 1 Thess. i. 4. the apostle says concerning them, to whom he\nwrites, that _he knew their election of God_. That this is to be\nunderstood of their election to eternal life, is very evident; and,\nindeed, he explains it in this sense, when he says, _God hath, from the\nbeginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and the belief of the truth, Whereunto he called you by our\ngospel, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ_, 2 Thess.\nii. 13, 14. the gospel is considered as the means of their attaining\nthat salvation, which they are said to be chosen to; so that their\nelection contains more than their professed subjection thereunto as a\nchurch of Christ: Besides, the apostle gives those marks and evidences\nof this matter, which plainly discover that it is their election to\nsalvation that he intends; accordingly he speaks of their _work of\nfaith, labour of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ_,\nand of _the gospel\u2019s coming not in word only, but_ also _in power_, 1\nThess. i. 3, 5. by which he means not the power that was exerted in\nworking miracles, for that would be no evidence of their being a church,\nor of their adhering to the doctrines that were confirmed thereby, since\nevery one, who saw miracles wrought, did not believe; therefore he\nmeans, that by the powerful internal influence of the Holy Ghost, they\nwere persuaded to become followers of the apostles, and the Lord, and\nwere ensamples to others, and public-spirited, in endeavouring to\npropagate the gospel in the world. Certainly this argues that they were\neffectually called by the grace of God, and so proves that they were\nchosen to be made partakers of this grace, and of that salvation, that\nis the consequence thereof.\nThere is another scripture, in which it is very plain that the apostle\nspeaks of election to eternal life inasmuch as there are several\nprivileges connected with it, which the Christian church, as such,\ncannot lay claim to: thus, in Rom. viii. 33. _Who shall lay any thing to\nthe charge of God\u2019s elect? It is God that justifieth._ Now if\njustification or freedom from condemnation, accompanied with their being\neffectually called here, which shall end in their being glorified\nhereafter, be the result of their election, as. in ver. 30. then\ncertainly this includes in it more than the external privileges of the\ncovenant of grace, which all who adhere to the Christian faith are\npossessed of, and consequently it is an election to salvation that the\napostle here intends.\n_Object._ It is objected, that it is more than probable, when we find,\nas we sometimes do, whole churches styled elect in the New testament,\nthat some among them were hypocrites; particularly those to whom the\napostle Peter writes, who were converted from Judaism to Christianity,\nwhom he calls elect, _according to the fore-knowledge of God the\nFather_: notwithstanding they had some in communion with them,\nconcerning whom it might be said, that they had only a name to live, but\nyet were dead; and he advises them, _to lay aside all malice, guile, and\nhypocrisy, envies, and evil speaking, and, as new born babes, to receive\nthe word, if so be they had tasted that the Lord is gracious_, 1 Pet.\nii. 1. which makes it more than probable, that there were some among\nthem who had not, in reality, experienced the grace of God; so when he\nsays, that there should _be false teachers among them_, whose practice\nshould be as vile as their doctrine, and that many amongst them _should\nfollow their pernicious ways_. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. it seems to argue that\nthe whole church he writes to, were not chosen to salvation; therefore\ntheir election only signifies their being chosen to enjoy the\nprivileges, which they had, as a professing society of Christians.\n_Answ._ It is certain that there was a very considerable number among\nthem who were not only Christians in name; but they were very eminent\nfor the exercise of those graces, which evinced their election to\neternal life; and particularly he says concerning them, _Whom having not\nseen, ye love_; and _in whom believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable,\nand full of glory; receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation\nof your souls_, 1 Pet. i. 8, 9. which agrees very well with the other\ncharacter given them of their _being elect, through sanctification of\nthe Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_,\nver. 2. Therefore the only thing that seems to affect our argument is,\nthat this character did not belong to every individual. But supposing\nthis should be allowed, might not the church be here described as chosen\nto salvation, inasmuch as the far greater number of them were so?\nNothing is more common, in scripture, than for a whole body of men to be\ndenominated from the greatest part of them, whether their character be\ngood or bad; thus when the greatest part of the Jewish church were\nrevolted from God, and guilty of the most notorious crimes, they are\ndescribed as though their apostacy had been universal, _They are all\ngrievous revolters, walking with slanders_, Jer. vi. 28. whereas it is\ncertain, there were some who had not apostatized: some of them were\nslandered and reproached for the sake of God, and therefore were not\nincluded in the number of them that walked with slanders, though their\nnumber were very small; as God says by the prophet Ezekiel, _I sought\nfor a man among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap\nbefore me for the land that I should not destroy it, but I found none_,\nEzek. xxii. 30. whereas at that time, in which the people were most\ndegenerate, there were found some who _sighed and cryed for all the\nabomination that were done in the midst of them_, chap. ix. 4. So on the\nother hand, when the greater number of them kept their integrity, and\nwalked before God in holiness of life, the whole church is thus\ncharacterized, _I remember the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine\nespousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness; Israel was\nholiness to the Lord_, Jer. ii. 2, 3. whereas it is certain, that, at\nthat time, there were a great many who rebelled, murmured, and revolted\nfrom God, and were plagued for their iniquities; yet because the greater\nnumber of them were upright and sincere, this character is given in\ngeneral terms, as if there had been no exception. And the prophet looked\nback to some age of the church, in which a great number of them were\nfaithful; and therefore he speaks of the people in general, at that\ntime, as such, and accordingly calls them, _The faithful city_, Isa. i.\n21. and the prophet Jeremiah calls them, _The precious sons of Zion,\ncomparable to fine gold_, Lam. iv. 2. yet there never was a time when\nthere were none among them that rebelled against God. Therefore may not\nthis be supposed concerning the first gospel churches that were planted\nby the apostles; and accordingly, when they are styled elect, to whom\nthe apostle Peter writes, 1 Pet. v. 13. as well as the church at\nBabylon, why may not this be supposed to signify, that the greatest part\nof them were really sanctified, and therefore chosen to sanctification?\nAnd consequently their character, as elect, does not barely signify\ntheir being chosen to be made partakers of the external privileges of\nthe gospel. We might also consider, that it is very agreeable to our\ncommon mode of speaking, to denominate a city, or a kingdom, from the\ngreater number thereof, whether we call them a rich, or a wise or a\nvaliant people, we never suppose there are no exceptions to this\ncharacter; therefore why may we not, in this instance, conclude, that\nthe apostle Peter, when he describes this church as elected, intends\ntheir election to salvation? Thus we have endeavoured to prove that\nelection, in scripture, is not always taken, in the Old Testament, for\nthe external privileges which the Jewish nation had, as a church; nor in\nthe New Testament for those who belonged to the churches, namely, such\nas professed the Christian faith. And probably that learned author,\nbefore mentioned, was apprehensive that this observation of his would\nnot hold universally true; and therefore he has another provisionary\nobjection against the doctrine of particular election of persons to\neternal life, and says, as Arminius and his contemporaries before did,\nthat all those scriptures, which speak of this doctrine, contain nothing\nmore than God\u2019s conditional purpose, that if a person believes, he shall\nbe saved. It is necessary for us to consider what may be said in answer\nhereunto; but inasmuch as we shall have occasion to speak to this when\nwe consider the properties of election, under a following head, we shall\nrather chuse to reserve to that place, than be obliged to repeat what\nmight be here said concerning it.\nThus having premised something concerning election in general, and the\nsense in which it is to be understood, in scripture, we shall briefly\nmention a matter in dispute, among divines relating to the objects\nthereof, as they are considered in God\u2019s eternal purpose: and here we\nshall take notice of some different opinions relating thereunto, without\nmaking use of those scholastic modes of speaking, which render this\nsubject much more difficult, than otherwise it would be: and shall take\noccasion to avoid, and fence against those extremes, which have only had\na tendency to prejudice persons against the doctrine in general.\nThe object of election is variously considered by divines, who treat of\nthis subject.\n1. There are some who, though they agree in the most material things in\ntheir defence of this doctrine yet they are divided in their sentiments\nabout some nice metaphysical speculations, relating to the manner how\nman is to be considered, as the object of predestination: accordingly\nsome, who are generally styled Supralapsarians, seem to proceed in this\nway of explaining it, namely that God from all eternity, designed to\nglorify his divine perfections, in some objects out of himself, which he\ncould not then be said to have done, inasmuch as they did not exist; and\nthe perfections, which he designed to glorify, were, more especially,\nhis sovereignty and absolute dominion, as having a right to do what he\nwill with the work of his hands; and also his goodness, whereby he would\nrender himself the object of their delight; and, as a means conducive to\nthis end, he designed to create man an intelligent creature, in whom he\nmight be glorified; and since a creature, as such, could not be the\nobject of the display of his mercy, or justice, he farther designed to\npermit man to fall into a state of sin and misery, that so, when fallen,\nhe might recover some out of that state, and leave others to perish in\nit: the former of which are said to be loved, the other hated; and when\nsome extend the absoluteness of God\u2019s purpose, not only to election but\nreprobation, and do not take care to guard their modes of speaking, as\nthey ought to do, but conclude reprobation, at least predamnation, to\nbe, not an act of justice, but rather of sovereignty; they lay\nthemselves open to exception, and give occasion to those, who oppose\nthis doctrine, to conclude, that they represent God as delighting in the\nmisery of his creatures, and with that view giving being to them. It is\ntrue, several, who have given into this way of thinking, have\nendeavoured to extricate themselves out of this difficulty, and denied\nthis and other consequences of the like nature, which many have thought\nto be necessary deductions from this scheme; whether they have done this\neffectually, or no, may be judged of by those who are conversant in\ntheir writings[189]. I cannot but profess myself to set a very high\nvalue on them in other respects, yet I am not bound to give into some\nnice speculations, contained in their method of treating this subject,\nwhich renders it exceptionable; particularly, I cannot approve of any\nthing advanced by them, which seems to represent God as purposing to\ncreate man, and then to suffer him to fall, as a means by which he\ndesigned to demonstrate the glory of his vindictive justice, which hath\ngiven occasion to many to entertain rooted prejudices against the\ndoctrine of predestination, as though it necessarily involved in it this\nsupposition, that God made man to damn him.\nThere are others, who are generally styled Sublapsarians[190], who\nsuppose, that God considered men as made and fallen, and then designed\nto glorify his grace in the recovery of those who were chosen, by him,\nto eternal life; and his justice in them, whom he designed to condemn,\nas a punishment for their sins, which he foreknew that they would\ncommit, and purposed not to hinder; and he designed to glorify his\nsovereignty, in that one should be an object of grace, rather than\nanother, whereas he might have left the whole world in that state of\nmisery, into which he foresaw they would plunge themselves.\nThat which is principally objected, by those who are in the other way of\nthinking, against this scheme, is, that the Sublapsarians suppose that\nGod\u2019s creating men, and permitting them to fall, was not the object of\nhis eternal purpose. But this they universally deny, and distinguish\nbetween God\u2019s purpose to create and suffer men to fall; and his purposes\nbeing considered as a means to advance his sovereignty, grace, and\njustice, in which the principal difference between them consists. We\nshall enter no farther into this controversy, but shall only add, that\nwhatever may be considered, in God\u2019s eternal purpose, as a means to\nbring about other ends; yet it seems evident, from the nature of the\nthing, that God cannot be said to choose men to salvation, without\nherein considering them as fallen; for as no one is a subject capable of\nsalvation, but one who is fallen into a state of sin and misery; so when\nGod purposed to save such, they could not be considered as to be\ncreated, or created and not fallen, but as sinners.\n2. There are others who deny particular election of persons to eternal\nlife, and explain those scriptures, which speak of it, in a very\ndifferent way: these suppose, that God designed, from all eternity, to\ncreate man, and foreknew that he would fall, and, that, pursuant to this\neternal foreknowledge, he designed to give him sufficient means for his\nrecovery, which, by the use of his free will, he might improve, or not,\nto the best purposes; and also, fore-knowing who would improve, and who\nwould reject, the means of grace, which he purposed to bestow, he\ndetermined, as the consequence thereof, to save some, and condemn\nothers. This method of explaining God\u2019s eternal purpose is\nexceptionable, as will farther appear, in the method we shall take, in\nprosecuting this subject, in two respects.\n(1.) As they suppose that the salvation of men depends on their own\nconduct, or the right use of their free will, without giving the glory\nwhich is due to God, for that powerful, efficacious grace, which enables\nthem to improve the means of grace, and brings them into a state of\nsalvation,\n(2.) As the result of the former, they suppose that nothing absolute is\ncontained in the decree of God, but his fore-knowledge, which is rather\nan act of his understanding, than his will; and therefore it seems to\nmilitate against his sovereignty and grace, and, to make his decrees\ndepend on some conditions, founded in the free-will of man, which,\naccording to them, are not the object of a peremptory decree. Thus\nhaving considered intelligent creatures, and more particularly men, as\nthe objects of predestination.\nIV. We proceed to the farther proof and explication of this doctrine;\nand, in order thereto, shall insist on the following propositions.\n1. That it is only a part of mankind that were chosen to salvation.\n2. That they who were chosen to it, as the end, were also chosen to\nsanctification, as the means thereof, And,\n3. That they were chosen in Christ; which propositions are contained in\nthat part of this answer, in which it is said, that God has chosen some\nmen to eternal life, and the means thereof.\n1. That some were chosen to salvation; not the whole race of mankind,\nbut only those that shall be eventually saved: that the whole world is\nnot the object of election appears from the known acceptation of the\nword, both in scripture, and in our common modes of speaking; since to\nchoose, as has been before observed, is to take, prefer, or esteem, one\nthing before another, or to separate a part from the whole, for our own\nproper use, and what remains is treated with neglect and disregard:\naccordingly it is not a proper way of speaking, to say that the whole is\nchosen; and therefore it follows, that if all mankind had been\nfore-ordained to eternal life, which God might have done if he had\npleased, this would not have been called a purpose, according to\nelection.\nBut there are other arguments more conclusive, than what results barely\nfrom the known sense of the word, which we shall proceed to consider,\nand therein make use of the same method of reasoning, which we observed,\nin proving that God fore-ordained whatever comes to pass, with a\nparticular application thereof to the eternal state of believers. As we\nbefore observed, that the decree of God is to be judged of by the\nexecution of it, in time; so it will appear, that those whom God in his\nactual providence and grace, prepares for, and brings to glory, he also\nbefore designed for it. Were I only to treat of those particular points\nin controversy, between us and the Pelagians, I would first consider the\nmethod which God takes in saving his people, and prove that salvation is\nof grace, or that it is the effect of the power of God, and not to be\nascribed to the free-will of man, as separate from the divine influence;\nand then I would proceed to speak concerning the decree of God relating\nhereunto, which might then, without much difficulty, be proved: but\nbeing obliged to pursue the same method in which things are laid down,\nin their respective connexion, we must sometimes defer the more\nparticular proof of some doctrines, on which our arguments depend, to a\nfollowing head, to avoid the repetition of things; therefore, inasmuch\nas the execution of God\u2019s decree, and his power and grace manifested\ntherein, will be insisted on in some following answers, we shall, at\npresent, take this for granted, or shall speak but very briefly to it.\n(1.) It appears that it is only a part of mankind that are chosen to be\nmade partakers of grace and glory, inasmuch as these invaluable\nprivileges are conferred upon, or applied to no more than a part of\nmankind: if all shall not be saved, then all were not chosen to\nsalvation; for we are not to suppose that God\u2019s purpose, relating\nhereunto, can be frustrated, or not take effect; or if there be a\nmanifest display of discriminating grace in the execution of God\u2019s\ndecree relating thereunto, there is, doubtless, a discrimination in his\npurpose, and that is what we call election. This farther appears from\nsome scriptures, which represent those who are saved as a remnant: thus\nwhen the apostle is speaking of God\u2019s casting away the greatest part of\nthe Jewish nation, he says of some of them notwithstanding, that _at\nthis present time also there is a remnant according to the election of\ngrace_, Rom. xi. 5. that is, there are some among them who are brought\nto embrace the faith of the gospel, and to be made partakers of the\nprivileges that accompany salvation: these are called a remnant; as when\nit is said, in Rom. ix. 27. _Though the number of the children of Israel\nbe as the sand of the sea_, it is no more than _a remnant_ of them that\n_shall be saved_. He doubtless speaks in this and other scriptures,\nconcerning the eternal salvation of those who are described as a\nremnant, according to the election of grace.\nHere it will be necessary for us to consider, that this remnant\nsignifies only a small part of the Jewish church, selected, by divine\ngrace, out of that nation, of whom the greater number were rejected by\nGod; and that the salvation, here spoken of, is to be taken not for any\ntemporal deliverance, but for that salvation which the believing Jews\nshould be made partakers of in the gospel day, when the rejection of the\nothers had its full accomplishment. That this may appear, we shall not\nonly compare this scripture with the context, but with that in Hosea,\nfrom whence it is taken: as to what respects the context, the apostle,\nin ver. 2. expresses his _great heaviness, and continual sorrow of\nheart_, for the rejection of that nation in general, which they had\nbrought upon themselves; but yet he encourages himself, in ver. 6. with\nthis thought, that _the word of God_, that is, the promise made to\nAbraham relating to his spiritual seed, who were given to expect greater\nblessings, than those which were contained in the external dispensation\nof the covenant of grace, should not _take none effect_, since, though\nthe whole nation of the Jews, who were of Israel, that is, Abraham\u2019s\nnatural seed, did not attain those privileges; yet a part of them, who\nare here called Israel, and elsewhere a remnant, chosen out of that\nnation, should be made partakers thereof; the former are called _The\nchildren of the flesh_, in ver. 8. the latter, by way of eminence, _The\nchildren of the promise_; these are styled, in ver. 23, 24. _The vessels\nof mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, to whom he designed to\nmake known the riches of his glory_, namely, those _whom he had called;\nnot of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles_, which he intends by\nthat remnant, which were chosen out of each of them, for so the word\nproperly signifies.[191] And this sense is farther confirmed, by the\nquotation out of the prophecy of Hosea, chap. i. 10. compared with\nanother taken out of the prophecy of Isaiah, chap. x. 22. both which\nspeak only of a remnant that shall be saved, when the righteous\njudgments of God were poured forth, on that nation in general; and the\nprophet Hosea adds another promise relating to them, which the apostle\ntakes notice of, namely, that _in the place where it was said unto them,\nYe are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons\nof the living God_, which plainly respects this remnant; for he had\nbefore prophesied concerning the nation in general, _Ye are not_, that\nis, ye shall not be my people, and _I will not be your God_; so that\nhere is a great salvation foretold, which, they, among the Jews, should\nbe made partakers of, who were fore-ordained to eternal life, when the\nrest were rejected.\n_Object._ The prophet seems to speak, in this scripture, of a temporal\nsalvation, inasmuch as it is said, in the words immediately following,\n_Then shall the children of Judah, and the children of Israel, be\ngathered together, and shall appoint themselves one head, and they shall\ncome up out of the land_, _viz._ of Babylon, _for great shall be the day\nof Jezreel_. Therefore this remnant, here spoken of, which should be\ncalled the sons of the living God, respects only such as should return\nout of captivity, and consequently not the election of a part, to wit,\nthe believing Jews, to eternal life: for it is plain, that, when this\nprediction was fulfilled, they were to _appoint themselves one head_, or\ngovernor, namely, Zerubbabel, or some other, that should be at the head\nof affairs, and help forward their flourishing state, in, or after their\nreturn from captivity.\n_Answ._ It seems very evident, that part of this prophecy, _viz._ chap.\niii. 5. respects the happiness of Israel, at that time, when _they\nshould seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and should fear\nthe Lord and his goodness, in the latter days_; therefore why may not\nthis verse also, in chap. i. in which it is said, that they shall be\ncalled the sons of the living God, have its accomplishment in the\ngospel-day, when they should adhere to Christ, who is called, _David\ntheir King_? The only difficulty which affects this sense of the text\nis, its being said, that they shall return to their own land, under the\nconduct of a _Head_, or governor, whom they should _appoint over them_,\nwhich seems to favour the sense contained in the objection: but the\nsense of the words would be more plain, if we render the text, instead\nof [THEN] _And the children of Judah_, &c. as it is rendered in most\ntranslations, and is most agreeable to the sense of the Hebrew\nword.[192] According to our translation, it seems to intimate, that the\nprophet is speaking of something mentioned in the foregoing verse; and\ninasmuch as the latter respects their return from the captivity,\ntherefore the former must do so; whereas if we put _and_, instead of\n_then_, the meaning of both verses together is this: there are two\nblessings which God promised, namely, that a part of the Jewish nation\nshould be made partakers of the saving blessings of the covenant of\ngrace, which was to have its accomplishment when they were brought to\nbelieve in Christ, by the gospel, or when this remnant, taken out from\nthem, should be saved; and there is also another blessing promised to\nthe whole nation, which should be conferred upon them, when they\nreturned from the Babylonish captivity.\nIf it be objected, to this sense of the text, that their return from\ncaptivity is mentioned after that promise, of their being called the\n_sons of the living God_, therefore it cannot be supposed to relate to a\nprovidence that should happen before it; I need only reply to this, that\nit is very usual, in scripture, for the Holy Ghost, when speaking\nconcerning the privileges which the church should be made partakers of,\nnot to lay them down in the same order in which they were to be\naccomplished; and therefore, why may we not suppose, that this rule may\nbe applied to this text? And accordingly the sense is this: the prophet\nhad been speaking, in the tenth verse, of that great salvation, which\nthis remnant of the Jews, converted to Christianity, should be made\npartakers of in the gospel-day; and then he obviates an objection, as\nthough it should be said, How can this be, since the Jews are to be\ncarried into captivity, and there broken, scattered, and, as it were\nruined? In answer to this, the prophet adds, that the Jews should not be\ndestroyed in the captivity, but should be delivered, and return to their\nown land, and so should remain a people, till this remnant was gathered\nout of them, who were to be made partakers of these spiritual privileges\nunder the gospel-dispensation, as mentioned in the foregoing words.\nThus having endeavoured to prove, that this remnant, spoken of in Rom.\nxi. are such as should be made partakers of eternal salvation, we may\nnow apply this to our present argument. If that salvation, which this\nremnant was to be made partakers of, be the effect of divine power, as\nthe apostle says, in Rom. ix. 16. _It is not of him that willeth, nor of\nhim that runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy_; and if it be the gift\nof divine grace, as he says elsewhere, in Eph. ii. 8. _By grace are ye\nsaved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of\nGod_; then it follows from hence, that God designed, before-hand, to\ngive them these blessings; and if he designed them only for this\nremnant, then it is not all, but a part of mankind, to wit, those that\nshall be eventually saved, that were chosen to salvation.\n(2.) The doctrine of election may be farther proved, from God\u2019s having\nforeknown whom he will sanctify and save. It will be allowed, that God\nknows all things, and consequently that he knows all things that are\nfuture, and so not only those whom he has saved, but whom he will save.\nWe need not prove that God fore-knew all things, for that is not denied\nby those who are on the other side of the question, or, at least, by\nvery few of them; and, indeed, if this were not an undoubted truth, we\ncould not depend on those predictions, which respect things that shall\ncome to pass; and these not only such as are the effects of necessary\ncauses, or things produced according to the common course, or laws of\nnature, but those which are contingent, or the result of the free-will\nof man, which have been foretold, and consequently were fore-known by\nGod; and if it be allowed that he fore-knew whatever men would be, and\ndo, let me farther add, that this foreknowledge is not barely an act of\nthe divine mind, taking a fore-view of, or observing what others will\nbe, or do, without determining that his actual providence should\ninterest itself therein; therefore it follows, that if he fore-knew the\nsalvation of those who shall be eventually saved, he fore-knew what he\nwould do for them, as a means conducive thereunto; and if so, then he\ndetermined, before-hand, that he would bring them to glory; but this\nrespects only a part of mankind, who were chosen by him to eternal life.\nIn this sense we are to understand those scriptures that set forth God\u2019s\neternal purpose to save his people, as an act of fore-knowledge: thus,\nin Rom. xi. 2. _God hath not cast away his people, whom he fore-knew_,\nthat is, he hath not cast them all away, but has reserved to himself a\n_remnant, according to the election of grace_. That he either had, or\nsoon designed, to cast away the greatest number of the Jewish nation,\nseems very plain, from several passages in this chapter: thus, in verses\n17, 19. he speaks of _some of the branches being broken off_, and ver.\n22. of God\u2019s _severity_, by which we are to understand his vindictive\njustice in this dispensation: But yet we are not to suppose, says the\napostle, that God has cast them all away, as in ver. 1. and so he\nmentions himself, as an instance of the contrary, as though he should\nsay, I am called, and sanctified, and chosen, though I am an Israelite.\nMoreover, God\u2019s not casting away his remnant of the Israelites, being\nthe result of his fore-knowledge, does not barely respect his knowing\nwhat they should be, or do, whom he had chosen to eternal life, for it\nis represented as a discriminating act of favour; whereas, in other\nrespects, they, who are rejected by him, are as much the objects of his\nknowledge, as any others, since the omniscience of God is not the result\nof his will; but it is a perfection founded in his nature, and therefore\nnot arbitrary, but necessary.\nAgain, the apostle, in 1 Pet. i. 2. speaks of some who were _elected,\naccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto obedience_, &c.\nthat is, not chosen, because of any obedience performed by them, which\nGod foreknew; for this is considered, as the result of his\nfore-knowledge, not the cause of it; and this word is yet farther\nexplained in another place, where it is used, when the apostle says, in\n2 Tim. ii. 19. _The Lord knoweth them that are his._ He had before been\nspeaking of the faith of some, who professed the gospel, being\noverthrown; nevertheless, says he, that _foundation_ of hope, which God\nhas laid in the gospel, is not hereby shaken, but _stands sure_; the\nfaithful shall not be overthrown, for _the Lord knoweth them that are\nhis_, that is, he knows who are the objects of his love, who shall be\nkept by his power, through faith, unto salvation; so that God\u2019s\nfore-knowledge, considered as a distinguishing privilege, is not to be\nunderstood barely of his knowing how men will behave themselves, and so,\ntaking his measures from thence, as though he first knew what they would\ndo, and then resolved to bestow his grace; but he knows whom he has set\napart for himself, or designed to save, and, with respect to them, his\nprovidence will influence their conduct, and prevent their apostasy.\nGod\u2019s knowledge, in scripture, is sometimes taken for his approving, or\nloving, those who are the objects thereof: thus he says unto Moses, in\nExod. xxxiii. 17. _Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by\nname_, where one expression explains the other, and so it imports a\nknowledge of approbation; and, on the other hand, when our Saviour says\nto some, in Matt. vii. 23. _I will profess unto you, I never knew you_,\nit is not to be supposed that he did not know they would behave\nthemselves, or what they would do against his name and interest in the\nworld; but _I never knew you_, that is, I never approved of you, and\naccordingly, it follows, _Depart from me, ye that work iniquity_; and\nwhen it is said concerning knowledge, as applied to man, in John xvii.\n3. _This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God_;\nno one supposes that a speculative knowledge of divine truths will give\nany one ground to conclude his right to eternal life; therefore to know\nGod, is to love, to delight in him: and the same is applied, by the\napostle, to God\u2019s loving man, when he says, in 1 Cor. viii. 3. _If any\nman love God, the same is known of him_, that is, beloved by him. Now if\nGod\u2019s knowing his people signifies his loving them, then his\nfore-knowing them must signify his determining to do them good, and to\nbestow grace and glory upon them, which is the same as to choose them to\neternal life: he fore-knew what he designed to confer upon them; for he\n_prepared a kingdom for them, from the foundation of the world_, Matt.\nxxv. 34. which is the same with his having, from the beginning, chosen\nthem to salvation.\n_Object._ As all actions, performed by intelligent creatures, as such,\nsuppose knowledge, so their determinations are the result of\nfore-knowledge, for the will follows the dictates of the understanding;\ntherefore we must suppose God\u2019s fore-knowledge, to be antecedent to, and\nthe ground and reason of his determinations. This the apostle seems to\nintimate, when he says, in Rom. viii. 29. _Whom he did fore-know, he did\npredestinate_, that is, he had a perfect knowledge of their future\nconduct, and therefore determined to save them.\n_Answ._ I do not deny that, according to the nature of things, we first\nconsider God as knowing, and then as willing: but this does not hold\ngood, with respect to his knowing all things future; for we are not to\nsuppose that he first knows that a thing shall come to pass, and then\nwills that it shall. It is true, he first knows what he will do, and\nthen does it; but, to speak of a knowledge in God, as conversant about\nthe future state, or actions of his people, without considering them as\nconnected with his power and providence, (which is the immediate cause\nthereof) I cannot think consistent with the divine perfections.\nAs for this scripture, _Whom he did fore-know, them he did\npredestinate_, we are not to suppose, that the meaning is, that God\nfore-knew that they, whom he speaks of, would be conformed to the image\nof his Son, and then as the result hereof, determined that they should;\nfor their being conformed to Christ\u2019s image, consists in their\nexercising those graces which are agreeable to the temper and\ndisposition of his children, or brethren, as they are here called; and\nthis conformity to his image is certainly the result of their being\ncalled: but their calling as well as justification and glorification, is\nthe consequence of their being fore-known; therefore God\u2019s fore-knowing\nhere, must be taken in the same sense as it is in the scriptures, but\nnow referred to; for his having loved them before the foundation of the\nworld, or chosen them to enjoy those privileges which are here\nmentioned.\n(3.) It farther appears, that there is a number chosen out of the world\nto eternal life, from the means which God has ordained for the gathering\na people out of it, to be made partakers of the blessings which he has\nreserved for them in heaven. This is what we generally call the means of\ngrace; and from hence it appears, that there is a chosen people, whose\nadvantage is designed hereby. For the making out of this argument, let\nit be considered,\n_1st._ That there always has been a number of persons, whom God, by his\ndistinguishing providence, has separated from the world, who have\nenjoyed the ordinances, or means of grace, and to whom the promises of\neternal life have been made. We do not say that these are all chosen to\neternal life; but it appears, from the design of providence herein, that\nthere have been some, among them who were ordained to eternal life. If\nGod gives the means of grace to the church, it is an evident token that\nsome are designed to have grace bestowed upon them, and consequently\nbrought to glory.\n_2dly._ They who have been favoured with these means of grace, have had\nsome peculiar marks of the divine regard to them. Thus we read, in the\nearly ages of the world, of the distinction between those, who had the\nspecial presence of God among them, and others, who were deprived of it;\nas Cain is said, _to go out from the presence of the Lord_, Gen. iv. 16.\nas one, who, together with his posterity, was deprived of the means of\ngrace, and also of God\u2019s covenant, in which he promised to be a God to\nsome, from which privilege others were excluded: thus he was called the\n_God of Shem_, chap. ix. 16. and afterwards of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _and\nJacob_, Exod. iii. 6. whose descendants were hereby given to expect the\nordinances and means of grace, and many instances of that special grace,\nwhich a part of them should be made partakers of: and would he have made\nthis provision, for a peculiar people, in so discriminating a way, if\nthere had not been a remnant among them, according to the election of\ngrace, to whom he designed to manifest himself here, and bring to glory\nhereafter? No, he would have neglected, or over-looked them as he did\nthe world; whereas both they and their seed had the promises of the\ncovenant of grace made to them which argues, that there was a remnant\namong them, whom God designed hereby to bring into a state of grace and\nsalvation, and, in this respect, they are said to be the objects of\ndivine love.\nThis leads us to consider the meaning of that text, which is generally\ninsisted on, as a very plain proof of this doctrine, in Rom. ix. 11, 12,\n13. _The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or\nevil, that the purpose of God according to election, might stand; not of\nworks, but of him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder shall\nserve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I\nhated._ Here is an express mention of the purpose of God, according to\nelection, and Jacob is, pursuant thereunto, said to be the object of\ndivine love. For the understanding of which, let us consider the sense\nthat is given of it, by those on the other side of the question; and how\nfar it may be allowed of, and what there is in the words to prove this\ndoctrine, and wherein our sense of them differs from their\u2019s.\nIt is supposed, by those who deny particular election, that Jacob and\nEsau are not here considered in a personal capacity, but that the\napostle speaks of their respective descendants, as referring to two\ndivine predictions; in one of which, Gen. xxv. 23. God told Rebekah,\nbefore her two sons were born, that _two nations were in her womb; and\nthe elder_, that is, the posterity of Esau, _should serve the younger_,\nnamely, that of Jacob; and in the other, Mai. i. 2, 3. he says, _I loved\nJacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains waste_; so that if, in\nboth these scriptures, referred to by the apostle, nothing else be\nintended but the difference that should be put between them as to the\nexternal dispensations of providence, or that Jacob\u2019s family, in future\nages should be in a more flourishing state than that of Esau, we must\nnot suppose that he designed thereby to represent them as chosen to, or\nexcluded from eternal life.\nThis seems a very plausible sense of the text; but yet the apostle\u2019s\nwords may very well be reconciled with those two scriptures, cited to\nenervate the force of the argument taken from it; and at the same time,\nit will not follow from thence, that there is no reference had to the\ndoctrine of eternal election therein. Therefore,\n1. We will not deny, when it is said, _Jacob have I loved, and Esau have\nI hated_, that their respective descendants were intended in this\nprediction, yet it will not follow from hence, that Jacob and Esau,\npersonally considered, were not also included. Whoever reads their\nhistory, in the book of Genesis, will evidently find in one the marks\nand characters of a person chosen to eternal life; whereas, in the\nother, we have no account of any regard which he expressed to God or\nreligion, therefore he appears to have been rejected; yet,\n2. So far as it respects the posterity of Jacob and Esau we are not to\nsuppose that God\u2019s having loved the one, and rejected the other, implies\nnothing else, but that Jacob\u2019s posterity had a better country allotted\nfor them, or exceeded Esau\u2019s in those secular advantages, or honours,\nwhich were conferred upon them. This seems to be the principal sense,\nwhich they, on the other side of the question, give of the apostle\u2019s\nwords; when comparing them with those of the prophet Malachi, who,\nspeaking concerning Esau\u2019s being hated, explains it, as relating _to his\nlands being laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness_. This had been\nforetold by some other prophets, Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Ezek. xxxv. 7, 9.\nObed. ver. 10. and had its accomplishment soon after the Jews were\ncarried captive into Babylon, from which time they ceased to be a\nnation; but, certainly, though this be that particular instance of\nhatred, which the prophet Malachi refers to, yet there is more contained\nin the word, as applied to them by the apostle Paul. It is true, the\nprophet designs, in particular to obviate an objection which the Jews\nare represented as making, against the divine dispensations towards\nthem, as though they had not such an appearance of love, as he supposes\nthem to have had, therefore they are brought in as speaking to this\npurpose: how canst thou say, that God has loved us, who have continued\nseventy years captives in Babylon, and since our return from thence,\nhave been exposed to many adverse dispensations of providence? The\nprophet\u2019s reply is to this effect: that, notwithstanding, they still\nremained a nation, and therefore were in this respect, more the objects\nof the divine regard, than the posterity of Esau were, which is\nrepresented as hated, for they never returned unto their former state;\nor what attempts soever they made to recover it, they were all to no\npurpose. This the prophet alleges, as a sufficient answer to the Jews\u2019\nobjection, in the same sense in which they understood the words, _love_\nor _hatred_; but, doubtless more than this was contained in the\nprediction before Jacob and Esau were born, and in the apostle\u2019s\napplication of it, in the text before-mentioned. If nothing were\nintended but outward prosperity, or their vying with each other in\nworldly grandeur, Esau\u2019s posterity, in this respect, might be concluded\nto have been preferable to Jacob\u2019s; thus when they are reckoned, by\ntheir genealogies, Gen. xxxvi. they are many of them described as dukes\nand kings who made a considerable figure in the world. When Jacob\u2019s\nposterity were few in number, and bondmen in the land of Egypt, and when\nthe Israelites were carried captive into Babylon, the Edomites are\nrepresented by the prophet, as looking on, and rejoicing in their\ndestruction, as being, at that time, in all appearance, secure, and\nenjoying their former liberty.\nNeither could this love or hatred signify nothing else but the\ndescendants of Jacob being planted in a more fruitful soil; for there is\nlittle difference put between them, in this respect, in the patriarchal\nbenediction pronounced by their father, who tells Jacob, that God _would\ngive him the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of\ncorn and wine_; and to Esau he says, _Thy dwelling shall be the fatness\nof the earth, and the dew of heaven from above_, chap. xxvii. 28,\ncompared with 39. therefore, when one is described, in the prediction,\nas loved, and the other as hated, we are not to suppose, that outward\nprosperity on the one hand, or adversity on the other, are, principally\nintended thereby, for that might be said of both of them by turns;\ntherefore let me add,\n3. That God\u2019s loving or hating, as applied to the posterity of Jacob or\nEsau, principally respects his determining to give or deny the external\nblessings of the covenant of grace, or the means of grace, and therewith\nmany special tokens of his favour. In Jacob\u2019s line the church was\nestablished, out of which, as has been before observed, there was a\nremnant chosen, and brought to eternal life; how far this may be said of\nEsau\u2019s, is hard to determine.\n_Object._ 1. But to this it will be objected, that Job and his friends\nwere of Esau\u2019s posterity, as is more than probable; but these were far\nfrom being rejected of God.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that a few single instances are not\nsufficient to overthrow the sense we have given of this divine oracle,\nsince the rejection of Esau\u2019s posterity may take its denomination from\nthe far greater number thereof, without including in it every\nindividual, as it is very agreeable to the sense of many scriptures.\nMoreover, we may consider, that these lived, as we have sufficient\nground to conclude, before the seed of Jacob were increased, and\nadvanced to be a distinct nation, as they were after their deliverance\nfrom the Egyptian bondage; as also before that idolatry, which first\noverspread the land of Chaldea, in Abraham\u2019s time, had universally\nextended itself over the country of Idumea, where Esau\u2019s family was\nsituate; so that it doth not follow from hence, because this prediction\ndid not take place in a very considerable degree, in the first\ndescendants from him, that therefore it does not respect their\nrejection, as to what concerns the spiritual privileges of that people\nafterwards. And, indeed, idolatry seems to have had some footing in the\ncountry where Job lived, even in his time, which gave him occasion to\nexculpate himself from the charge thereof, when he signifies, that _he\nhad not beheld the sun when it shineth, or the moon walking in\nbrightness, and his heart had not been secretly enticed, or his mouth\nkissed his hand_, Job xxxi. 26, 27. alluding to some modes of worship,\npractised by idolaters in his day, who gave divine honour to the sun and\nmoon; and, soon after his time, before Israel had taken possession of\nCanaan, there seems to have been an universal defection of the Edomites\nfrom the true religion, otherwise, doubtless, Moses might, without any\ndifficulty, have got leave to have passed through their country, in his\nway to the land of Canaan, which he requested in a most friendly and\nobliging manner, but to no purpose, Numb. xx. 14-21. especially\nconsidering they had no reason to fear that they would do any thing\nagainst them in a hostile manner; therefore the unfriendly treatment\nthey met with from them, proceeded from the same spring with that of the\nAmalekites, and other bordering nations, namely, they had all revolted\nfrom the God and religion of their father Abraham; so that this\nprediction seems to have been fulfilled, before the promise, respecting\nJacob\u2019s posterity, in any considerable degree, began to take place.\nHaving briefly considered this objection, we return to the argument,\nnamely, that God\u2019s loving or hating, in this scripture, as it has a\nrelation to the distinct nations that descended from Jacob and Esau,\nincludes in it his determining to give or deny the external privileges\nof the covenant of grace, which we generally call the ordinances, or\nmeans of grace. These were the spiritual and more distinguishing\ninstances of divine favour, which Jacob was given to expect, when he\nobtained the blessing. As for the double portion, or the greatest part\nof the paternal estate, that descended with it, together with the honour\nof having dominion over their brethren, or a right (as it is probable\nthey had) to act as civil magistrates in their respective families,\nthese were all small things, if compared with those spiritual\nprivileges, wherein God\u2019s love to Jacob, and his posterity, was\nprincipally expressed; it was this which is so often signified by God\u2019s\nbeing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: In other respects, Esau was\nblessed as well as Jacob; for the apostle, speaking concerning that part\nof Isaac\u2019s prediction, which respected the temporal advantage of their\nposterity, says, that _he blessed Jacob and Esau, concerning things to\ncome_, Heb. xi. 20. yet Esau was rejected, as to what concerns the\nspiritual part of the blessing, which was his birth-right, that he is\nsaid to have _despised_, Gen. xxv. 34. and, for this reason, he is\nstyled, by the apostle, a _profane person_, Heb. xii. 16. If it had been\nonly a temporal privilege that he contemned, it might have been a sin;\nbut it could not then have been properly said to have been an instance\nof profaneness, for that has respect only to things sacred; therefore it\nevidently appears, that the blessings which Esau despised, and God had\nbefore designed to confer on Jacob, and his seed, as a peculiar instance\nof his love, were of a spiritual nature.\n_Object._ 2. It will be farther objected, that men\u2019s enjoying the\nexternal privileges of the covenant of grace, has no immediate reference\nto their salvation, or election to it.\n_Answ._ Since salvation is not to be attained, but by and under these\nmeans of grace, we must conclude, that whenever God bestows and\ncontinues them, to a church or nation, he has a farther view therein,\nnamely, the calling some, by his grace, to partake of those privileges\nthat accompany salvation. If there were no such blessings to be\nconferred on the world, there would be no means of grace, and\nconsequently no external dispensation of the covenant of grace; for it\nis absurd to suppose that any thing can be called a means, where all are\nexcluded from the end which they refer to; therefore the sum of this\nargument is, that God had a peculiar love to the posterity of Jacob, and\naccordingly he designed to give them those privileges which were denied\nto others, namely, the means of grace, which he would not have done, had\nhe not intended to make them effectual to the salvation of some of them;\nand this purpose, relating hereunto, is what is called election, which,\nthough it be not applicable to all the seed of Jacob; for all, as the\napostle says elsewhere, are not Israel who are of Israel; yet, inasmuch\nas there was a remnant of them, to whom it was applied, they are that\nhappy seed, who are represented, by the apostle, as the objects of God\u2019s\ncompassion, or _vessels unto honour, in whom he designed to make known\nthe riches of his glory, having_, in this respect, _afore prepared them\nunto glory_, Rom. ix. 15, 21, 23.\nThus having considered that God has chosen a part of mankind to\nsalvation, we may, without being charged with a vain curiosity, enquire\nwhether this privilege belongs to the greater or smaller part of\nmankind, since the scripture goes before us in this matter. If we judge\nof the purpose of God by the execution thereof, it must be observed,\nthat hitherto the number of those, who have been made partakers of the\nspecial privileges of the gospel, has been comparatively small. If we\nlook back to those ages before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, what a very\ninconsiderable proportion did Israel bear to the rest of the world, who\nwere left in darkness and ignorance! And, after this, our Saviour\nobserves, that _many were called_, in his time, _but few were chosen_,\nMatt. xx. 16. and he advises to _enter in at the strait gate_, chap.\nvii. 13, 14. by which he means the way to eternal life, concerning which\nhe says, that _there are_, comparatively, _few that find it_. And when\nthe gospel had a greater spread, and wonderful success attended the\npreaching thereof, by the apostles, and many nations embraced the\nChristian faith, in the most flourishing ages of the church, the number\nof Christians, and much more of those who were converted, and\neffectually called, was comparatively small. Whether the number of true\nbelievers shall be greater, when there is a greater spread of the\ngospel, and a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, to render it more\nsuccessful, as we hope and pray for that time, and that not altogether\nwithout scripture-warrant; I say, whether then the fewness of those who\nhave hitherto been chosen and sanctified, shall not be compensated, by a\nfar greater number, who shall live in that happy age of the church, it\nis not for us to be over-curious in our enquiries about: However, we may\ndetermine this from scripture, that, in the great day, when all the\nelect shall be gathered together, their number shall be exceeding great,\nif what the apostle says refers to this matter, as some suppose it does,\nwhen he speaks of a _great multitude, which no man could number, of all\nnations, and kindreds, and people and tongues, who stood before the\nthrone, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in\ntheir hands_, Rev. vii. 9. But these things are no farther to be\nsearched into, than as we may take occasion, from thence, to enquire\nwhether we are of that number; and, if we are, we ought to bless God for\nhis discriminating grace, which he has magnified therein. And this leads\nus to consider,\n2. That they who are chosen to salvation, are also chosen to\nsanctification, as the means thereof: As the end and means are not to be\nseparated in the execution of God\u2019s decree, so they are not to be\nseparated in our conception of the decree itself; for, since God brings\nnone to glory, but in a way of holiness, the same he determined to do\nfrom all eternity, that is, to make his people holy, as well as happy;\nor first to give them faith and repentance, and then, the end of their\nfaith, the salvation of their souls.\nThere are many scriptures, in which the purpose of God, relating\nhereunto, is plainly intended; as when it is said, _He hath chosen us\nthat we should be holy, and without blame, before him in love_, Eph. i.\n4. and elsewhere the apostle tells others, that _God had, from the\nbeginning, chosen them unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and belief of the truth_, 2 Thes. ii. 13. and the apostle James\nsaith, that _God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and\nheirs of the kingdom_, James ii. 5. and elsewhere the apostle Paul\nspeaks of persons being _predestinated to be conformed to the image of\nhis Son_, which he explains of their being _called_, _justified_, and\n_glorified_, Rom. viii. 29. and it is also said, speaking of those who\nwere converted under the apostle Paul\u2019s ministry, _as many as were\nordained unto eternal life believed_, Acts xiii. 48. accordingly they\nwere ordained to one as well as the other.\nThe argument, which seems very plainly contained in these, and such-like\nscriptures, is, that God\u2019s eternal purpose respects the grace that his\npeople are made partakers of here, as well as the glory that they expect\nhereafter, which are inseparably connected; this cannot reasonably be\ndenied by those who are not willing to give into the doctrine of\nelection: But if the inseparable connexion between faith and salvation\nbe allowed, as having respect to the execution of God\u2019s purpose, it will\nbe no difficult matter to prove that this was determined by him, or that\nhis purpose respects faith, as well as salvation. Therefore the main\nthing in controversy between us is, whether this grace, that accompanies\nsalvation, is wrought by the power of God, or whether it depends on the\nfree-will of man. That which induces them to deny that God has chosen\npersons to faith, is this supposition; that that which is the result of\nman\u2019s free-will, cannot be the object of God\u2019s unchangeable purpose, and\nconsequently that God has not chosen men to it. This is the hinge on\nwhich the whole controversy turns, and if the doctrine of special\nefficacious grace be maintained, all the prejudices against that of\nelection would soon be removed; but this we must refer to its proper\nplace, being obliged to insist on that subject in some following\nanswers;[193] and, what may be farther considered, concerning the\nabsoluteness of election, as one of the properties that belong to it,\nunder a following head, will add some strength to our present argument.\nAll that we shall do, at present, shall be to defend our sense of the\nscriptures, but now referred to, to prove that election respects\nsanctification, as well as salvation; and that it does so, is plain from\nthe first of them, in Eph. i. 4. which proves that holiness is the end\nof election, or the thing that persons are chosen to, as appears from\nthe grammatical construction of the words: It is not said he had chosen\nus, considered as holy, and without blame, but that we should be\nholy;[194] that which is plainly intended, as the result of election,\ncannot be the cause and reason of it.\nAs to what the apostle says, in 2 Thess. ii. 13. _God hath, from the\nbeginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of the\nSpirit, and belief of the truth_, that plainly intimates, that\nsanctification is the end of election; and therefore the principal\nanswer that some give to it, which appears to be an evasion, is, that\nthe apostle does not speak of eternal election, because God is said to\nhave done this from the beginning, that is, as one explains the words,\nfrom the beginning of the apostle\u2019s preaching to them: But if we can\nprove that there is such a thing as a purpose to save, it will be no\ndifficult matter to prove the eternity of the divine purpose; and this\nis not disagreeable to the sense, in which the words, _From the\nbeginning_, are elsewhere used.[195]\nAs for that other scripture, in James ii. 5. where it is said, _God hath\nchosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_;\nhere the words, _That they may be_,[196] (which are inserted by the\napostle, in the scripture but now mentioned) may, without any strain on\nthe sense thereof, be supplied, and so the meaning is, God hath chosen\nthem, _that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_: But\nif it will not be allowed, that these words ought to be supplied, the\nsense is the same, as though they were these, \u201cGod has chosen the poor\nof this world, who are described as rich in faith, to be heirs of the\nkingdom;\u201d and so we distinguish between election\u2019s being founded upon\nfaith, and faith\u2019s being a character by which the elect are described;\nand, if faith be a character by which they are described, then he who\nenabled them to believe, purposed to give them this grace, that is, he\nchose them to faith, as well as to be heirs of the kingdom.\nAs for that other text, in Rom. viii. 29. _He hath predestinated us to\nbe conformed to the image of his Son_; these words, _to be_, are\nsupplied by our translators, as I apprehend they ought, for the reason\nbut now mentioned, taken from the parallel scripture, in Eph. i. 4. But,\nto evade the force of the argument, to prove that we are predestinated\nto grace, as well as to glory, they who deny this doctrine, give a very\ndifferent turn to the sense of this text, as though the apostle only\nintended hereby, that the persons, whom he speaks of, were predestinated\nto an afflicted state in this life, a state of persecution, in which\nthey are said to be conformed to the image of Christ;[197] But though it\nis true that believers are said to be made partakers of the sufferings\nof Christ, and, by consequence, are predestinated thereunto, yet that\ndoes not appear to be the sense of this text, as not well agreeing with\nthe context; for the apostle had been describing those, whom he speaks\nof, as loving God, and called according to his purpose, and then\nconsiders them as predestinated, to be conformed to the image of his\nSon, which must be meant of their being made partakers of those graces,\nin which their conformity to Christ consists, as well as in sufferings;\nand then he considers them, in the following verse, as _called_,\n_justified_, and _glorified_; and all this is the result of their being\npredestinated.\nAs for that scripture, in Acts xiii. 48. _As many as were ordained to\neternal life believed_; their faith is here considered as the result of\ntheir being ordained to eternal life, or they are represented as\npredestinated to the means, as well as the end.\n_Object._ 1. But it will be objected by some, that this is not agreeable\nto the sense of the Greek word here used;[198] partly, because it is not\nsaid they were fore-ordained to eternal life, but _ordained_; and the\ngenuine sense thereof is, that they were disposed to eternal life, and\nconsequently to faith, as the means thereof. And this is also taken in a\ndifferent sense; some suppose that it imports a being disposed, by the\nprovidence of God, or set in order, or prepared for eternal life;\nothers, agreeably to the exposition which Socinus, and some of his\nfollowers, give of the text, (which sense a late learned writer falls in\nwith[199]) understand the words, as signifying their having an internal\ndisposition, or being well inclined, as having an earnest desire after\neternal life, for which reason they believed; or were fitted and\nprepared for eternal life, by the temper of their minds, and accordingly\nthey believed.\n_Answ._ 1. If the word, which we render _ordained_, be justly\ntranslated, the thing which they were ordained to, being something that\nwas future, it is, in effect, the same, as though it were said they were\nfore-ordained to it, as Beza observes.[200]\n2. Suppose the word ought rather to be translated, they were disposed\nunto eternal life; that seems to contain in it a metaphor, taken from a\ngeneral\u2019s disposing, or ordering his soldiers to their respective posts,\nor employments, to which he appoints them, and so it is as though he\nshould say, as many as God had, in his providence, or antecedent\npurpose, intended for salvation, believed, inasmuch as faith is the\nmeans and way to attain it; and that amounts to the same thing with our\ntranslation. But,\n3. As to that other sense given of it, _viz._ their being internally\ndisposed for eternal life, it seems very disagreeable to the import of\nthe Greek word; and those texts, that are generally brought to justify\nthis application thereof, appear to be very much strained and forced by\nthem, to serve their purpose;[201] and, indeed, if the word would bear\nsuch a sense, the doctrine contained therein, namely, that there are\nsome internal dispositions in men, antecedent to the grace of God,\nwhereby they are fitted and prepared for it, does not well agree with\nthe sense of those scriptures, which set forth man\u2019s natural opposition\nto the grace of God, before he is regenerate and converted, and his\nenmity against him; and others that assert the absolute necessity of the\nprevious work of the Spirit, to prepare for, as well as excite the acts\nof faith.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that it cannot respect their being\nordained, or chosen to eternal life, who believed, inasmuch as none that\nplead for that doctrine suppose that all, who are elected in one place,\nbelieve at the same time; had it been said, that all, who believed at\nthat time, were ordained to eternal life, that would be agreeable to\nwhat is maintained by those who defend the doctrine of election; but to\nsay, that all, who are elected to eternal life, in any particular city,\nare persuaded to believe at the same time, this is what they will not\nallow of: besides, it is not usual for God to discover this to, or by,\nthe inspired writers, that, in any particular place, there are no more\nelected than those who are, at any one time, converted; and, indeed, it\nis contrary to the method of God\u2019s providence, to bring in all his elect\nat one time, therefore we cannot suppose that this was revealed to the\ninspired writer, and consequently something else must be intended, and\nnot eternal election, namely, that all those that were prepared for\neternal life, or who were disposed to pursue after it, believed.[202]\n_Answ._ When the apostle says, as many as were ordained to eternal life\nbelieved, we are not hereby led into this hidden mystery of the divine\nwill, so as to be able to judge, whether more than they that then\nbelieved, were ordained to it in that place; but the meaning is, that\nthere were many that believed, and that all of them were ordained to\neternal life; and so it is as though he should say, that God has a\npeople in this place, whom he has ordained to eternal life, who were to\nbe converted, some at one time, others at another: some of them were\nconverted at this time, to wit, a part of those who were ordained to\neternal life, if more were ordained to it; so that the objection\nsupposes that the words, which we render, _as many as_, imports the\nwhole number of the elect in that place; whereas, we think that the\nmeaning is, that there were many who believed, and these were only such\nwho were ordained to eternal life, of which there might be many more,\nwho then did not believe, but hereafter should; but this remained a\nsecret, which the inspired writer was not led into, nor we by him.\n_Object._ 3. There is another objection, which the learned author,[203]\n(whose paraphrase on the New Testament, and discourse on election, I am\nsometimes obliged to refer to in considering the objections that are\nmade against this doctrine) proposes with a great deal of warmth; and if\nno reply can be given to it, it will be no wonder to find many\nprejudiced against it; his words are these: \u201cIf the reason why these men\nbelieved be only this, that they were men ordained to eternal life, the\nreason why the rest believed not, can be this only, that they were not\nordained by God to eternal life: and, if so, what necessity could there\nbe that the word of God should be first preached to them, as we read,\nver. 46. was it only that their damnation might be the greater? This\nseems to charge that Lover of souls, whose tender mercies are over all\nhis works, with the greatest cruelty, seeing it makes him determine,\nfrom all eternity, not only that so many souls as capable of salvation\nas any other, shall perish everlastingly; but also to determine, that\nthe dispensations of his providence shall be such towards them, as\nnecessarily tends to the aggravation, of their condemnation; and what\ncould, even their most malicious and enraged enemy, do more? What is it\nthe very devil aims at, by all his temptations, but this very end,\n_viz._ the aggravation of our future punishment? And therefore to assert\nthat God had determined that his word should be spoken to these Jews,\nfor this very end, is to make God as instrumental to their ruin, as the\nvery devil, and seemeth wholly irreconcileable with his declarations,\nthat he would have all men to be saved, and would not that any man\nshould perish.\u201d\n_Answ._ According to this author, we must either quit the doctrine we\nare maintaining, provided it be the same as he represents it to be, or\nelse must be charged by all mankind, with such horrid blasphemy, as is\nshocking to any one that reads it, as charging the Lover of souls with\nthe greatest cruelty, and with acting in such a way, as their greatest\nenemy is said to do; determining, that the dispensations of his\nprovidence should tend to aggravate their condemnation, and that the\ngospel should be preached for this end, and no other. But let the\nblasphemy rest on his misrepresentation, and far be it from us to\nadvance any such doctrine; therefore that which may be considered, in\nanswer to it, is,\n1. The immediate reason why men believe to eternal life, is, because God\nexerts the exceeding greatness of his power, whereby he works faith; and\nthe reason of his exerting this power, is, because he determined to do\nit, as it is the execution of his purpose.\n2. It does not follow, from hence, that the only reason why others do\nnot believe, is, because they were not ordained to eternal life. It is\ntrue, indeed, that their not having been ordained to eternal life, or\nGod\u2019s not having purposed to save them, is the reason why he does not\nexert that power that is necessary to work faith: and unbelief will\ncertainly be the consequence thereof, unless man could believe without\nthe divine energy; yet the immediate spring and cause of unbelief, is\nthe corruption and perverseness of human nature which is chargeable on\nnone else but man himself. We must certainly distinguish between\nunbelief\u2019s being the consequence of God\u2019s not working faith, whereby\ncorrupt nature takes occasion to exert itself, as being destitute of\npreventing grace; and its being the effect hereof. Is God\u2019s denying the\nrevengeful person, or the murderer, that grace, which would prevent his\nexecuting his bloody designs, the cause thereof? Or his denying to\nothers the necessary supply of their present exigencies, the cause of\ntheir making use of unlawful means, by plundering others to subsist\nthemselves? No more is his denying special grace, which he was not\nobliged to give to any, the cause of men\u2019s unbelief and impenitency; for\nthat is to be assigned only to that wicked propensity of nature, which\ninclines us to sin, and not to the divine efficiency; and how farsoever\nthis may be the result of God\u2019s determining to deny his grace, it is not\nto be reckoned the effect of that determination.\n3. The design of the word\u2019s being preached, is not to aggravate the\ndamnation of those that shall not believe, according to this vile\nsuggestion; but that men might be hereby led to know their duty and that\nthe sovereignty of God, and the holiness of his law, which requires\nfaith and repentance, as well as man\u2019s obligation hereunto might be made\nknown to the world. I do not deny, but that unbelief, and the\ncondemnation consequent thereupon, is aggravated by the giving of the\ngospel, for that appears from many scriptures, Matt. xi. 21. Luke x. 13.\nas when our Saviour upbraids Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, and other\nplaces, amongst whom he was conversant, with their unbelief, and\nrepresents their condemnation as greater than, that of others, who were\ndestitute of those privileges: But yet it is a malicious insinuation, to\nsuppose we conclude that the gospel was given for this end; and we must\nstill distinguish between the greater aggravation of condemnation\u2019s\nbeing the result of giving the gospel, or the remote consequence\nthereof, and its being the effect of it in those that reject the gospel,\nand much less the design of God in giving it.\n4. God\u2019s denying that grace, which would have enabled men to believe, is\nnot to be charged as an instance of cruelty, any more than his denying\nit to fallen angels, but it is rather a display of his justice. He was\nnot obliged to give grace to any of the apostate race of man; shall\ntherefore his denying the grace of faith be reckoned an instance of\ncruelty, when we consider the forfeiture that was before made thereof,\nand man\u2019s propensity to sin, which is chargeable only on himself?\n5. God\u2019s purpose to deny the grace of faith to those whom he has not\nordained to eternal life, is not inconsistent with that scripture, 1\nTim. ii. 4. in which it is said, that _he will have all men to be\nsaved_; so that, as will be farther observed elsewhere,[204] it respects\neither God\u2019s determining that salvation should be applied to all sorts\nof men, or else his declaring by his revealed will, that it is the duty\nof all men to believe, and to acknowledge the truth, as made known to\nthem in the gospel.\n6. They who are elected to salvation, are chosen in Christ: thus it is\nexpressly said, in Eph. i. 4. _He hath chosen us in him, before the\nfoundations of the world._ We are not to suppose that the apostle\nintends hereby, that we are chosen for the sake of Christ, as though any\nof his mediatorial acts were the ground and reason thereof; for election\nis an act of sovereign grace, or is resolved into the good pleasure of\nthe will of God, and is not to be accounted a purchased blessing;\ntherefore when we speak of the concern of the Mediator, with relation\nhereunto, this is to be considered as a means ordained by God, to bring\nhis elect to salvation rather than the foundation of their election.\nThis proposition necessarily follows from the former; for if they, who\nare chosen to the end, are chosen to the means, then Christ\u2019s\nmediatorial acts being the highest and first means of salvation, God\u2019s\neternal purpose respects this, as subservient thereunto.\nThere are some very considerable divines,[205] who distinguish between\nour being chosen in Christ, as an Head, and being chosen in him as a\nRedeemer; and accordingly, they conclude, that there are two distinct\nrelations, in which the elect are said to stand to Christ, both which\nare mentioned by the apostle, when he says, _Christ is the Head of the\nchurch, and the Saviour of the body_, Eph. v. 23. and they are also\nmentioned distinctly elsewhere, _He is the Head of the body, the\nchurch_, and then it follows, that he _made peace through the blood of\nthe cross_, Col. i. 18, 19, 20. and they add, that the elect are\nconsidered as his members, without any regard had to their fallen state;\nand that the blessings contained therein, are such as render their\ncondition more honourable and glorious, than otherwise it would have\nbeen, had they been only considered as creatures, without any relation\nto him as their Head; and this Headship of Christ they extend not only\nto men, but to the holy angels, whom they suppose to be chosen, in this\nrespect, in Christ, as well as men, and that it is owing hereunto that\nthey have the grace of confirmation conferred upon them; and it also\nfollows, from hence, that Christ would have been the Head of the\nelection of grace, though man had not fallen, and that our fallen state\nrendered that other relation of Christ to his elect necessary; so that\nas they are chosen to salvation, they are chosen in him as a Redeemer,\ndesigned to bring about his great work for them, and, for this end, set\nup, as it is expressed, _from everlasting_, Prov. viii. 23.\nThis distinction of Christ\u2019s double relation to the elect, is,\ndoubtless, designed by those who thus explain this doctrine to advance\nhis glory; notwithstanding it remains still a matter of doubt to me,\nwhether Christ\u2019s Headship over his church be not a branch of his\nMediatorial glory; and, if so, it will be very difficult to prove that a\nMediator respects any other than man, and him more particularly\nconsidered as fallen; and accordingly, God did not design hereby to\nadvance him to an higher condition, than what was barely the result of\nhis being a creature, but to deliver him from that state of sin and\nmisery, into which he foresaw that he would plunge himself. Therefore,\nin considering the order of God\u2019s eternal purpose, relating to the\nsalvation of his people, we must suppose that he first designed to\nglorify all his perfections in their redemption and salvation; and, in\norder hereunto, he fore-ordained, or appointed Christ to be their great\nMediator, in whom he would be glorified, and by whom this work was to be\nbrought about: He appointed him to be their Head, Surety, and Redeemer;\nfirst, to purchase salvation for them; and then, to make them meet for\nit, in the same order in which it is brought about by him in the\nexecution thereof; so that, as the glory of God, in the salvation of the\nelect, was the end, Christ\u2019s redemption was the means more immediately\nconducive thereunto, and, as such, he is said to be fore-ordained, to\nwit, to perform those offices that he executes as Mediator, 1 Pet. i.\n20. and as Christ, when he was manifested in the flesh, did all things\nfor his people, that were necessary to bring them to glory, he is, in\nGod\u2019s purpose, considered as the great Mediator, by whom he designed\nthis work should be brought about: thus he is set forth in the gospel,\nas a propitiation for sin; and the apostle seems to speak of it, as what\nwas the result of God\u2019s purpose, in Rom. iii. 25. whom God hath _set\nforth_ to be a propitiation; the Greek word[206] properly signifies, as\nit is observed in the marginal reference, _fore-ordained_ so to be; and\naccordingly, we must consider him as from all eternity in God\u2019s purpose,\nappointed to be the federal Head of those who are said to be chosen in\nhim, and to have all the concerns of the divine glory, relating to their\nsalvation, committed to his management.\nV. We shall now consider the properties of election, and how the divine\nperfections are displayed therein, agreeably to what is said concerning\nit in scripture.\n1. As it is taken for the purpose of God, relating to the sanctification\nor salvation of men, as distinguished from the execution thereof, it is\neternal: This is evident, because God is eternal, his purposes must be\nconcluded to be of equal duration with his existence; for we cannot\nsuppose that an infinitely wise and sovereign Being existed from all\neternity, without any fore-thought, or resolution what to do, for that\nwould be to suppose him to have been undetermined, or unresolved, when\nhe first gave being to all things; nor is it to be supposed that there\nare any new determinations in the divine will, for that would argue him\nto be imperfect, since this would be an instance of mutability in him,\nas much as it would be for him to alter his purpose; but neither of\nthese are agreeable to the idea of an infinitely perfect Being.\nMoreover, if God\u2019s purpose, with respect to the salvation of men were\nnot eternal, then it must be considered as a new after-thought arising\nin the divine mind, which, as to its first rise, is but, as it were, of\nyesterday, and consequently he would have something in him that is\nfinite. If it be contrary to his omniscience to have new ideas of\nthings, it is equally contrary to the sovereignty of his will to have\nnew determinations, therefore all his purposes were eternal.\n2. God\u2019s purpose relating to election, is infinitely wise and holy. This\nappears from the footsteps of infinite wisdom, and holiness, which are\nvisible in the execution thereof, namely, in bringing men to grace and\nglory; nothing is more conspicuous than the glory of these perfections\nin the work of redemption, and the application thereof; as hereby the\nsalvation of man is brought about in such a way, that the glory of all\nthe divine perfections is secured, and the means made use of, as\nconducive thereunto, the most proper that could have been used,\ntherefore it is a work of infinite wisdom. And inasmuch as herein God\ndiscovers the infinite opposition of his nature to sin, and thereby\nadvances the glory of his holiness, it follows from hence, that these\nperfections of the divine nature had their respective concern, if we may\nso express it, in the purpose relating hereunto; for whatever glory is\ndemonstrated in the execution of his purpose, that was certainly before\nincluded in the purpose itself.\n3. The purpose of God, relating to the final state of man, is secret, or\ncannot be known, till he is pleased to discover it. Nothing is more\nobvious than this; for even the purposes or resolutions of creatures are\nsecret, till they are made known by them: thus the apostle says, _What\nman knoweth the things of a man_, that is, what he designs to do, _save\nthe spirit of a man, which is in him_? and infers, in the following\nwords, _so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God_, 1\nCor. ii. 12. and elsewhere he says, _Who hath known the mind of the\nLord? or who hath been his councellor?_ Rom. xi. 34. And, for this\nreason, it is called, _The mystery of his will_, Eph. i. 9. and this\nalso follows from its being eternal, therefore it was hid in God, from\nbefore the foundation of the world, and consequently would for ever have\nbeen so, had he not, by his works, or word, made some discoveries\nthereof, to those whom he first brought into being, and then gave some\nintimations of his purpose to them.\nTherefore it could not have been known that God had purposed to save\nany, had he not revealed this in the gospel: much less have any\nparticular persons ground to conclude themselves to be elected, without\nfirst observing those intimations which God has given, whereby they may\narrive at the knowledge thereof. This head ought to be duly considered,\nby those who deny, and are prejudiced against this doctrine, though it\nbe generally neglected in the methods they take to oppose it; for they\nwill not consider the distinction we make between God\u2019s having chosen a\nperson to eternal life, and a person\u2019s having a right to conclude that\nhe is thus chosen; but take it for granted, that if there be such a\nthing as election, that we must necessarily determine ourselves to be\nthe objects thereof, and ought to regulate our future conduct\naccordingly. It is from thence they conclude, that the doctrine of\nelection leads men to presumption, or gives them occasion to say, that\nthey may live as they list; whereas we suppose that it is an instance of\npresumption in any one to determine that he is elected, unless there be\nsome discovery hereof made to him; and this discovery cannot take its\nrise from God, unless it be accompanied with that holiness, which is,\nfrom the nature of the thing, inconsistent with our being led hereby to\nlicentiousness. And here we take occasion to consider, that God does not\nmake known his secret purpose, relating to this matter, to any, by\ninspiration, especially since that extraordinary dispensation of\nprovidence is ceased; and, indeed, it never was his ordinary way to\ndiscover it hereby to those, who, in other instances, were favoured with\nthe gift of inspiration. The means therefore by which we come to the\nknowledge hereof, is, by God\u2019s giving certain marks, or evidences of\ngrace, or by shewing us the effects of the divine power, in calling and\nsanctifying us, whereby we have a warrant to conclude that we were\nchosen to eternal life; and, whilst we make a right improvement thereof,\nand conclude that our judgment, concerning our state, is rightly\nfounded, or not, by the holiness of our lives, we are in no danger of\nabusing this great and important doctrine, to the dishonour of God, or\nour own destruction.\nThis leads us to consider a distinction, which we are often obliged to\nmake use of, when we speak concerning the will of God, as secret or\nrevealed, by which we account for the sense of many scriptures, and take\noccasion from it to answer several objections that are brought against\nthis doctrine. I am sensible that there is nothing advanced in defence\nthereof, which they, who are in the other way of thinking, are more\nprejudiced against, than this distinction, which they suppose to contain\na reproachful idea of the divine Majesty, and is the foundation of many\npopular prejudices against the doctrine we are defending, as though we\nhereby intended that God has a secret meaning, different from what he\nreveals; or that we are not to judge of his intentions by those\ndiscoveries which he makes thereof, which it would be the highest\nreproach to charge any creature with, and contrary to that sincerity\nwhich he cannot be destitute of, but he is hereby rendered the object of\ndetestation; therefore no one, who conceives of an holy God, in such a\nway as he ought to do, can entertain a thought, as though the least\nappearance thereof were applicable to him. However, this is the common\nmisrepresentation that is made of this distinction. Whether it arises\nfrom its being not sufficiently explained by some; or a fixed resolution\nto decry the doctrine of election, and render it odious, as it must\ncertainly be, if supported by a distinction, understood in so vile a\nsense, I will not determine. However, that we may remove this prejudice,\nand consider how it is to be understood, in a sense more agreeable to\nthe divine perfections, we shall proceed to explain it; and here we may\nobserve,\n_First_, That the will of God is sometimes taken, in scripture, for that\nwhich he has, from all eternity, determined, which is unchangeable, and\nshall certainly come to pass, which is impossible for any creature to\ndisannul, resist, or render ineffectual; and it is such a branch of\ndivine sovereignty, that to deny it, would be, in effect, to deny him to\nbe God. This the apostle intends, when he represents the malicious and\nobstinate sinner as replying against God, and defending himself in his\nbold crimes, by saying, _Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath\nresisted his will?_ Rom. ix. 19, 20, 21, 22. In answer to which, he\nasserts the sovereignty of God, and that he is not accountable to any\nfor what he does, nor to be controuled by them; and this is also\nintended in another scripture, in Eph. i. 11. where it is said, that\n_God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will_; and\nelsewhere he says, _My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my\npleasure_, Isa. xlvi. 10. This will of God is the rule of his own\nacting, and, as it determines the event of things, it is impossible for\nhim to act contrary to it; and it is equally disagreeable to his\nperfections, to signify to his creatures, that he determines to do one\nthing, but will do another; therefore, in this sense, we are far from\nasserting that there is a revealed will of God, which contradicts his\nsecret.\n_Secondly_, We often read, in scripture, of the will of God, as taken\nfor what he has prescribed to us, as a rule of duty; and also of our\njudging concerning the apparent event of things.\n(1.) The will of God may be considered as a rule of duty, which is a\nwell-known and proper sense of his revealed will: thus our Saviour\nteaches us to pray, _Let thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven_;\nby which he principally intends his revealed will, _or law_. Enable us\nto yield obedience to thy law, in our measure, as thou art perfectly\nobeyed in heaven. So our Saviour says, _Whosoever shall do the will of\nGod, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother_, Mark iii. 35.\nwhich can be meant of no other than his revealed will, or of his law, in\nwhich it is contained; because no one can act contrary to God\u2019s\ndetermination, which is that sense of his will, contained in the\nforegoing head; and, consequently, a doing his will, in that sense,\nwould not have been laid down as a distinguishing character of those\nwhom Christ preferred above all, who were related to him in the bonds of\nnature.\nAgain the apostle understands the will of God in this sense, when he\nsays, _Thou knowest his will_, Rom. ii. 18. where he speaks to the Jews,\nwho were instructed out of the law, in which it is contained; and\nelsewhere, Eph. vi. 6. he speaks of his will, as what is to be obeyed,\nand therefore gives this description of faithful servants, that they _do\nthe will of God_, namely, what he has commanded, _from the heart_. And\nthere are many other scriptures thus to be understood; and this we call\nhis revealed will, as it is the rule of duty and obedience.\n(2.) The revealed will of God may be considered as a rule which he has\ngiven us, whereby we are to judge of the apparent event of things. I\nmake this a branch of God\u2019s revealed will, inasmuch as sometimes he\ncondescends to discover future events to his creatures, which otherwise\nthey could never have known; but yet there is a difference, as to the\nmanner of their judging thereof, pursuant to the intimations which he\nhas given them. Accordingly, when God has told us expressly, that this\nor that particular thing shall come to pass, then we are infallibly sure\nconcerning the event, and need no other rule to judge of it, but by\nconsidering it as revealed: As when God has said, that there shall be a\ngeneral resurrection of the dead, and that Christ shall come to\njudgment, and receive his redeemed, and sanctified ones, to heaven, to\nbehold his glory, we are infallibly assured of these events, because\nthey are expressly revealed; and, when we speak of the secret and\nrevealed will of God, as applicable to things of this nature, we intend\nnothing else hereby but what all will allow of, _viz._ that what would\nhave been for ever a secret, had it not been discovered, is now\nrevealed, and therefore ceases to be so; and in that sense, the revealed\nwill of God, in all respects, agrees with his secret; in this case, we\nsuppose that God expressly revealed the event.\nBut there are other instances, in which the event of things is not\nexpressly revealed; as when God has only discovered to us what is the\nrule of our duty. Nevertheless, since it is natural for man, when any\nduty is commanded, to pass some judgment concerning the event thereof;\nand, inasmuch as we suppose the event not expressly revealed, it\nfollows, that the judgment, which we pass concerning it, is only what\nappears to us, or what, according to our rule of judging, seems to be\nthe probable event of things. In this case we are not infallibly assured\nconcerning it; and when we pass a judgment relating thereunto, we may\nconclude that some consequences may attend our present duty, which,\nperhaps, will never come to pass. As if a general of an army gives forth\na command to his soldiers, to march towards the enemy, they will readily\nconclude, that he designs, by this command, that they should enter on\nsome action, which, had he expressly told them, he must either change\nhis purpose, or else the event must certainly happen; but, inasmuch as\nhe has not discovered this to them, all the judgment that they can form,\nat present, concerning it, is only such, as is founded on the appearance\nof things, and the event might probably afterwards shew, without any\nimpeachment of his veracity or conduct herein, that his only design was\nto try whether his soldiers would obey the word of command, or not. Or\nif a king should order a number of malefactors to the place of\nexecution, without discovering the event thereof, the apparent event is\ntheir immediate death; but if, pursuant to his secret purpose, he\nresolved, there to give forth a pardon to them, it cannot be supposed\nthat he changed his purpose; but the event makes it appear, that his\npurpose was not then known; whatever the apparent event might be, his\nreal design was to humble them for their crimes, and afterwards to\npardon them.\nIt is only in such-like instances as these, that we apply this\ndistinction to the doctrine that we are maintaining; and therefore it\nmust be a very great stretch, of malicious insinuation, for any one to\nsuppose, that hereby we charge God with insincerity in those\ndeclarations of his revealed will, by which we pass a probable judgment\nconcerning the event of things. But to apply this to particular\ninstances. God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii.\n2. whereas it is certain, unless we suppose that he altered his purpose,\nthat he intended, not that he should lay his hand upon him, but, when\nIsaac was upon the altar, to forbid him to do it. Here was a great and a\ndifficult duty, which Abraham was to perform pursuant to God\u2019s revealed\nwill, which was the rule of his obedience; had Abraham known, before\nthis, that God designed to hold his hand, and prevent him from striking\nthe fatal blow, it had been no trial of his faith; for it would have\nbeen no difficult matter for him to have done every thing else. The holy\npatriarch knew well enough that God could prevent him from doing it; but\nthis he had no ground to conclude, because he had no divine intimation\nconcerning it; therefore that which appeared to him to be the event, was\nthe loss of his son, and he reconciled this with the truth of the\npromise before given him, that _in Isaac his seed should be called_, by\nsupposing that God, at some time or other, would _raise him from the\ndead_, as the apostle observes, Heb. xi. 19. therefore that which\nAbraham concluded as judging, not by an express revelation, but by the\nvoice of providence, was, that Isaac must be slain by his hand: But this\nwas contrary to the real event, as is evident, from the account thereof\nin scripture; and, consequently since the real event was agreeable to\nthe divine determination, as all events are, it follows, that there is a\ndifference between the will of God, determining the event of things,\nwhich shall certainly come to pass accordingly; and the revelation of\nhis will, relating to what is the creatures present duty, which may, at\nthe same time, appear to them, when judging only by the command, which\nis the rule of duty, and some circumstances that attend it, to be\ncontrary to what will afterwards appear to have been the real design of\nGod therein. God\u2019s real design was to try Abraham\u2019s faith, and to\nprevent him from slaying his son, when he had given a proof of his\nreadiness to obey him; but this remained, at first, a secret to Abraham,\nand the apparent design was, that he should slay him. Therefore there is\na foundation for this distinction, as thus explained, concerning the\nsecret and revealed will of God; the former belongs not to us, nor are\nwe to take our measures from it, as being unknown: and, when the latter\nappears contrary to it, we must distinguish between two things, that are\ncontrary in the same, and different respects; or between the judgment\nwhich we pass concerning events, which are apparent to us, and, at most,\nare only probable and conjectural, as we judge of the consequence of a\nduty commanded; and those events, which, though they are infallibly\ncertain, yet are not revealed, nor can be known, till they come to pass.\nIn this sense we understand the distinction between God\u2019s secret and\nrevealed will, when they seem to oppose each other; which it was\nnecessary for us thus to explain, inasmuch as we shall frequently have\noccasion to mention, and apply it, when we account for the difference\nthat there seems to be, between the purpose of God, relating to the\nevent of things, and our present views thereof, whereby we may\nunderstand and account for the difficulties contained in several\nscriptures, which I would have mentioned in this place, for the farther\nillustration hereof, had it been necessary. But this is sufficient to\nexplain and vindicate it from the prejudices entertained against it, by\nthose who are disposed to misrepresent what is said in defence of this\ndoctrine.\nFrom what has been said, concerning God\u2019s secret and revealed will, we\nmay infer,\n_1st_, That it is a great boldness, and unwarrantable instance of\npresumption, for any one to enter into, or judge of God\u2019s secret\npurpose, so as peremptorily to determine, beyond the present appearance\nof things, that this or that shall certainly come to pass, till he makes\nthem known; for _secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those\nthings which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children forever_,\nDeut. xxiv. 29. Therefore no one ought to determine that he is elected\nto salvation, before the work of grace is wrought, and, some way or\nother, made visible to him; or, on the other hand, to determine that he\nis rejected or reprobated, when he has no other ground to go upon, but\nuncertain conjecture, which would be a means to drive him to despair:\nthat some are, indeed, elected, and others rejected, is no secret\nbecause God has revealed this in his word; so that we may assert it as a\nproposition, undoubtedly true, when we do not apply it to particular\npersons; and therefore this doctrine has not that pernicious tendency,\nwhich many pretend that it has.\n_2dly_, The first act of saving faith does not consist in our believing\nthat we are elected; neither is it the duty of unregenerate persons, as\nsuch to apply this privilege to themselves any more than to conclude\nthemselves rejected: But our business, is, so long as the purpose of God\nremains a secret to us, to attend on the means of grace, hoping and\nwaiting for the display of divine power, in effectually calling us; and\nafterwards for the Spirit\u2019s testimony, or seal, to be set to it, whereby\nhe discovers his own work; and then it may, in some measure, be reckoned\na branch of his revealed will and will afford us matter of thanksgiving\nand praise to him, and a foundation of peace and comfort in our own\nsouls. But this may be farther insisted on, when we come to consider the\nimprovement we ought to make of this doctrine. We proceed to consider\nthe next property of election.\n4. It is free, and sovereign, or absolute, and unconditional; for that\nwhich would be a reflection on the divine perfections, if applied to\nGod\u2019s method of working, is, by no means, to be said concerning his\npurpose to work, or, (which is the same) his decree of election;\ntherefore if there are no obligations laid on him by his creatures, to\ndisplay or perform any of his works of grace, but they are all free and\nsovereign, then it follows, that the fore-sight of any thing that shall\nbe done by them, in time, could not be the motive, or reason of his\npurpose, or decree, to save them, or of his choosing them to salvation.\nThis may be farther argued, from the independence of the divine nature:\nif his nature and perfections are independent, his will must be so. But\nmore particularly,\n(1.) The displays of God\u2019s grace, in time, are expressly resolved into\nhis sovereign pleasure, in scripture, in Rom. ix. 15. _He saith to\nMoses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have\ncompassion on whom I will have compassion._ And there are many other\nscriptures, which might be referred to, where all merit, or motives,\ntaken from the creature, which might be supposed to induce him to bestow\nspiritual and saving blessings, are entirely excluded, and the whole is\nresolved in to the glory of his own name, and in particular, of those\nperfections which he designed herein to illustrate. This is applied,\neven to the common blessings of providence; _Nevertheless, he saved them\nfor his name\u2019s sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known_,\nPsal. cvi. 8. and it is also applied to sparing mercy, or the exercise\nof God\u2019s patience, _For my name\u2019s sake will I defer mine anger, and for\nmy praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off_, Isa.\nxlviii. 9. and to pardoning mercy, _For thy name\u2019s sake, O Lord, pardon\nmine iniquity, for it is great_, Psal. xxv. 11. And when he is\nrepresented as doing great things for his people, he puts them in mind,\nat the same time, of their own vileness and unworthiness, that the\nfreeness and sovereignty of his grace, to them, might be more\nconspicuous: Thus, when he tells them how he delivered Israel out of\nEgypt, he puts them in mind of their idolatry in that land; therefore no\nmotive could be taken, from their behaviour towards him, which could\ninduce him to do this for them; as it is said, _But they rebelled\nagainst me, and would not hearken unto me; they did not every man cast\naway the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols\nof Egypt; then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish\nmy anger against them, in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought,\nfor my name\u2019s sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen,\namong whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in\nbringing them forth out of the land of Egypt_, Ezek. xx. 8, 9.\n(2.) If the grace of God, and consequently his purpose relating\nthereunto, were not absolute, free, and sovereign, then all the glory\nthereof could not be attributed to him, neither would boasting be\nexcluded; but as the creature might be said to be a worker together with\nGod, so he would lay claim to a share, if not to the greatest part of\nthe honour, that will redound to him from it; which is directly contrary\nto the divine perfections, and the great design of the gospel. This will\nfarther appear, if we consider,\n_1st._ That a conditional purpose to bestow a benefit, cannot take\neffect till the condition be performed, and accordingly it is said to\ndepend on it. This is obvious, from the known idea affixed to the word\n_condition_, and the common signification thereof; it follows therefore,\n_2dly._ That the performance of the condition is the next, or immediate\ncause of a conditional purpose\u2019s taking effect; and, to apply this to\nthe case before us,\n_3dly._ If, on our performing the condition of God\u2019s purpose to save us,\nit be rendered effectual, which otherwise it would not have been,\n(agreeably to the nature of a conditional purpose) then we are more\nbeholden to our own conduct, than the divine purpose, and so the glory\nthereof will be due to ourselves; which would not only cast the highest\ndishonour on the divine perfections, but it is contrary to the design of\nthe gospel, which is to stain the pride of all flesh, and take away all\noccasions of glorying, from the creature. Thus the prophet Isaiah,\nfore-telling the glory of the gospel-state, considers its tendency to\nhumble the pride of man, when he says, _The loftiness of man shall be\nbowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord\nalone shall be exalted in that day_, Isa. ii. 17. and the apostle,\ndescribing the nature of faith, considers its tendency _to exclude\nboasting_; Rom. iii. 27. and our Saviour, speaking concerning the\ndiscriminating grace of God, that appears in election, either in his\npurpose relating to it, or in the execution thereof, says, _Ye have not\nchosen me, but I have chosen you_, John xv. 16. that is, you have done\nnothing that has laid any obligation on me to choose you by that act of\nfaith, whereby you are inclined to prefer me to all others; for this is\nthe consequence and result of my discriminating grace.\nWe shall now proceed to consider those arguments, which are generally\nmade use of by those, who are in the other way of thinking, to support\nthe conditionality of God\u2019s purpose, as well as of his works of grace,\nin opposition to what has been said concerning the freeness and\nsovereignty thereof. They generally allege those scriptures for that\npurpose, that are laid down in a conditional form; as when the apostle\nspeaks of such a confession of Christ _with the mouth_, as is attended\nwith _believing in the heart, that God raised him from the dead_, and\n_calling on the name of the Lord_, as connected with salvation, Rom. x.\n9, 13. and our Saviour says, that _whosoever believeth on him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life_, John iii. 15. and that _he that\nbelieveth shall be saved_, Mark xvi. 16. and elsewhere, _Except ye\nrepent, ye shall all likewise perish_, Luke xiii. 3. and many other\nscriptures of the like nature; from whence they argue, that since the\ndispensations of God\u2019s providence, the gifts of his grace, and the\nexecution of his purpose are all conditional, the purpose itself must be\nso. Were it but allowed that election is conditional whether it respects\nthe purpose or providence of God, we should meet with no opposition from\nthose who are on the other side of the question; but as such a purpose\nto save, as is not absolute, peremptory, or independent on the will of\nman, has many absurd consequences attending it, which are derogatory to\nthe glory of the divine sovereignty, as has been already considered; so\nthis cannot be the sense of those scriptures, that are laid down in a\nconditional form, as those and such-like are, that we have but now\nmentioned; for no sense of scripture can be true or just, that has the\nleast tendency to militate against any of the divine perfections; so\nthat there may without any strain or violence offered to the sense of\nwords, be another sense put upon these, and all other scriptures, in\nwhich we have the like mode of speaking, whereby they may be explained,\nagreeably to the analogy of faith; therefore let us consider,\n1. That all such scriptures are to be understood as importing the\nnecessary connexion of things, so that one shall not be brought about\nwithout the other; accordingly, repentance, faith, and all other graces,\nare herein no otherwise considered, than as inseparably connected with\nsalvation; which depends upon one of those propositions, which was\nbefore laid down, _viz._ that God having chosen to the end has also\nchosen to the means. We are far from denying that faith and repentance\nare necessary to salvation, as God never gives one without the other,\nand consequently they are inseparably connected in his eternal purpose\nrelating thereunto. If nothing else were intended by a conditional\npurpose than this, we would not offer any thing against it; but\ncertainly this would be to use words without their known or proper\nideas; and the word _condition_, as applicable to other things, is never\nto be understood in this sense. There is a necessary connection between\nGod\u2019s creating the world, and his upholding it, or between his creating\nan intelligent creature, and his giving laws to him; but none ever\nsupposed one to be properly a condition of the other: so a king\u2019s\ndetermining to pardon a malefactor, is inseparably connected with his\npardoning him, and his pardon given forth, with his having a right to\nhis forfeited life; but it is not proper to say, one is a condition of\nthe other; so a person\u2019s seeing is inseparably connected with his\nopening his eyes; and speaking, with the motion of his lips; but we do\nnot say, when he determines to do both of them, that one is a condition\nof the other. A condition, properly speaking is that which is not only\nconnected with the privilege that follows upon the performance thereof,\nbut it must be performed by a subject acting independently on him who\nmade the conditional overture, or promise.\nIf it be said, that a duty, which we are enabled to perform by God, who\npromised the blessing connected with it, is properly a condition, we\nwill not contend about the propriety, or impropriety, of the word; but\ninasmuch as it is taken by many, when applied to divine things, in the\nsame sense as in matters of a lower nature, and so used to signify the\ndependence of the blessings promised, or the efficacy of the divine\npurpose, relating thereunto, on our performance of the condition, which\nis supposed to be in our own power, whereby we come to have a right and\ntitle to eternal life; it is this that we principally militate against,\nwhen we assert the absoluteness of God\u2019s purpose.\n2. Whatever ideas there may be contained in those scriptures, which are\nbrought to support the doctrine we are opposing, that contain in them\nthe nature of a condition, nothing more is intended thereby, but that\nwhat is connected with salvation is a condition of our claim to it, or\nexpectation of it: In this sense, we will not deny faith and repentance\nto be conditions of salvation, inasmuch as it would be an unwarrantable\ninstance of presumption, for impenitent and unbelieving sinners, to\npretend that they have a right to it, or to expect the end without the\nmeans, since these are inseparably connected in God\u2019s purpose, as well\nas in all his dispensations of grace. This being laid down, as a general\nrule for our understanding all those scriptures, which are usually\nbrought to prove that God\u2019s purposes are sometimes conditional, we shall\nfarther illustrate it, by applying it to three or four other scriptures,\nthat are often brought in defence thereof, which we shall endeavour to\nexplain, consistently with the doctrine we are maintaining.\nOne is taken from Gen. xix. 22. where the angel bade Lot _escape to\nZoar_, telling him, that _he could not do any thing till he came\nthither_. If we suppose this to have been a created angel, as most\ndivines do, yet he must be considered as fulfilling the purpose of God,\nor acting pursuant to his commission; and therefore it is all one, to\nour present argument, as though God had told Lot, that he could do\nnothing till he was gone from that place. It is plain, that he had given\nhim to understand, that he should be preserved from the flames of Sodom,\nand that, in order thereunto, he must flee for his life; and adds, that\nhe could do nothing, that is, he could not destroy Sodom, consistently\nwith the divine purpose to save him, till he was escaped out of the\nplace; for God did not design to preserve him alive (as he did the three\nHebrew captives, in Daniel) in the fire, but by his escaping from it;\none was as much fore-ordained as the other, or was designed as a means\nconducive to it; and therefore the meaning of the text is, not that\nGod\u2019s purpose, relating to Sodom\u2019s destruction, was founded on Lot\u2019s\nescape, as an uncertain and dubious condition, depending on his own\nwill, abstracted from the divine determination relating to it; but he\ndesigned that those two things should be connected together, and that\none should be antecedent to the other; and both of them, as well as\ntheir respective connection, were the object of God\u2019s absolute and\nperemptory determination.\nThere is another scripture, sometimes brought to the same purpose, in\nGen. xxxii. 26. where the angel says to Jacob, _Let me go, for the day\nbreaketh_; and Jacob replies, _I will not let thee go, except thou bless\nme_, which does not infer, that God\u2019s determinations were dependent on\nJacob\u2019s endeavour to detain him, or his willingness to let him depart;\nbut we must consider Jacob as an humble, yet importunate suppliant, as\nit is said elsewhere, _Weeping and making supplication_, Hos. xii. 4.\n_Let me go_, says God, appearing in the form of an angel, and speaking\nafter the manner of men, that he might give occasion to Jacob to express\na more ardent desire of his presence and blessing, as well as to signify\nhow unworthy he was of it; not as though he was undetermined before-hand\nwhat to do, but since the grace which Jacob exercised, as well as the\nblessing which he received, was God\u2019s gift, and both were connected in\nthe execution of his purpose, we must conclude that the purpose itself\nwas free, sovereign, and unconditional.\nAgain, there is another scripture, in which God condescends to use a\nmode of speaking, not much unlike to the other, in which he says to\nMoses, speaking concerning Israel, in Exod. xxxii. 10. _This is a\nstiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax\nhot against them, and that I may consume them_; we are not to suppose\nthat the whole event was to turn upon Moses\u2019s prayer, as though God\u2019s\npurposing to save his people were dependent on it; or that that grace,\nwhich inclined him to be importunate with God, did not take its rise\nfrom him. Moses, indeed, when first he began to plead with God, knew not\nwhether his prayer would be prevalent or no; however, he addresses\nhimself, with an uncommon degree of importunity, for sparing mercy; and,\nwhen God says, _Let me alone_, it signifies, that his people were\nunworthy that any one should plead their cause; and, if God should mark\niniquity, then Moses\u2019s intercession would be altogether in vain, and so\nhe might as well let him alone, in that respect, as ask for his mercy.\nHe does not, indeed, at first, tell him what he designed to do, that he\nmight aggravate their crime, but afterwards he answers his prayer in\nIsrael\u2019s favour, and signifies that he would work, not for their sakes,\nbut for his own name\u2019s sake; so that he takes occasion, on the one hand,\nto set forth the people\u2019s desert of punishment; and, on the other, the\nfreeness of his own grace.\nThere is but one scripture more that I shall mention, among many that\nmight have been brought, and that is what is said concerning our\nSaviour, in Matt. xiii. 58. that _he could not do many mighty works\nthere_, at that time, in his own country, _because of their unbelief_?\nwhere he speaks either of their not having a faith of miracles that was\nsometimes required, in those for whom they were wrought: or else of the\nunaccountable stupidity of that people, who were not convinced, by many\nothers that he had wrought before them; therefore he resolves to put a\nstop to his hand, and not, for the present, to work so many miracles\namongst them, as otherways might have been expected: If we suppose that\ntheir want of faith prevented his working them, this is not to be\nconsidered as an unforeseen event. And as he had determined not to\nconfer this privilege upon them, or to continue to work miracles amongst\nthem, if those, which he had already wrought, were disregarded and\ndespised by their unbelief, we must conclude that he had a perfect\nknowledge of this before-hand, and that his determinations were not\ndependent on uncertain conditions, though he had resolved to act in such\na way, as was most for his own glory; and that there should be an\ninseparable connexion between that faith, which was their duty, and his\ncontinuing to exert divine power, as an ordinance adapted to excite it.\n5. God\u2019s purpose concerning election is unchangeable; this is the result\nof his being infinitely perfect. Mutability is an imperfection that\nbelongs only to creatures: As it would be an instance of imperfection,\nif there were the least change in God\u2019s understanding, so as to know\nmore or less than he did from all eternity; the same must be said with\nrespect to his will, which cannot admit of any new determinations. There\nare, indeed, many changes in the external dispensations of his\nprovidence, which are the result of his will, as well as the effects of\nhis power; yet there is not the least appearance of mutability in his\npurpose. We have before considered, in speaking concerning the\nimmutability of the divine nature[207], that whatever may be a reason\nobliging men to alter their purposes, it cannot, in the least, take\nplace, so that God hereby should be obliged to alter his: No unforeseen\noccurrence can render it expedient for him to change his mind, nor can\nany superior power oblige him to do it; nor can any defect of power, to\nbring about what he had designed, induce him to alter his purpose.\nIf it be objected to this, that the obstinacy of man\u2019s will may do it;\nthat is to suppose his will exempted from the governing influence of\ndivine providence, and the contrary force, that offers resistance,\nsuperior to it, which cannot be supposed, without detracting from the\nglory of the divine perfections. It would be a very unworthy thought for\nany one to conclude that God is one day of one mind, and another day\nforced to be of the contrary; how far this is a necessary consequence\nfrom that scheme of doctrine that we are opposing, let any one judge. It\nwill be very hard to clear it of this entanglement, which they are\nobliged to do, or else all the absurdities that they fasten on the\ndoctrine of election, which are far from being unanswerable, will not be\nsufficient to justify their prejudices against it.\nThey who are on the other side of the question, are sensible that they\nhave one difficulty to conflict with, namely, the inconsistency of God\u2019s\ninfallible knowledge of future events, with a mutability of will\nrelating thereunto; or how the independency of the divine fore-knowledge\nis consistent with the dependence and mutability of his will. To fence\nagainst this, some have ventured to deny the divine prescience; but that\nis to split against one rock, whilst endeavouring to avoid another.\nTherefore others distinguish concerning the objects of the divine\nprescience, and consider them, either as they are necessary or\ncontingent, and accordingly suppose that God has a certain foreknowledge\nof the former; but his knowledge of the latter, (from the nature of the\nthings known) is uncertain, and consequently the determination of his\nwill is not unalterable. But this is to set bounds to the fore-knowledge\nof God, with respect to its object, and, indeed, to exclude the free\nactions of the creature from being the objects thereof, which is a\nlimiting and lessening of this perfection, and is directly contrary to\nthe idea of omniscience; and therefore we must insist on their proving\nthis to be consistent with the infinite perfection of God, which they\nwill find it very difficult to do; and to suppose, on the other hand,\nthat any thing is the object of God\u2019s certain fore-knowledge, about\nwhich his will is no way conversant, or only so, in such a way, as that\nit is subject to change, according to the mutability of things, is\naltogether as indefensible, and equally subversive of the independency,\nwisdom, and sovereignty thereof.\n_Object._ The most material objection against this doctrine, is take\nfrom some scriptures, which seem to represent God as repenting, and\ntherein, as it is supposed, changing his purpose. Thus he is sometimes\nsaid to repent, that he had bestowed some blessings upon men, when he\nperceives how they have been abused by them, and accordingly he purposes\nto bring evil on them; as we read, in Gen. vi. 6, 7. _It repented the\nLord that he had made man, and it grieved him at his heart; and the Lord\nsaid, I will destroy man, whom I have created_; and, at other times he\nis said to repent of the evil that he designed to bring upon them, and\nalter his purpose in their favour; thus it is said, in Deut. xxxii. 36.\n_The Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants;\nwhen he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or\nleft_; and in Joel ii. 13. _Rend your hearts, and not your garments, and\nturn unto the Lord your God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to\nanger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil_; and in\nPsal. xc. 13, _Return, O Lord, how long? and let it repent thee\nconcerning thy servants_; and in Jer. xviii. 8. _If that nation, against\nwhom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil\nthat I have thought to do unto them._ And we have a very remarkable\ninstance of this, in God\u2019s sparing Nineveh, on their repentance, after\nhe had threatened, by the prophet Jonah, that _within forty days they\nshould be destroyed_.\n_Answ._ It is true, there are many scriptures, in which repentance is\nascribed to God, which, if we consider nothing else but the grammatical\nsense of the words, seem to favour the objection; but we are bound to\nconclude, that such a sense of repentance, as that on which it is\nfounded, is inconsistent with the divine perfections, and therefore\nthose scriptures, referred to therein, cannot imply a change in God\u2019s\npurpose. And, indeed, there are other scriptures, which assert what is\ndirectly contrary thereunto; as when it is said, in Numb, xxiii. 19.\n_God is not a man, that he should lye, neither the son of man, that he\nshould repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,\nand shall he not make it good?_ And elsewhere, in 1 Sam. xv. 29. it is\nsaid, _The strength of Israel will not lye, nor repent; for he is not a\nman that he should repent_.\nBut we must have recourse to some methods to reconcile this seeming\ncontradiction, and so consider the sense thereof, in different respects,\nas applicable to them both; in some scriptures, God is said to repent;\nin others, it is said that he cannot repent. That these may not appear\ninconsistent with one another, nor either of them infer any imperfection\nin God, let it be considered, that God is sometimes represented, in\nscripture, in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as though he\nhad human passions, as in others, he is described, as though he had a\nbody, or bodily parts: But such expressions are always to be taken in a\nmetaphorical sense, without the least supposition, that he is subject to\nany such imperfections; and particularly we must not conclude, that\nrepentance is ever ascribed to God in the same sense as it is to men,\n_viz._ as implying a change in his purpose, occasioned by an unforeseen\noccurrence, which is the sense contained in the objection. Such a\nrepentance, as this, is a passion peculiarly belonging to the creature,\nand therefore in this sense we must understand those words; _God is not\na man, that he should lye, nor the son of man, that he should repent_;\naccordingly, he is said to repent, not by changing his purpose, but by\nchanging his work. Thus when it is said, that _he repented that he had\nmade man_, nothing is meant by it, but that he determined to destroy\nhim, as he did afterwards by the flood. And this was no new\ndetermination arising from any thing in the creature, which God did not\nforesee; he knew before-hand that all flesh would corrupt their way, and\ntherefore his determination to punish them for it, was not a new resolve\nof the divine will, after the sin was committed; but God determined\nthings in their respective order, first to permit sin, and then knowing\nwhat would be the consequence thereof, namely, that they would rebel\nagainst him, he determined to punish it, or to destroy the old world,\nwhich is, in effect, the same, as though he had repented that he made\nit. He cannot be said to repent as we do, by wishing that he had not\ndone that which he is said to repent of, but by denying us the\nadvantage, which we might have otherwise expected from it. In this sense\nwe are to understand all those scriptures that speak of God, as\nrepenting of the good that he had bestowed on man.\nAnd, on the other hand, when he is said to repent of the evil which he\nthreatened to bring on men, as in the case of Nineveh, this does not\nargue any change in his purpose; for he determined that Nineveh should\nbe destroyed, provided they did not repent, and it was not uncertain to\nhim whether they would repent or no; for, at the same time, he\ndetermined to give them repentance, as appears by the event, and so not\nto inflict the judgment threatened; and therefore when Jonah was sent to\nmake a public proclamation to the people, that in forty days they should\nbe destroyed, it is plain that they understood the threatening in this\nsense, that they had no ground to expect any thing else, except they\nrepented, which accordingly they did, and so were spared, without having\nany reason to conclude that God changed his purpose relating thereunto.\nIf it be objected hereunto, that this is nothing less than to establish\na conditional purpose in God, and so overthrows the argument that we are\nmaintaining; the reply that may be made to it, is, that we distinguish\nbetween a conditional purpose, in God\u2019s secret will, and a conditional\nproposition, which was to be the subject of the prophet\u2019s ministry: The\nprophet, it is plain, was not told, when he received his commission to\ngo to Nineveh, that God would give them repentance, but only, that,\nwithout repentance, they should be destroyed; whereas God, as the event\nmakes it appear, determined that they should repent, and therefore that\nthey should not be destroyed; and, consequently, we must not suppose,\nthat, when God sent him, he was undetermined, in his own purpose,\nwhether to destroy them or not, or that there was any thing conditional\nin the divine mind, that rendered the event uncertain to God, though\nthere was a condition contained in the subject-matter of the prophet\u2019s\nmessage, which the Ninevites very well understood, namely, that they had\nno ground to expect deliverance without repentance, and therefore they\nrepented, in hope of obtaining mercy, which they supposed would be\nconnected with their repentance; and it is evident, that Jonah himself\nsuspected that this might be the event, though God had not told him that\nit would be so, and therefore says, in chap. iv. 2. _For I knew that\nthou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great\nkindness, and repentest thee of the evil._\n6. The purpose of God, in choosing men to eternal life, renders their\nsalvation necessary; so that nothing shall defeat, or disannul it. What\nGod says concerning Israel\u2019s deliverance from the Babylonish captivity,\nmay be applied to all his other determinations, and particularly to what\nrelates to the eternal salvation of his people; _My counsel shall stand,\nand I will do all my pleasure; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring\nit to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it_, Isa. xlvi. 10, 11.\nThe purposes of God, indeed, are distinguished from his bringing them to\npass; it is one thing to design to bring his people to glory, and\nanother thing to bring them to it. It is not to be supposed that the\ndecree of God has, in itself, a proper efficiency to produce the thing\ndecreed:[208] for then there would be no difference between an eternal\ndecree, and an eternal production of things; whereas the apostle plainly\ndistinguishes between man\u2019s being predestinated to glory, and brought to\nit, when he says, _Those whom he predestinated, them he glorified_, Rom.\nviii. 30.\nThe purpose of God, is, indeed, the internal moving cause, or the first\nground and reason of the salvation of those who are elected to it; but\nhis power is the more immediate cause of it, so that his purpose is the\nreason of his exerting this power, and both concurring to the salvation\nof men, render it certain and necessary. Therefore some distinguish, for\nthe explaining of this, between the determining and powerful will of\nGod; the latter of which, is sometimes called the word of his power, and\nrenders the former effectual; this it must certainly do, otherwise God\nwould be said to will the existence of things, that shall never have a\nbeing. In this respect, the purpose of God renders things necessary,\nwhich are in themselves contingent, or arbitrary, and would otherwise\nnever come to pass.[209]\nThis is a great encouragement to those who are enabled to make their\ncalling and election sure; for their perseverance in grace,\nnotwithstanding all the opposition that they meet with, is the necessary\nconsequence of their election to eternal life. Thus, as we before\ndistinguished predestination into election and reprobation, we have\nconsidered the former of these, and we proceed,\n_Secondly_, To speak concerning the doctrine of reprobation;[210] which\nis become obnoxious to those on the other side of the question, almost\nto a proverb; so that if any doctrine is considered as shocking, and to\nbe answered no otherwise than by testifying their abhorrence of it, it\nis compared to this of reprobation; and, indeed, if it were not a\nconsequence from the doctrine of election to eternal life, that doctrine\nwould not be so much opposed by them. How far some unguarded\nexpressions, or exceptionable methods of explication, may have given\noccasion for this prejudice, it is not to our present purpose to\nenquire; but we shall take occasion, from thence, to explain it in such\na way, as that a fair and unprejudiced disputant will not see just\nreason to except against it, at least to reproach it, as though it were\na doctrine subversive of the divine glory, and to be defended by none\nbut those who seem to have a design to raise prejudices, in the minds of\nmen, against religion in general.\nAnd here we shall take occasion to consider the meaning of the word, as\nit is contained in, or deduced from scripture, where the same word that\nis used to signify the execution of this decree, may be applied to\nexpress the decree itself. Thus we read of God\u2019s rejecting, or\ndisregarding men, as a punishment of their rebellion against him: and\nthese are compared by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. vi. 30. _To reprobate\nsilver, because the Lord hath rejected them_; or, as it is in the\nmargin, _The refuse of silver_; and, in the New Testament, the same\nword[212] is sometimes translated reprobates; at other times,\ndisapproved or rejected, 1 Cor. iv. 27. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. Heb. vi. 8. and\nwhen this disapprobation, or rejection, respects not only their actions,\nas contrary to the holy nature of God, but their persons, as punished\nfor their iniquities; and when this punishment is considered as what\nrespects their eternal state, as the objects of vindictive justice, the\npurpose of God, relating hereunto, is what we call reprobation.\nBut, that we may more particularly consider the sense of the word, it\nseems, in scripture, to contain in it two ideas.\n1. God\u2019s determining to leave a part of the world in that state of sin\nand misery, which he from all eternity, fore-knew that they would bring\nthemselves into, or his decreeing not to save them; and, since all will\nallow that a part of mankind shall not be saved, it cannot reasonably be\ndenied that this was determined by him before-hand; and this is what\ndivines generally call preterition.\n2. There is another idea in the word _reprobation_, which is also\ncontained in scripture, or deducible from it, and that respects the\npurpose of God to punish those for their iniquities, whom he will not\nsave. Not to be saved, is the same as to be _punished with everlasting\ndestruction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power_.\nAnd God\u2019s purpose, relating hereunto, is expressed in scripture by his\n_appointing them to wrath_, 1 Thess. v. 9. for those sins which he\nfore-saw they would commit. This is what some call _pre-damnation_, as\ntaken from that expression of the apostle, Jude, ver. 4, 13. concerning\nsome who had _crept into the church unawares_, whom he describes as\n_ungodly men_, that is, notoriously so, _who turned the grace of God\ninto lasciviousness_, for whom _is reserved the blackness of darkness\nforever_; of these he says, that they were _before of old, ordained to\nthis condemnation_, where God is represented as punishing sinners, in\nproportion to their crimes; and this is considered as the result of that\neternal purpose, which was founded on his fore-sight of their\ncontracting that guilt whereby they would render themselves liable to\nit.\nIf this doctrine be thus explained, it will appear agreeable, not only\nto scripture, but to the divine perfections, and therefore too great a\ntruth to be treated with that abhorrence, with which it generally is,\nwithout explaining, distinguishing or fairly entering into the merits of\nthe cause. It is a very easy matter to render any doctrine odious, by\nmisrepresentation, as they on the other side of the question, have done\nthis of reprobation, which we shall briefly consider, and therein take\nleave to explain it in a different manner, whereby it will appear not\nonly worthy to be defended, as redounding to the glory of God, but a\nplain and evident truth, founded on scripture.\nIf this doctrine were to be considered no otherwise, than as it is often\nrepresented by them, we should dislike it, as much as they do; for when\nthey pretend that we herein suppose God to be severe and cruel to his\ncreatures, delighting himself in, and triumphing over them, in their\nmisery: and that he decreed, from all eternity, to damn the greatest\npart of mankind, without any consideration of their sin, as the result\nof his arbitrary will, or dominion, as he has a right to dispose of his\ncreatures, according to his pleasure, and that as a means to attain this\nend, as though it were in itself desirable, he leaves them to\nthemselves, blinds their minds, and hardens their hearts, and offers\nthese occasions of, and inducements to sin, which are as\nstumbling-blocks in their way, and that he determined that his\nprovidence should be so conversant about the will of man, as that it\nshould be under a natural necessity, or kind of compulsion, to what is\nevil, without considering the corruption and depravity of nature, as a\nvicious habit, which they had contracted; and that all this is done in\npursuance of this decree of reprobation.\nIt is very probable that many who give this account of this doctrine,\nhave no other foundation for it, but the popular outcry of those who are\nnot apprised of the methods that are generally taken to explain and\ndefend it; or else they suppose that it cannot be defended, without\nbeing exposed to those exceptions which are contained in the account\nthey give of it. But we shall take no farther notice of this, but\nproceed to explain and defend it another way. And,\n1. As to the former branch thereof, namely, preterition, or God\u2019s\npassing by, or rejecting those whom he hath not chosen to salvation, let\nit be premised; that God, in his eternal purpose, considered all mankind\nas fallen, which must be supposed to have been foreknown by him,\notherwise he would not be said to be omniscient, and the result of his\nfore-knowledge is his determining to leave a part of them in their\nfallen state, in which he might have left the whole world to perish\nwithout being liable to the least charge of injustice. This is what we\ncall his rejecting them, and accordingly it is opposed to his having\nchosen the rest to eternal life. These terms of opposition are plainly\ncontained in scripture: thus it is said, _The election hath obtained it,\nand the rest were blinded_, Rom. xi. 7. not by God\u2019s leading them into\nmistakes, or giving them false ideas of things, but they were left to\nthe blindness of their minds, which was the result of their apostasy\nfrom God; and elsewhere our Saviour says, _Thou hast hid these things\nfrom the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes_, Matt. xi.\n25. Thou hast hid, that is, not revealed them; and that either\nobjectively, as respecting those who are destitute of the light of the\ngospel; or subjectively, as he did not effectually, or savingly\nenlighten them with the light of life, by _revealing Christ in them_, as\nthe apostle calls it, Gal. i. 16. and therefore it is as though he had\nsaid, thou hast determined not to give to some the means of grace, nor\nto others the saving efficacy thereof, such as they are partakers of,\nwho are chosen to salvation. Accordingly, he is said _to have suffered\nall nations to walk in their own ways_, Acts xiv. 16. that is, not to\nrestrain or prevent the breaking forth of corruption, as he might have\ndone; and elsewhere, to have _winked at_, chap. xvii. 30. that is, as it\nmay be rendered, _over-looked_ the greatest part of the world, which is\nno other than his rejecting or passing them by; and in this sense we are\nto understand that difficult mode of speaking used by the apostle, _Whom\nhe will he hardeneth_, Rom. ix. 18. by which nothing else is intended\nbut his purposing to leave many to the hardness of their own hearts. God\nforbid that any one should think that there is a positive act contained\nin those words, as though God infused hardness into the hearts of any;\nfor the meaning is only this, that he determined to deny heart-softening\ngrace to that part of mankind, whom he had not fore-ordained to eternal\nlife. That there was such a purpose relating hereunto, is evident,\nbecause whatever God does in the methods of his providence, is the\nresult of an eternal purpose. This no one, who observes the\ndispensations of God\u2019s providence, and allows as every one must do, that\nall that he does was pre-concerted by him, can justly deny.\nBut that which must be farther enquired into, as to this matter, is,\nwhether God\u2019s determining to pass by a part of mankind, be an act of\nsovereignty or of justice. And this may also be judged of, by the\nexternal dispensation of his providence; so far as there is sovereignty,\nor justice, visible in them, we are to conclude that this purpose,\nrelating thereunto, was the result of one or other of these perfections.\nIn some respects it is an act of sovereignty: As, for instance, that God\nshould give one nation the gospel, or the means of grace, and deny it to\nanother; it is not because he sees any thing in one part of the world,\nthat obliges him thereunto, more than in the other; but the reason is,\nas was observed in the scripture but now mentioned, _because it seemed\ngood in his sight_, Matt. xi. 26. Moreover, his giving special grace,\nwhereby some are effectually called and sanctified; and denying it to\nothers, is an act of sovereign pleasure.\nBut on the other hand, God is said sometimes, in the external\ndispensations of his providence, to leave men to themselves, to give\nthem up to their own hearts lust, in a judicial way, which supposes not\nonly the commission of sin, but persons being obstinate and resolutely\ndetermined to continue in it. Thus God saith concerning his people;\n_Israel would none of me; so I gave them up to their own hearts\u2019 lusts,\nand they walked in their own counsels_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. and the\nPsalmist says elsewhere, _Add iniquity to their iniquity_, Psal. lxix.\n27. which words I would rather consider as a prediction than a prayer,\nor as an expression of the church\u2019s acquiescence in God\u2019s righteous\njudgments, which they had ground to conclude, that he would inflict on\nan impenitent, incorrigible people; these are expressed, by _adding\niniquity to iniquity_, not as though he designed to infuse any habit of\nsin into them, for that is inconsistent with the holiness of his nature;\nbut that he would reject, and leave them to themselves, in a judicial\nway, as a punishment inflicted on them for their iniquities, the\nconsequence whereof would be their own adding iniquity to iniquity.\nThus, in different respects, the purpose of God, in passing by a part of\nmankind, may be considered, either as the result of his sovereign\npleasure, or as an act of justice.\n2. We shall now proceed to consider the other branch of reprobation,\nwhich some call _pre-damnation_, or (to use the scripture-expression\nbefore referred to) God\u2019s fore-ordaining those who shall not be saved,\nto that condemnation, which they shall fall under, as exposing\nthemselves to it by their own wickedness; which is nothing else but his\ndetermining, from all eternity, to punish those, as a judge, who should,\nby their own crimes, deserve it, and thereby to vindicate the holiness\nof his nature and law. Here let it be observed, that when this doctrine\nis reproached or misrepresented, it is described as an act of divine\nsovereignty, but that we are as ready to deny and oppose as they are,\nsince, according to the description we have given of it, it can be no\nother than an act of justice; for, if to condemn, or punish, be an act\nof justice, then the decree, relating hereunto, must be equally so, for\none is to be judged of by the other. If God cannot punish creatures as\nsuch, but as criminals and rebels, then he must be supposed to have\nconsidered them as such, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined to\npunish them. No man can style this an act of cruelty, or severity in\nGod, but those who reckon the punishing of sin to be so, and are\ndisposed to charge the Judge of all with not doing right, or offering an\ninjury to his creatures, when he pours forth the vials of his wrath on\nthem, who, by their bold and wilful crimes, render themselves obnoxious\nthereunto.\nHere let it be considered, that God, in his actual providence, is not\nthe author of sin, though he suffer it to be committed in the world.\nAnd, since his permitting, or not hindering it, cannot be said to be the\ncause of its being committed, there being no cause thereof, but the will\nof man; it follows, from hence, that God\u2019s punishing sin, is not to be\nresolved into his permission of it, as the cause thereof, but into the\nrebellion of man\u2019s will, as refusing to be subject to the divine law;\nand thus God considered men, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined\nto condemn those, whose desert of this punishment was foreseen, by him,\nfrom all eternity. And is this a doctrine to be so much decried?\nI cannot but wonder the learned author, whom I have before referred to,\nas opposing this doctrine,[213] should so far give into the common and\npopular way of misrepresenting it, unless he designed, by this way of\nopposing it to render it detested; when he speaks concerning them,\nmentioned in Jude, ver. 4. _who were before, of old, ordained to this\ncondemnation_, he says, \u201cThis cannot be meant of any divine ordination,\nor appointment of them, to eternal condemnation, because it cannot be\nthought, without horror, that God doth thus ordain men to perdition,\nbefore they had a being.\u201d If he had expressed his horror and resentment\nagainst God\u2019s ordaining men to perdition, as creatures, it had been\njust; but to express this detestation against God\u2019s ordaining men to\nperdition, who are described as these are, is to expose this doctrine\nwithout reason; and it is still more strange that he should cast this\ncensure upon it, when he owns in his farther explication of this text,\n\u201cThat God ordaineth none to punishment but sinners, and ungodly men, as\nthese persons here are styled, and that these were men of whom it was\nbefore written, or prophesied, that they should be condemned for their\nwickedness;\u201d since there is not much difference in the method of\nreasoning, between saying that the condemnation of sinners, for their\nwickedness, was before written, or prophesied, and saying, that God\nfore-ordained them to eternal punishment.\nI am sensible that many are led into this mistake, by supposing that we\ngive a very injurious and perverse sense of that text, in which the\ndoctrine of reprobation is contained, which, it may be, has occasioned\nthis reproach to be cast upon it. For when the apostle says, in Rom. ix.\n22. _What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,\nendured with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to\ndestruction_, some suppose that we understand this text, as though these\nvessels of wrath were, from all eternity, prepared for destruction by\nGod, and that his eternal purpose, is his fitting them for it, as\nintending to bring about that end, _viz._ his destroying them. But if\nany have expressed themselves in such a way, as is equivalent thereunto,\nlet them be accountable for their own sense of the text; though this I\nmay say, that some, even of them, who give into the Supralapsarian way\nof explaining the doctrine of predestination, have not understood it in\nthis sense;[214] and the sense which I would give of it is this, that\nthose, whom the apostle speaks of as vessels of wrath, are persons whom\nGod had rejected, and from the foresight of the sins which they would\ncommit, he had _appointed them to wrath_, which is an expression the\napostle uses elsewhere, 1 Thess. v. 9. but they were appointed to wrath,\nnot as creatures, but as sinners; they are described as fitted to\ndestruction, not by God\u2019s act, but their own, and that is the reason of\ntheir being fore-ordained to it.[215]\nThere is another scripture, which is generally cited by those who treat\non this subject, that we are to use the utmost caution in explaining,\nlest we give just occasion, to those who oppose it, to express their\nabhorrence of it, as inconsistent with the divine perfections, namely,\nwhat the apostle says concerning those that were not elected, whom he\ncalls _the rest_ of the Jewish nation, in Rom. xi. 7-10. that _they were\nblinded_, and that _God had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that\nthey should not see, and ears that they should not hear_; and he speaks\nof _their table being made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling-block,\nand a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not\nsee, and bow down their back always_. The sense which they, who\nmisrepresent this doctrine, suppose that we put upon this scripture, is,\nthat they, who are reprobated, have, as a consequence thereof, occasions\nof sin laid in their way, some things designed to blind their minds,\ncast a mist before their eyes, and so lead them out of the way, and\nother things, that prove a snare to them, a trap, and occasion of sin,\nand all this with a design to bring about that damnation which God had\nordained for them, in this decree of reprobation; which sense of this\nscripture never was, nor could be given, by any one, who has a due\nregard to the divine perfections.\nAnd shall this doctrine be judged of hereby, when it is very hard to\nfind any, how unguarded soever they are in their modes of speaking, that\nunderstand this text as they represent it? We shall therefore consider\nwhat is probably the meaning of this scripture, with which the doctrine\nwe have laid down is very consistent. It is not to be understood as\nthough God were the author of these sins, which they are said to be\ncharged with; but this blindness and stupidity, which is called, _A\nspirit of slumber_ as it is connected with the idea of their being\nrejected of God, and his determining not to give them the contrary\ngraces, is considered, as the consequence, not the effect thereof, and\nthat not the immediate, but the remote consequence thereof, in the same\nsense as stealing is the consequence of poverty, in those who have a\nvicious inclination thereunto. Thus when a person, who has contracted\nthose habits of sin, that tend to turn men aside from God, is destitute\nof preventing and restraining grace, the consequence thereof, is, that\nthese corruptions will break forth with greater violence; and God is not\nobliged to give this grace to an apostate, fallen creature, much less to\none who has misimproved the means of grace, by which a multitude of sins\nmight have been prevented; so that nothing is intended hereby but this,\nthat they are left to themselves, and permitted to stumble and fall, and\nto commit those abominations, which, if they had not been thus\njudicially left, would have been prevented, and as the consequence\nthereof, they run into many sins, which they might have avoided; for\nthough we suppose that it is not in a man\u2019s own power, as destitute of\nthe grace of God, to bring himself into a regenerate or converted state,\n(as will be farther considered, in its proper place) nevertheless, we do\nnot deny but that men might, in the right use of the gifts of nature,\navoid many sins, which they, who are said to be thus blinded, and\nhardened, run into, and so increase their guilt and misery, especially\nwhere they are not prevented by the grace of God, which he may, without\nany impeachment of his providence, deny to those whom he has not chosen\nto eternal life, as he might, had he pleased, have denied it to the\nwhole world, and much more to those who have not improved the common\ngrace, which they received, but have, through the wickedness of their\nnature, proceeded from one degree of sin unto another.\nThere is another scripture, which, some suppose we understand in such a\nsense, as gives the like occasion of prejudice to many against this\ndoctrine, in 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. _For this cause God shall send them\nstrong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be\ndamned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness_;\nthe meaning whereof is this, that God suffered them to be deluded, who,\nin the following verse, are represented as not receiving _the love of\nthe truth_; not that God was the author of these delusions, or deceived\nthem by a false representation of things to them, or by exciting or\ninclining them to adhere to the suggestions of those who lie in wait to\ndeceive; but, since he did not design to give them grace under the means\nof grace, or to enable them to receive the truth in the love thereof,\nwhich he was not obliged to do to any, much less to those who rebelled\nagainst the light that had been already given them; hereupon, through\nthe blindness of their own minds, they became an easy prey to those who\nendeavoured to ensnare or delude them; so that the decree of God only\nrespects his denying preventing grace to those, who, through the\ncorruption of their own nature, took occasion, from thence, to run\ngreater lengths in their apostasy from, and rebellion against God. And\nas for that mode of speaking here used, that _God shall send them strong\ndelusions_, that only respects his will to permit it, and not his design\nto delude them.\nThere is another scripture to the same purpose, in Psal. lxxxi. 12. _So\nI gave them up unto their own heart\u2019s lust, and they walked in their own\ncounsels_; the meaning of which is, that God left them to themselves,\nand then lust, or the corrupt habits of sin, which they had acquired,\nconceived, and, as the apostle James speaks, _brought forth sin_, chap\ni. 15. or greater acts of sin, which exposed them to a greater degree of\ncondemnation; and all this is to be resolved into God\u2019s permissive will,\nor purpose, to leave man, in his fallen state, to himself, which he\nmight do, without giving occasion to any to say, on the one hand, that\nhe is the author of sin; or, on the other, that he deals injuriously\nwith the sinful creature.\nAnd to this we may add our Saviour\u2019s words concerning the Jews, in John\nxii. 39, 40. _Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said\nagain, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they\nshould not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be\nconverted, and I should heal them_. The sense which they, who\nmisrepresent this doctrine, suppose we put upon them, and conclude, that\nno other is consistent with the argument we are maintaining, is, that\nthe unbelief, which the Jews are charged with, was principally, if not\naltogether, resolved into God\u2019s eternal purpose, to blind their eyes,\nand harden their hearts, namely, by some positive act, as a cause\nproducing this effect, with this view, that they should not be\nconverted, and saved, that thereby his decree to condemn them, might\ntake effect. It is no wonder to find persons prejudiced against this\ndoctrine, when set in such a light; but as this is very remote from the\nexplication we have given thereof, so our Saviour\u2019s design, in this\ntext, is to give an account why those miracles, which he wrought before\nthe Jews, were ineffectual for their conviction; the more immediate\ncause whereof was the blindness of their mind, and the hardness of their\nhearts, inasmuch as they had shut their eyes against the light, and,\nthrough the corruption of their nature, had hardened their own hearts.\nAs to what God is said to have done, in a judicial way, agreeable to the\nmode of speaking here used, when it is said, _He hath hardened their\nhearts_, it imports nothing else but his leaving them to the hardness of\ntheir own hearts, or denying them heart-softening grace, which would\nhave been an effectual remedy against it. And may not God deny his grace\nto sinners, without being charged as the author of sin, or the blame\nthereof devolved on him, and not themselves? And, since this judicial\nact of providence cannot but be the result of an eternal purpose, is\nthere any thing, in this decree, that reflects on his perfections, any\nmore than there is in the execution thereof?\nThere is another scripture, in Prov. xvi. 4. _The Lord hath made all\nthings for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil_; from\nwhence they infer, that the doctrine of reprobation, which they suppose\nto be founded on a perverse sense given of it, includes in it the divine\npurpose to make man to damn him; for they conclude that we understand it\nin that sense; and they proceed a little farther than this, and pretend\nthat we infer from it, that God made men wicked, or that he made them\nwicked for his glory, as if he had need of sinful man for that end. I\nshould never have thought that so vile a consequence could be drawn from\nthis doctrine, if the learned writer, before mentioned, had not told the\nworld that we infer this from it;[216] and, to give countenance to this\nsuggestion, he quotes a passage out of Dr. Twiss;[217] his words are\nthese: \u201cThat all, besides the elect, God hath ordained to bring them\nforth into the world in their corrupt mass, and to permit them to\nthemselves, to go on in their own ways, and so finally to persevere in\nsin; and, lastly, to damn them for their sin, for the manifestation of\nthe glory of his justice on them.\u201d\nI am not ashamed to own my very great esteem of this excellently learned\nand pious writer, who was as considerable for that part of learning,\nwhich his works discover him to have been conversant in, as most in his\nday; though I cannot think myself obliged, in every respect, to explain\nthis doctrine as he does; and Dr. Whitby knew very well, that if such an\ninference, as what we have been speaking of, were to be deduced from the\nwritings of any, who maintain the doctrine of reprobation, it must be\nfrom one who gives into the Supralapsarian way of explaining it; and\nthis expression, which, it may be, was a little unguarded, seems to bid\nas fair for it as any other he could have found out: But any one that\nreads it, without prejudice, and especially that compares it with what\nis connected therewith, would not suppose that any thing is intended\nhereby, that gives the least ground to conclude that God made men wicked\nfor the manifestation of his justice. The most obnoxious part of this\nquotation, is, _God ordained to bring forth into the world the\nnon-elect, in their corrupt mass_, that is, that persons, who are every\nday born into the world, are the seed of corrupt and fallen man, and so\nhave the habits of sin propagated with their nature, which many other\ndivines have endeavoured to maintain. What my sentiments are concerning\nthis matter, I shall rather choose to insist on, under a following\nanswer, in which we shall be lead to speak of the doctrine of original\nsin, and of that corruption of nature, which is the consequence of it;\ntherefore, passing this by, there is nothing, in what remains of this\nquotation, but what is very defensible, and far from making God the\nauthor of sin; for we may observe, that all he says, concerning the\nprovidence of God relating to this matter, is only, that he permits, or\nleaves them to themselves, and he supposes them finally to persevere in\nsin, without which they cannot be liable to damnation, or the display of\nthe justice of God therein; and if the author, who brings this\nquotation, had duly considered the words immediately before, he might\nhave seen the reason to have saved himself the trouble of making this\nreflection upon it; for Dr. Twiss, who, though a Supralapsarian, says,\n\u201cThat he reckons that controversy, relating to the order of God\u2019s\ndecrees, to be merely _Apex Logicus_, as he calls it, _a logical\nnicety_;\u201d and adds, \u201cThat his opinion about it is well known, namely,\nthat God doth not ordain any man to damnation, before the consideration\nof sin;\u201d and, a few lines after, he says, \u201cThat God, of his mere\npleasure, created all, but, of his mere pleasure, he damneth none; but\nevery one that is damned, is damned for his sin, and that wilfully\ncommitted, and contumaciously continued in by them that come to ripe\nyears.\u201d And if nothing more than this is intended by the doctrine of\nreprobation, it ought not to be so misrepresented, with a design to cast\nan odium upon it.\nBut to return to the scripture but now mentioned: When God is said _to\nhave made the wicked for the day of evil_, the meaning is not that man\u2019s\ndamnation was the end designed by God, in creating him, for there are\nsome other ideas that intervene between God\u2019s purpose to create and\ncondemn him; he must be considered not barely as a creature, but as a\nsinner; now, as God did not create man that he might sin, he could not\nbe said to create him, that he might condemn him. Accordingly, the sense\nwhich some give of this text, is, that God is said to have _made all\nthings for himself_, to wit, for his own glory. And inasmuch as some\nwill be ready to object, that God will have no glory from the wicked,\nwho oppose his name and interest in the world; the answer to this is,\nthat in them, from whom he shall have no glory, as a Saviour, he will,\nnotwithstanding, be glorified as a Judge; which judicial act, though it\nbe deferred for a time, while his long-suffering waits upon them, yet it\nshall fall heavily on them, in the day of evil: which is very remote\nfrom that supposition, that God made man to damn him. And there is a\nsense given of it by some, who are on the other side of the question,\nwhich seems equally probable, or agreeable to the mind of the Holy\nGhost, and is not in the least subversive of the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, namely, \u201cThat the Lord disposeth all things throughout the\nworld, to serve such ends as he thinks fit to design, which they cannot\nrefuse to comply withal; for if any man be so wicked as to oppose his\nwill, he will not lose their service; but when he brings a public\ncalamity upon a country, employ them to be the executioners of his\nwrath: Of this there was a remarkable instance in the destruction of\nJerusalem, by the Roman soldiers, whom our Saviour used, to punish his\ncrucifiers, not that they undertook that war out of any design or desire\nto do our blessed Saviour right, but out of an ambition to enslave the\nworld; yet God made use of them for another design, as public\nexecutioners, by whom he punished the ungodly[218].\u201d So the Assyrian is\nsaid, in Isa. x. 5, 6. to be _the rod of God\u2019s anger_, and to be _sent\nagainst the people of Israel, and to lead them captive_, and therein _to\ntread them down, like the mire in the streets_[219]. And as to what\nconcerns the purpose of God, on which these judicial proceedings depend,\nthis is to be judged of by the execution thereof, as is evidently to be\ninferred from thence. And this is the sense in which we understand the\ndoctrine of _reprobation_, as in the foregoing argument.\nThus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of _election_ and\n_reprobation_, and defend it from the reproaches and misrepresentations\ncast upon it by considering it, not only as agreeable to the divine\nperfections, but as founded on scripture. We shall therefore proceed,\nVI. To enquire, whether the contrary doctrine as defended by some, be\nnot derogatory to the divine perfections, and therefore does not contain\ngreater absurdities; or, if expressions of detestation were a sufficient\nargument to set it aside, whether we have not as much reason to testify\nour dislike that way, as they have against the doctrine we are\nmaintaining? As to that part of the charge brought against us, as though\nwe represented God as severe and cruel to his creatures; or that it is\ninconsistent with his goodness to suppose that he leaves any to\nthemselves in their fallen state, so as not to give them the means of\ngrace, when he knew that being destitute thereof, they could not\nbelieve, and so would fall short of salvation, pursuant to his eternal\npurpose relating thereunto: can this be said to be inconsistent with his\ngoodness, any more than all his other displays of vindictive justice? If\nthey suppose that it is, we might easily retort the argument upon them\nsince they will not assert, that the whole race of fallen man shall be\nsaved; and, if so, must we not suppose that God certainly fore-knew\nthis, otherwise where is his infinite understanding? And if he knew that\nthis would be the consequence of their being born, and living in the\nworld, where is his goodness in bringing them into it? If it be said\nthat they have a free-will to choose what is good, and so had a power to\nattain salvation; therefore their not attaining it, is wholly owing to\nthemselves. Suppose this were taken for granted, without entering on\nthat subject at present; yet it must be farther enquired whether they\nwill allow that God fore-know that they would abuse this freedom of\nwill, or power to make themselves holy or happy; and, if so, could he\nnot have prevented this? Did he make a will that he could not govern or\nrestrain? Could he not have prevented the sin that he knew they would\ncommit? And, if he could, why did he not do it, and thereby prevent\ntheir ruin, which he knew would be the consequence hereof? So that if\nmen are disposed to find fault with the divine dispensation, it is no\ndifficult matter to invent some methods of reasoning to give umbrage to\nit; and, indeed this objection is not so much against God\u2019s\nfore-ordaining what comes to pass, as it is a spurning at his judicial\nhand, and finding fault with the equity of his proceedings, when he\ntakes vengeance on sinners for their iniquities; or charging severity on\nGod, because all mankind are not the objects of his goodness, and\nconsequently not elected to eternal life.\nBut passing by this, we shall proceed to consider how, in several\ninstances, the methods used to oppose the doctrine, which we are\nmaintaining, are attended with many absurd consequences, derogatory to\nthe divine perfections; which farther discovers the unreasonableness of\ntheir opposition to it; particularly,\n1. It represents God as indeterminate, or unresolved what to do, which\nis the plain sense of their asserting that he has not fore-ordained\nwhatever comes to pass. To suppose him destitute of any determination,\nis directly contrary to his wisdom and sovereignty, and it would argue\nthat there are some excellencies and perfections belonging to\nintelligent creatures, which are to be denied to him, who is a God of\ninfinite perfection: but if, on the other hand, they suppose that every\nthing, which comes to pass, is determined by him; nevertheless, that his\ndeterminations, as they respect the actions of intelligent creatures,\nare not certain and peremptory, but such as may be disannulled, or\nrendered ineffectual as taking his measures from the uncertain\ndeterminations of man\u2019s will; this is, in effect to say, that they are\nnot determined by God; for an uncertain determination, or a conditional\npurpose, cannot properly be called a determination. Thus for God to\ndetermine, that he that believes shall be saved, without resolving to\ngive that faith which is necessary to salvation, is, in effect, not to\ndetermine that any shall be saved; for, since they suppose that it is\nleft to man\u2019s free-will to believe or not, and liberty is generally\nexplained by them, as implying that a person might, had he pleased, have\ndone the contrary to that which he is said to do freely; it follows that\nall mankind might not have believed, and repented, and consequently that\nthey might have missed of salvation, and then the purpose of God,\nrelating thereunto, is the same as though he had been indeterminate, as\nto that matter. But, if, on the other hand, they suppose that to prevent\nthis disappointment, God over-rules the free actions of men, in order to\nthe accomplishment of his own purpose, then they give up their own\ncause, and allow us all that we contend for; but this they are not\ndisposed to do; therefore we cannot see how the independency of the\ndivine will can be defended by them, consistently with their method of\nopposing this doctrine.\nAgain, if it be supposed, as an expedient to fence against this absurd\nconsequence, that God fore-knew what his creatures would do, and that\nhis determinations were the result thereof, and, consequently, that the\nevent is as certain as the divine fore-knowledge, this is what is not\nuniversally allowed of by them; for many are sensible that it is as hard\nto prove, that God fore-knew what must certainly come to pass, without\ninferring the inevitable necessity of things, as it is to assert that,\nhe willed or determined them, whereby they are rendered eventually\nnecessary. And if they suppose that God fore-knew what his creatures\nwould do, and, particularly, that they would convert themselves, and\nimprove the liberty of their will, so as to render themselves objects\nfit for divine grace, without supposing that he determined to exert that\npower and grace, which was necessary thereunto; this is to exclude his\nprovidence from having a hand in the government of the world, or to\nassert that his determinations rather respect what others will do, than\nwhat he will enable them to do, which farther appears to be inconsistent\nwith the divine perfections.\n2. There are some things, in their method of reasoning, which seem to\ninfer a mutability in God\u2019s purpose which is all one as to suppose, that\nhe had no purpose at all relating to the event of things: Thus, in\nopposing the doctrine of election, they refer to such-like scriptures as\nthese, namely, that _God will have all men to be saved, and come to the\nknowledge of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii. 4. applying this act of the divine\nwill to every individual, even to those who shall not be saved, or come\nto the knowledge of the truth; and they understand our Saviour\u2019s words,\n_How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? Behold your\nhouse is left unto you desolate_, Mat. xxiii. 37, 38. as implying, that\nGod purposed to save them, but was obliged afterwards, by the\nperverseness of their actions, to change his purpose. What is this, but\nto assert him to be dependent and mutable?\n3. They, who suppose that salvation is not to be resolved into the power\nand will of God, must ascribe it to the will of man, by which we\ndetermine ourselves to perform those duties, which render us the objects\nof divine mercy; and then what the apostle says, _It is not of him that\nwilleth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy_, Rom.\nix. 16. would hardly be intelligible, or a defensible proposition; and\nwhen it is said, _We love him, because he first loved us_, 1 John iv.\n19. the proposition ought to be inverted, and it should rather be said,\nHe loved us, because we first loved him; and that humbling question,\nwhich the apostle proposes, _Who maketh thee to differ_, 1 Cor. iv. 7.\nshould be answered, as one proudly did, I make myself to differ.\n4. As to what concerns the doctrine of discriminating grace, which\ncannot well be maintained, without asserting a discrimination in God\u2019s\npurpose relating thereunto, which is what we call election; if this be\ndenied, there would not be so great a foundation for admiration, or\nthankfulness, as there is, or for any to say, as one of Christ\u2019s\ndisciples did, speaking the sense of all the rest, _Lord, how is it,\nthat thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world_, John\nxiv. 22. Nor is there so great an inducement to humility, as what will\narise from the firm belief, that, when no eye pitied the poor helpless\nand miserable sinner, he was singled out of a ruined and undone world,\namong that remnant whom God first designed for, and then brought to\nglory.\nVII. We shall now consider those methods of reasoning, by which the\ncontrary doctrine is defended, and enquire into the sense of those\nscriptures, which are generally brought for that purpose; and shall\nendeavour to make it appear, that they may be explained, in a different\nway, more consistently with the divine perfections. It is plain that the\nmain design of those, who oppose the doctrine of election, is to advance\nthe goodness of God; and, since all mankind cannot be said to be equally\npartakers of the effects of this goodness, inasmuch as all shall not be\nsaved, they suppose that God has put all mankind into a salvable state;\nand, accordingly, as the gospel-overture is universal, so God\u2019s purpose\nto save, includes all to whom it is made; but the event, and\nconsequently the efficacy of the divine purpose relating hereunto,\ndepends on the will of man; and, that there may be no obstruction which\nmay hinder this design from taking effect, God has given him a power to\nyield obedience to his law, which, though it be not altogether so\nperfect as it was at first, but is somewhat weakened by the fall; yet it\nis sufficient to answer the end and design of the gospel, that is to\nbring him to salvation if he will, and the event of things is wholly put\non this issue; so that, though there be not an universal salvation,\nthere is a determination in God to save all upon this condition. How far\nthis is inconsistent with the divine perfections has been already\nconsidered; and we are farther to enquire, whether there be any\nfoundation for it in scripture, and what is the sense of some texts,\nwhich are often brought in defence thereof.\nOne text referred to, is, those words of the apostle, in 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n_Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the\ntruth_; and another scripture, to the same purpose, in 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n_The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should\ncome to repentance_; and several others, from whence they argue the\nuniversality of the divine purpose relating to the salvation of mankind,\nor that none are rejected, or excluded from it, by any act of God\u2019s\nwill, and consequently that the doctrine of election and reprobation is\nto be exploded, as contrary hereunto.\nThat the sense of these scriptures cannot be, that God designed that all\nmen should be eventually saved, or come to the knowledge of the truth,\nso that none of them should perish, is evident, from many other\nscriptures, that speak of the destruction of ungodly men, which,\ndoubtless, will be allowed by all; therefore it follows, that the\nmeaning of these two scriptures, is not that God purposed, or\ndetermined, what shall never come to pass, which is inconsistent with\nthe glory of his wisdom and sovereignty, as has been before observed;\nbut they are to be understood with those limitations, which the word\n_all_, which refers to the persons mentioned, as designed to be saved,\nis subject to in other scriptures; as will be more particularly\nconsidered, when we treat of universal and particular redemption, under\na following answer[220]. And therefore, at present, we need only\nobserve, that these scriptures may be set in a true light, that the word\n_all_ is oftentimes taken for all sorts of men, or things; as when it is\nsaid, that _of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in\ntwo and two unto Noah into the ark_, Gen. vii. 8, 9. that is all the\n_species_ of living creatures, not every individual; so, Acts x. 12. in\nthe vision that Peter saw of the sheet let down from heaven, in which\n_there were all manner of four-footed beasts_[221], &c. and it is said\nconcerning our Saviour, that he _went about, healing all manner of\nsickness, and all manner of diseases among the people_[222]; and\nelsewhere God promises, that _he will pour out his Spirit on all flesh_,\nActs ii. 17. that is, persons of all ages and conditions, young and old.\nThere are many instances of the like nature in scripture, which justify\nthis sense of the word _all_; and it seems plain, from the context, that\nit is to be so taken in the former of the scriptures, but now referred\nto, when it is said, _God will have all men to be saved_; for he\nexhorts, in ver. 1. that _prayer and supplication should be made for all\nmen_, that is, for men of all characters and conditions in the world,\nand, in particular, for _kings, and all that are in authority_, and\nthereby he takes occasion to resolve a matter in dispute among them,\nwhether those kings that were tyrants and oppressors, ought to be prayed\nfor, when he tells them, that all sorts of men are to be prayed for; and\nthe reason of this is assigned, namely, _because God will have all men_,\nthat is, all sorts of men, _to be saved_.\nMoreover, they whom God will save, are said to be such as _shall come_,\nthat is, as he will bring _to the knowledge of the truth_. Now it is\ncertain, that God never designed to bring every individual to the\nknowledge of the truth; for, if he did, his purpose is not fulfilled, or\nhis providence runs counter to it, for every individual of mankind have\nnot the gospel; therefore it follows, that since God did not purpose\nthat all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, the foregoing\nwords, _Who will have all men to be saved_, are not to be understood in\nany other sense, but as signifying _all sorts of men_. Neither can it\nwell be proved, whatever may be attempted in order thereto, that the\nfollowing words, which speak of Christ\u2019s being _a Mediator between God\nand men_, intend, that he performs this office for every individual man,\neven for those that shall not be saved; for then it would be executed in\nvain for a great part of them, as will be farther considered in its\nproper place; therefore we must conclude, that, in the former of these\nscriptures, nothing else is intended, but that God determined to give\nsaving grace to all sorts of men.\nAnd as for the latter, in which the apostle Peter says, that _God is not\nwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance_;\nthere the word _all_ is expressly limited, in the context, as referring\nonly to those who are elect and faithful; and therefore he says,\nincluding himself among them, that _the Lord is long-suffering to\nus-ward_. Now if we observe the character which he gives of the church,\nto which he writes, in the beginning of both his epistles, (which, as he\nsays, in ver. 1. of this chapter, were directed to the same persons) it\nis as great as is given of any in scripture; and they are distinguished\nfrom those profane _scoffers, who walked after their own lusts_, and\nother ungodly men, whose perdition he speaks of, as what would befal\nthem in the dissolution of the world, by fire, in the day of Judgment;\nand they are described not only as _elect unto obedience_, and as having\n_obtained like precious faith_ with the apostles, but they were such as\nGod would _keep, through faith, unto salvation_; therefore the apostle\nmight well say, concerning them, that God determined that none of them\nshould perish, without advancing any thing that militates against the\ndoctrine we are maintaining.\n_Object._ The apostle, in this verse, speaks of God, as willing that\n_all should come to repentance_; therefore they are distinguished from\nthat part of the church, who had obtained like precious faith, and were\nincluded in the character that he gives of some of them, in both his\nepistles, which infers their being then in a state of salvation;\ntherefore the word, _all_, in this text, is not subject to the\nlimitation before mentioned, but must be applied to _all the world_, and\nconsequently the meaning is, that God is not willing that any of mankind\nshould perish, but that all should come to repentance.\n_Answ._ The apostle, in this text, speaks of God\u2019s deferring the day of\njudgment, and perdition of ungodly men, and so exercising his\nlong-suffering towards the world in general; not that he designed to\nbring them all to repentance hereby, for that would be to intend a thing\nwhich he knew should never come to pass: But the end of his patience, to\nthe world in general, is, that all whom he designed to bring to\nrepentance, or who were chosen to it, as well as to obedience, and\nsprinkling of the blood of Jesus, should be brought to it.\nThere are other arguments, which they bring in defence of their sense of\nthe doctrine of election, as supposing that it is not peremptory,\ndeterminate, or unchangeable, and such as infers the salvation of those\nwho are the objects thereof, taken from those scriptures, which, as they\napprehend, ascribe a kind of disappointment to God; as when he says, in\nIsa. v. 4. concerning his vineyard, to wit, the church of the Jews,\n_Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it\nforth wild grapes?_ and our Saviour\u2019s words, in Luke xiii. 6. that _he\nsought fruit on the fig-tree_, meaning the church of the Jews in his\nday, _but found none_; and, speaking concerning Jerusalem, he says, in\nMatth. xxiii. 37, 38. _How often would I have gathered thy children\ntogether, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye\nwould not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate_; therefore they\nconclude, that God\u2019s purpose, or design of grace, may be defeated; so\nthat these, and many other scriptures, not unlike to them, are\ninconsistent with the doctrine of election, as ascertaining the event,\nto wit, the salvation of those who are chosen to eternal life; which\nleads us, particularly to consider the sense thereof.\nAs to the first of them, in which God says, by the prophet, _What could\nhave been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?\nWherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it\nforth wild grapes?_ He condescends therein to speak of himself after the\nmanner of men, as he often does in scripture, and is said to look for\nwhat might reasonably have been expected, as the consequence of all the\nmeans of grace, which he had vouchsafed to them; the reasonableness of\nthe thing is called his looking for it, as though he should say, it\nmight have been expected, from the nature of the thing, that they, who\nhad been laid under such obligations, should express some gratitude for\nthem, and so have brought forth some fruit, to the glory of God. And\nthose words, which seem to attribute disappointment to him, when it is\nsaid, _I looked_, &c. signifying nothing else but the ingratitude of the\npeople, that they did not walk agreeably to the obligations they were\nunder; not that God was really disappointed, for that would militate\nagainst his omniscience. He knew, before he laid these obligations on\nthem, what their behaviour would be; therefore, had he eyes of flesh, or\nseen as man seeth, their behaviour would have tended to disappoint him;\nbut there is no disappointment in the divine mind, though the sin\nreproved in the people be the same as though it had had a tendency to\ndefeat the divine purpose, or disappoint his expectation.\nAs for that other scripture, in which it is said, that _he sought fruit\non the fig-tree, but found none_, that is to be explained in the same\nway, _he sought fruit_, that is, it might reasonably have been expected,\nbut _he found none_, that is, they did not act agreeably to the means of\ngrace which they enjoyed. Therefore neither this, nor the other\nscripture, does in the least argue, that the purpose of God was not\nconcerned about the event, or that he did not know what it would be;\nfor, as his providential dispensation gives us ground to conclude, that\nhe determined to leave them to themselves, so he knew beforehand that\nthis, through the corruption of their nature, would issue in their\nunfruitfulness, otherwise he is not omniscient. Therefore it follows,\nthat neither of these scriptures have the least tendency to overthrow\nthe doctrine of the certainty and peremptoriness of the divine purpose.\nAs to what our Saviour says, relating to his willingness, to _have\ngathered Jerusalem, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but\nthey would not_, it may be taken, without the least absurdity attending\nthe sense thereof, as referring to the end and design of his ministry\namong them; and it is as though he should say, your nation shall be\nbroken, and you scattered, as a punishment inflicted on you for your\niniquities, and this destruction would have been prevented, had you\nbelieved in me; so that all that can be inferred from hence, is, that\nChrist\u2019s ministry and doctrine were attended with that convincing\nevidence, being confirmed by so many undoubted miracles, that their\nunbelief was not only charged on them as a crime, but was the occasion\nof their ruin; or (as it is said in the following words) of their\n_houses being left unto them desolate_. And this might have been\nprevented, by their making a right improvement of that common grace,\nwhich they had; for though it be not in man\u2019s power,[223] without the\nspecial influence of divine grace, to believe to the saving of the soul;\nyet I know no one who denies that it is in his power to do more good,\nand avoid more evil, than he does, or so far to attend to the preaching\nof the gospel, as not to oppose it with that malice and envy as the Jews\ndid; and, had they paid such a deference to Christ\u2019s ministry, as this\namounted to, they would not have been exposed to those judgments which\nafterwards befel them; for it is one thing to say, that men, by\nimproving common grace, can attain salvation, and another thing to\nconclude, that they might have escaped temporal judgments thereby.\nTherefore, if it be enquired, what was God\u2019s intention in giving them\nthe gospel? the answer is very plain: It was not that hereby he might\nbring them all into a state of salvation, for then it would have taken\neffect; but it was, as appears by the event, to bring those, that should\nbe saved among them, to that salvation, and to let others know, whether\nthey would hear, or whether they would forbear, that God had a right to\ntheir obedience, and therefore that the message which the Redeemer\nbrought to them, ought to have met with better entertainment from them,\nthan it did. And if it be farther enquired, whether, provided they had\nbelieved, their ruin would have been prevented? This is an undoubted\nconsequence, from our Saviour\u2019s words; but yet it does not follow, from\nhence, that it was a matter of uncertainty with God, whether they should\nbelieve or no; for it is one thing to say, that he would not have\npunished them, unless they rejected our Saviour; and another thing to\nsuppose that he could not well determine whether they would reject him\nor no. So that the purpose of God must be considered, as agreeing with\nthe event of things, and the design of Christ\u2019s ministry, as being what\nit really was; yet he might, notwithstanding, take occasion to charge\nthe Jews\u2019 destruction upon their own obstinacy.\nThere are many other scriptures, which they bring to the like purpose,\nwhich I pass over, because the sense they give of them differs not much\nfrom that, in which they understand the scriptures before-mentioned, and\ntheir reasoning from them, in opposition to this doctrine is the same,\nand the same answer may be given to it.\nHowever, I cannot but observe, that as, from some scriptures, they\nattribute disappointment to God, they represent him, from others, as\nwishing, but in vain, that it had happened otherwise, and as being\ngrieved at the disappointment; so they understand those words, in Psal.\nlxxxi. 13, 14. _Oh! that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had\nwalked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned\nmy hand against their adversaries_; and that, in Luke xix. 42. _If_, or,\n_Oh! that thou hadst known, even thou at least, in this thy day, the\nthings which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine\neyes_.\nAs for the sense of these, and such-like scriptures, it is no more than\nthis, that the thing which they refused to perform, was, in itself, most\ndesirable, or a matter to be wished for, and not that God can be said to\nwish for a thing that cannot be attained. And when our Saviour laments\nover Jerusalem, as apprehending their destruction near at hand, whether\nthe words are to be considered in the form of a wish, that it had been\notherwise, or an intimation, that if they had known the things of their\npeace, their destruction would not have ensued, it is only to be\nunderstood as a representation of the deplorableness of their condition,\nwhich, with a tenderness of human compassion, he could not speak of,\nwithout tears: Yet we are not to suppose that this mode of expression is\napplicable to the divine will; so that, when the misery of that people\nis hereby set forth, we are not to strain the sense of words, taken from\nhuman modes of speaking, so far, as to suppose that the judicial acts of\nGod, in punishing a sinful people, are not the execution of his purpose\nrelating thereunto.\nAgain, when the Spirit is said to be _grieved_, Eph. iv. 30. or\n_resisted_, Acts vii. 15. nothing else is intended hereby, but that men\nact in such a way, as that, had the Spirit of God been subject to human\npassions, it would have been matter of grief to him. But far be it from\nus to suppose that the divine nature is liable hereunto, or that any\ndisappointment can attend his purposes, which has a tendency to excite\nthis passion in men. And when he is said to be resisted, it is not meant\nas though his will, or design, could be rendered ineffectual, but it\nonly implies, that men oppose what the Spirit communicated by the\nprophets, or in his word. This a person may do, and yet it may be truly\nsaid, that _the counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of\nhis heart to all generations_, Psal. xxxiii. 11.\nVIII. We shall proceed to consider several objections that are made\nagainst the doctrine we have endeavoured to maintain, and what reply may\nbe given to them. Some have been occasionally mentioned under several\nforegoing heads, and there are others which require a distinct reply.\n_Object._ 1. That the doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation was\naltogether unknown by the Fathers in the three first centuries, and that\nit was first brought into the Christian world by Augustin; before whose\ntime, the only account we have of it, is, that God foreknowing who would\nlive piously, or believe and persevere to the end, accordingly\npredestinated them to eternal life, or determined to pass them by, and\nso is said to have rejected them.[224]\n_Answ._ This objection, were it literally true, cannot have any tendency\nto overthrow this doctrine, in the opinion of those, who depend not on\nthe credit of Augustin, as defending it, on the one hand, nor are\nstaggered by the opposition made to it by some of the Fathers, who lived\nbefore his time, on the other; and therefore we might have passed it by,\nwithout making any reply to it. However, since it contains a kind of\ninsult, or boast, which will have its weight with some, it may be\nexpected that a few things should be said, in answer to it.\nWe will not deny but that the Fathers, before the Pelagian heresy was\nbroached in the world; expressed themselves, in many parts of their\nwritings, in so lax and unguarded a manner concerning the doctrines of\npredestination, free-will, and grace, that, had they lived after those\ndoctrines began to be publickly contested, one would have thought that\nthey had verged too much towards Pelagius\u2019s side; but, since they were\nnot the subject-matter of controversy in those ages, it is no wonder to\nfind them less cautious in their modes of expressing themselves, than\nthey might otherwise have been; and therefore it is a just observation,\nwhich one[225] makes of this matter, that they had to do with the\nManichees, and some of the heathen, who supposed that men sinned by a\nfatal necessity of nature, as though there were no wicked action\ncommitted in the world, but some would be ready to excuse it, from the\nimpotency or propensity of human nature to sin, which rendered it, as\nthey supposed, unavoidable; and others took occasion, from hence, to\ncharge God with being the author of sin. It is very probable the\nFathers, in those ages, were afraid of giving countenance to this vile\nopinion, and therefore they were less on their guard, in some respects,\nthan they would have been, had they been to encounter with Pelagius, or\nhis followers.\nAnd indeed, Augustin himself, before he took occasion to enquire more\ndiligently into the state of this controversy, gave into the same way of\nexpressing his sentiments about the power of nature, or the grace of\nGod, as some others of the Fathers had done, and concluded that faith\nwas in our power, as well a duty incumbent on us, but afterwards\nretracted such modes of speaking as the result of more mature\ndeliberation.[226] But notwithstanding though he expressed himself in a\ndifferent way from them, yet he often takes occasion, from some passages\nwhich he purposely refers to in their writings, to vindicate them as\nholding the same faith, though not always using the same phrases. And,\nafter he had thus defended Cyprian and Ambrose, in that respect, he puts\na very charitable construction on their unguarded way of expressing\nthemselves, and says, that this arose from their not having any occasion\nto engage in that controversy, which was on foot in his day.[227] The\nsame might be said to Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, and several\nothers, whom some modern writers defend from the charge of favouring the\nPelagian scheme, by referring to some places in their writings, in which\nthey acknowledge, that the salvation of men is owing to the grace of\nGod, whereby all occasions of glorying are taken away from the\ncreature,[228] or expressions used by them to the like purpose. And the\nlearned Vossius, though he acknowledges, that the Fathers, before\nAugustin, expressed themselves in such a way, as is represented in the\nobjection, yet he vindicates them from the charge of verging towards the\nPelagian, or Semi-Pelagian heresy; inasmuch as he concludes, that when\nthey speak of God\u2019s predestinating men to eternal life, on the foresight\nof good works, they only intend those good works, which God would enable\nthem to perform; and this will clear many of those expressions which\nthey use, from this imputation.[229] But if all these endeavours to\nestablish our claim to those Fathers, who lived before Augustin, as not\nbeing opposers of this doctrine, appear to be to no purpose, yet this\nwill not weaken the truth thereof; for we suppose it to be founded on\nscripture, and several consequences plainly deduced from it, and\ntherefore it doth not want the suffrage of human testimony to support\nit.\nBut if it be said, that this is a very desirable thing as doubtless it\nis, we might consider this doctrine, as obtaining very much in, and\nafter Augustin\u2019s time, being examined and defended by very considerable\nnumbers of men, who have transmitted it down to posterity, throughout\nthe various ages of the church. Notwithstanding, by whomsoever it is\ndefended, or opposed, we lay no great stress on human authority, as a\njudicious divine well observes[230]. We shall therefore proceed to\nconsider some other objections, which it will be more necessary for us\nto give a particular answer to.\n_Object._ 2. To the doctrine of God\u2019s purpose\u2019s ascertaining all events,\nit is objected that he has not determined the bounds of the life of man,\nbut that it may be lengthened, or shortened, by the intervention of\nsecond causes. This is nothing else but the applying one branch of this\ncontroversy, relating to the decrees of God, to a particular instance.\nAnd it was very warmly debated in the Netherlands, towards the beginning\nof the last century.[231] This objection is managed in a popular way,\nand is principally adapted to give prejudice to those who are disposed\nto pass over, or set aside, these necessary distinctions, which, if duly\nconsidered, would not only shorten the debate, but set the matter in a\nclearer light, which we shall endeavour to do; but shall first consider\ntheir method of reasoning on this subject, and the sense they give of\nsome scriptures, which as they suppose, give countenance to this\nobjection.\nThey therefore thus argue, that if the term of life be immoveably fixed\nby God, then it is a vain thing for any one to use those means that are\nnecessary to preserve it, and the skill of the physician, as well as the\nvirtue of medicine, is altogether needless; and the good advice which is\noften given to persons, to take heed that they do not shorten their\nlives by intemperance, will be to no purpose; for they have a reply\nready at hand, namely, that they shall live their appointed time, do\nwhat they will. And that, which is still more absurd, is, that if a\nperson attempts to lay violent hands upon himself, it will be to no\npurpose, if God has determined that he shall live longer; or if he has\ndetermined that he shall die, then he is guilty of no crime, for he only\nfulfils the divine purpose.\nThey add, moreover, that this not only renders all our supplications to\nGod to preserve our lives, or to restore us from sickness, when we are\nin danger of death, needless; but our conduct herein is a practical\ndenial of the argument we maintain; for what is this, but to suppose\nthat the bounds of life are unalterably fixed.\nAs to what concerns the countenance, which they suppose, scripture gives\nto this objection, they refer us to those places in which the life of\nman is said to be lengthened or shortened; accordingly, there are\npromises of _long life given to the righteous who love God, and keep his\ncommandments_, Exod. xx. 12. Deut. iv. 40. 1 Kings iii. 14. and Solomon\nsays expressly, _The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of\nthe wicked shall be shortened_, Prov. x. 27. and elsewhere he speaks of\nthe _wicked\u2019s dying before their time_, Eccl. vii. 17. and the Psalmist\nsays, that _bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their\ndays_, Psal. lv. 23.\nThey also refer to that scripture in which Martha tells our Saviour,\nthat _if he had been with her brother Lazarus_, before his death, _he\nhad not died_, John xi. 21. which either contradicts the argument we are\nmaintaining, or else Martha was mistaken; which, had she been, our\nSaviour would have reproved her, for asserting that which was false.\nMoreover, they add, that when the old world was destroyed in the deluge,\nand so died before their time, they might have prolonged their lives,\nhad they repented in that space of time, wherein _Noah as a preacher of\nrighteousness_, gave them warning of this desolating judgment, and\nChrist, _by his Spirit_, in him, _preached to them_, as the apostle\nsays, 1 Pet. iii. 20. which, doubtless, was with a design to bring them\nto repentance, and save them from this destruction.\nAnd when Abraham pleaded with God in the behalf of Sodom, God tells him,\nthat _if he found but ten righteous persons in the city, he would spare\nit for their sake_, Gen. xviii. 32. which is inconsistent with his\ndetermination, that they should all die by an untimely death, if the\nbounds of their lives had been fixed.\nAnd lastly, they refer to that scripture, in which God first told\nHezekiah, that _he should die, and not live_, and afterwards, that he\nwould _add to his days fifteen years_, Isa. xxxviii. 1. compared with 5.\n_Answ_. To prepare our way for a reply to this objection, let us\nconsider that the contrary side of the question, which we are\nmaintaining, is equally supported by express texts of scripture: thus it\nis said _His days are determined, the number of his months are with\nthee; thou hast appointed him bounds that he cannot pass_, Job xiv. 5.\nthan which, nothing can be more express, where he speaks concerning that\ndecree of God, which respects all mankind, without exception, and sets\nforth his absolute sovereignty, and the irreversibleness of his purpose\nherein; and the apostle Paul, in reasoning with the Athenians concerning\nthe decree and providence of God in whom we live, move, and have our\nbeing says, that _he hath determined the times before appointed, and\nfixed the bounds of their habitation_, Acts xvii. 26. As he has placed\nmen upon the earth, by his decree and providence, so he has determined\nnot only the place where they should live, but the time of their\ncontinuance in the world. This was no new doctrine; for the heathen had\nbeen instructed in it by their own philosophers and therefore the\napostle speaks their sense, especially that of the _stoicks_, about this\nmatter.[232] When he mentions the times are determined, it is not to be\nunderstood of the seasons of the year, which God has fixed to return in\ntheir certain courses, but the seasons appointed for every work, or for\nevery occurrence of life; and, among the rest, the time of life, and of\nserving our generation therein, as Solomon expressly says, in Eccl. iii.\n1, 2. _To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose; a\ntime to be born, and a time to die._ Several other scriptures might be\nbrought to the same purpose, as a farther proof hereof, namely, those in\nwhich God has foretold the death of particular persons, 2 Sam. xii. 14.\n1 Kings xiv. 12. chap. xxii. 28.\nMoreover, if the providence of God is conversant about all the actions\nof men, and _the hairs of their head are all numbered_, Matt. x. 30. so\nthat the smallest changes in life do not come by chance, but are subject\nthereto; then certainly the time of life must be subjected to his\nprovidence, who is styled, _Our life, and the length of our days_, Deut.\nxxx. 20. He must therefore certainly be considered as the sovereign\nArbiter thereof, which doctrine none that own a providence, can, with\nany shadow of reason, gainsay; so that this doctrine is agreeable not\nonly to several scriptures, but to the very nature and perfections of\nGod.\nThis being premised we return to the arguments laid down against it, and\nthe scriptures cited to give countenance to them. It is certain, that\ntwo contradictory propositions cannot be both true in the same sense;\nand the scriptures, which are exactly harmonious, as well as infallibly\ntrue, no where contradict themselves. Therefore we must consider what\nanswer may be given to the objections before-mentioned; and, that our\nwork herein may be shortened, we may observe, that the bounds of life\nare twofold; either such as men might have lived to, according to the\ncommon course of nature if nothing had intervened to ruin the\nconstitution, or no disease, or violent death, had broken the thread of\nlife before; or that time which God has ordained that men shall live,\nwhether it be longer or shorter: the former of these respects the\nlengthening or shortening of life, by the influence of second causes;\nand, in this respect, we do not suppose that the terms of life are\nimmoveably fixed, but that in some, it is longer, and, in others\nshorter; for it is certain, that by intemperance, or other methods, men\nmay shorten their days; or, by laying violent hands on themselves, not\nlive the time that otherwise they would have done. But if we consider\nthe over-ruling, or disposing providence of God, as conversant about\nthis matter, there is nothing happens without the concurrence thereof.\nTherefore persons, who shorten their days by intemperance, do this by\nthe permissive providence of God; though he be not the author of their\nintemperance, which is sinful, yet he permits, or determines not to\nhinder it, and consequently though he has fixed the bounds of life,\nwhich can neither be lengthened or shortened, yet knowing what men will\ndo, in a natural way, to shorten them, he determines that this shall put\nan end to their lives.[233] And when we read, in scripture, of God\u2019s\n_delivering_ him, who dies a violent death, _into his hands_, who is the\nimmediate cause of it, Exod. xxi. 13. God is not the author of the sin\nof the murderer; yet providence is not wholly to be exempted from that\naction, so far as it is not sinful, but purely natural, or the effect of\npower; and, when this is said to have a tendency to shorten the life of\nman, it does not detract from the time that he had in his own purpose\naffixed to it. We must also consider, that his decree and providence\nrespects the means, as well as the end, which are always inseparably\nconnected, and equally subject thereunto.\nThese things being premised, we proceed more particularly to answer the\narguments brought against this doctrine. And,\n1. When it is said, that God\u2019s fixing the bounds of life, renders all\nmeans for the preservation thereof unnecessary, that depends upon a\nfalse supposition, namely, that God does not ordain the means as well as\nthe end. If God had determined that persons shall live, he has\ndetermined to give them the supports of life, and to prevent every thing\nthat might tend to destroy it; so, on the other hand, when he takes them\naway, by a disease, this is ordained by him, as a means conducive\nthereunto. If health is to be supported, or recovered, by means, and\nthereby life preserved, God has ordained that these means shall be used,\nas well as the end attained.\n2. As to persons shortening their lives by intemperance, this has a\nnatural tendency to do it; so that, though God be not the author of the\nsin, he certainly knows, before-hand, what methods the sinner will take\nto hasten his end, and leaves him to himself; so that, though the sin be\nnot from God, the punishment, which is the consequence thereof, may\ntruly be said to be from him, and therefore this was determined by him.\nAnd when it is farther objected, that they, who destroy their health, or\nlay violent hands on themselves, cannot be said to sin in so doing,\nbecause they do that which tends to fulfil the divine will, provided God\nhas determined the fatal event; herein they oppose this doctrine,\nwithout taking the words in the same sense in which it is maintained;\nfor it is well known, that the will of God is sometimes taken for that\nprescribed rule that he has given us, which is the matter of our duty,\nin which sense we readily allow, that he that fulfils it, cannot be said\nto sin. But, besides this, it is sometimes taken for his purpose to\npermit sin; or, to give the sinner up to his own heart\u2019s lusts, to act\nthat which he hates, and is resolved to punish. In this sense, the\nsinner is said to do that which God would not have suffered him to do,\nhad he willed the contrary; but it is a very groundless insinuation, to\nsuppose that this exempts him from the guilt of sin.\n3. To say, that God\u2019s fixing the bounds of life, is inconsistent with\nour praying, that our lives may be prolonged, or that we may be\ndelivered from sickness, or death, when we are apprehensive that we are\ndrawing nigh to it, is no just consequence; for as we do not pray that\nGod would alter his purpose, when we desire any blessing of him, but\nsuppose this to be hid from us, and expect not to know it any otherwise\nthan by the event; so a person, who prays to be delivered from sickness,\nor death, is not to address the divine Majesty, as one who\npresumptuously, and without ground, supposes that God has decreed that\nhe shall immediately die, but as one who hopes, or who has no ground to\nconclude otherwise, but that he will make it appear, by answering his\nprayer, that he has determined to spare his life. For the secret purpose\nof God, relating to the event of things, is no more to be a rule of\nduty, inasmuch as it is secret, than if there had been no purpose\nrelating thereunto; but yet it does not follow from hence, that this\nmatter is not determined by him.\n4. As to those scriptures, that seem to give countenance to this\nobjection, they may, without the least absurdity, be understood\nconsistently with other scriptures, which have been before produced,\nwhereby it is proved, that God has fixed, or determined the bounds of\nlife. As for those _promises_, which God has made of a long life, _to\nthose that love him, and keep his commandments_, the meaning thereof is\nthis, that he will certainly bestow this blessing, either in kind or\nvalue, on those whose conversation is such as is therein described; this\nnone can deny, who rightly understand the meaning of that scripture, in\nwhich it is said, that _godliness hath the promise of the life that now\nis_, as well as of _that which is to come_, 1 Tim. iv. 8. But, so far as\nit affects the argument we are maintaining, we must consider, that that\nefficacious grace, whereby we are enabled to love God, and keep his\ncommandments, is as much his gift, and consequently the result of his\npurpose, as the blessing connected with it; therefore if he has\ndetermined that we shall enjoy a long and happy life in this world, and\nto enable us to live a holy life therein; if both the end and the means\nare connected together, and are equally the objects of God\u2019s purpose,\nthen it cannot justly be inferred from hence, that the event, relating\nto the lengthening or shortening our lives, is not determined by him.\nAs for those scriptures that speak of the wicked\u2019s _dying before their\ntime_, or _not living half their days_, these are to be understood\nagreeably to that distinction before-mentioned, between men\u2019s dying\nsooner, than they would have done according to the course of nature, or\nthe concurrence of second causes thereunto, in which sense it is\nliterally true, that many do not live out half their days; and their\ndying sooner than God had before determined. May not the sovereign\nDisposer of all things inflict a sudden and immediate death, as the\npunishment of sin, without giving us reason to conclude that this was\nnot pre-concerted, if we may so express it, or determined beforehand?\nAs for that other scripture, referred to in the objection, in which\nMartha tells our Saviour, that if he had been with Lazarus, when sick,\n_he had not died_, she does not suppose Christ\u2019s being there, would have\nfrustrated the divine purpose, for then, he would, doubtless, have\nreproved her for it; whereas, in reality, he did not come to visit him,\nbecause he knew that God had purposed that he should die, and be\nafterwards raised from the dead; so that this does not argue that he has\nnot fixed the bounds, or term of life.\nAgain, as for that argument, to support this objection, taken from the\ndestruction of the world in the flood, or that of Sodom, by fire from\nheaven, that they might have prolonged their lives, had they repented,\nwe do not deny but that this would have been the consequence thereof,\nbut then their repentance would have been as much determined by God, as\ntheir deliverance from that untimely death, which befel them.\nThe last scripture mentioned, in which God, by the prophet Isaiah, tells\nHezekiah, that _he should die, and not live_; notwithstanding which,\nfifteen years were added to his life, which is very frequently insisted\non, by those who deny the unalterable decree of God, relating to life\nand death, as that which they apprehend to be an unanswerable argument\nto support it: to this it may be replied, that when God says, _Set thine\nhouse in order, for thou shalt die, and not live_, he gave Hezekiah to\nunderstand, that his disease was what we call mortal, namely, such as no\nskill of the physician, or natural virtue of medicine, could cure, and\ntherefore that he must expect to die, unless God recovered him by a\nmiracle; and Hezekiah, doubtless, took the warning in this sense,\notherwise it would have been a preposterous thing for him to have prayed\nfor life, as it would have been an affront to God, to have desired to\nhave changed his purpose. But God, on the other hand, designed, by this\nwarning, to put him upon importunate prayer for life; therefore when he\nsays, _I will add to thy days fifteen years_, the meaning is only this,\nthough thou mightest before have expected death, my design in giving\nthee that intimation, was, that thou shouldest pray for life, which\nmight be given thee by a miracle, and now I will work a miracle, and\nfulfil, in this respect, what I before purposed in adding to thy life\nfifteen years.\n_Object._ 3. It is farther objected, against the doctrine of election\nand reprobation, and particularly the immutability of God\u2019s purpose\ntherein, that it tends to establish a fatal necessity of things, and\noverthrow that known distinction that there is between things, as\nnecessary, or contingent, as though nothing in the whole series of\ncauses and effects could happen otherwise than it does, and God himself\nwere confined to such a method of acting, that it was impossible for him\nto have done the contrary; which is nothing else but the Stoical\ndoctrine of fate applied to, and defended by some scriptures, though it\nbe contrary to others, which speak of the uncertainty of future events.\nThus God speaks of the Jews, turning from their iniquities, and his\nbestowing pardoning mercy, as the result thereof, as an uncertain event,\nwhen he says, in Jer. xxxvi. 3. _It may be that the house of Judah will\nhear all the evil, which I purpose to do unto them, that they may return\nevery man from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their\nsin._ So when God gave the Jews a sign, immediately before the\ncaptivity, taken from the prophet Ezekiel\u2019s personating one that was\nremoving his stuff, or household-goods, as signifying, that the nation\nin general should soon remove to other habitations, when carried captive\ninto Babylon, he adds, upon this occasion, _It may be they will\nconsider, though they be a rebellious house_, Ezek. xii. 3. And the\nprophet Zephaniah exhorts the people _to seek righteousness and\nmeekness_, and, as the consequence thereof, says, _It may be ye shall be\nhid in the day of the Lord\u2019s anger_, Zeph. ii. 3. And the apostle speaks\nof the uncertainty of the divine dispensations of grace, when he advises\nTimothy, _in meekness, to instruct those that oppose themselves, if God,\nperadventure, will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the\ntruth_, 2 Tim. ii. 25. which is directly contrary to the unalterable\nnecessity of events, depending upon the divine purpose, according to the\ndoctrine of election.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the former part of this objection, in which this\ndoctrine is pretended to have taken its rise from, and to be agreeable\nto, that of the Stoics, concerning fate and destiny, it will not be much\nto our purpose to enquire what was the opinion of that sect of\nphilosophers concerning it; and, indeed, it will be difficult to fix on\na just sense thereof, in which they all agree. Some are of opinion, that\nmany of them intended nothing else thereby, but the immutability of\nGod\u2019s purposes, but the dispensation of his providence, being a\nnecessary execution thereof; and when he is said to be bound by the laws\nof fate, they mean, that he cannot act contrary to what himself has\ndetermined.[234] And, had it been universally explained by them in this\nsense, it would not have done them much service, who oppose the doctrine\nof election, to have compared it therewith; for it would only have\nproved the agreeableness of the doctrine of the immutability of God\u2019s\npurpose, relating to all events, to the light of nature, as some of the\nheathen were thereby instructed in it. But since this does not appear to\nbe the sense of all the Stoicks about the doctrine of fate, but some of\nthem understood it in the same sense as it is represented in the\nobjection, this we cannot but militate against, and assert the doctrine\nof election to be very remote from it.\nTherefore we need only, in answer to this part of the objection, explain\nwhat we mean, when we maintain the necessity of events, as founded on\nthe will of God. We are far from asserting that there is a necessary\nconnexion between second causes, and their respective effects, in which\nsome are produced arbitrarily, by the will of intelligent creatures; and\nwhen we call any thing a necessary cause, producing effects, according\nto its own nature, we suppose that this is agreeable to the order, or\ncourse of nature, which was fixed by God. All that we pretend to prove,\nis the dependence of things on the divine will, and the necessity of\nGod\u2019s purposes taking effect; so that that which is arbitrary or\ncontingent, which might be, or not be, as depending on, or relating to\nsecond causes, is eventually necessary, as it is an accomplishment of\nthe divine purpose. Therefore we always distinguish between things being\ncontingent, with respect to us, and their being so, with respect to God;\nand, consequently, though _it may be_, or _peradventure_, may be applied\nto the apparent event of things, these words can never be applied to the\nfulfilling of the divine will; and this leads us to consider the latter\npart of the objection; therefore,\n2. As to the scripture\u2019s speaking concerning the uncertainty of future\nevents, in those places mentioned in the objection, these, and all\nothers of the like nature, in which such a mode of speaking is used, may\nbe explained, by distinguishing between what might reasonably have been\nexpected to be the event of things, supposing men had not been given up\nto the blindness of their mind, and hearts, to act below the dictates of\nreason, without consulting their own safety and happiness, or expressing\ntheir gratitude to God; and what would be the real event of things,\nwhich God was not pleased to reveal, and therefore was unknown to them.\nThus, when the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel represented the repentance\nand reformation of Israel as an uncertain event, as well as their\nforgiveness, and deliverance from the captivity, connected with it, in\nsuch dubious terms, _It may be they will consider and return, every man\nfrom his evil way_; it implies, that this was what might have been\nreasonably expected by men, though it was no matter of uncertainty to\nthe heart-searching God, who knoweth the end from the beginning, and\nperfectly foresees what will be the event of things, which, in various\nrespects, are under the direction of his providence. Though it could\nhardly be thought, by men, that such an admonition should be treated\nwith such contempt, yet God knew how they would behave themselves; there\nwas no _peradventure_ with respect to his judgment thereof; he knew that\nthey would not repent, otherwise he would have inclined their wills, and\neffectually have persuaded them to exercise this grace, and thereby have\nprevented his expectation, or determination, from being disappointed, or\nfrustrated.\nIf it be objected, that, according to this sense of the text, the\nprophet\u2019s message to the people would have been to no purpose, and his\nministry, among them, exercised in vain; or that it was contrary to the\nwisdom and goodness of God to make this overture to them, when he knew\nit would not be complied with.\nTo this it may be replied, that the great God is not bound to decline\nthe asserting his right to man\u2019s obedience, or requiring that which is a\njust debt to him, though he knew that they would not comply with his\ndemand thereof; and, indeed, this objection cannot be maintained,\nwithout supposing, that, when the gospel is preached to man, the glory\nof the divine wisdom and goodness therein cannot be secured, unless we\nconclude either that God doth not know whether man will embrace it, or\nno, which is contrary to his omniscience; or that he determines, that\nall, to whom the gospel is preached, shall embrace it, which is contrary\nto matter of fact. But there may be a medium between both these, which\nvindicates the divine perfections, in ordering that the gospel should be\npreached, and thereby asserting his sovereignty, and unalienable right\nto their obedience; accordingly, there might be a small remnant among\nthem, in whom God designed that this message should take effect. And\nwill any one say, that because the goodness of God was not herein\ndemonstrated to all, that therefore no glory was brought to that\nperfection?\nAnd if it be farther said, that supposing there were some who turned\nfrom their evil ways, the captivity, which was threatened, was not\nhereby prevented, and therefore the promise, relating thereunto, did not\ntake place; to this it may be replied; that as God did not give them\nground to expect this blessing, unless this repentance should be more\nuniversal, than it really was, so he had various ways to testify his\nregard to those who should receive advantage by this message, for whose\nsake it was principally intended.\nAs for that other scripture, in which God advises his people to _seek\nrighteousness and meekness_, and, as the consequence hereof, says, _it\nmay be ye may be hid in the day of the Lord\u2019s fierce anger_; the meaning\nis, that they, who were enabled to exercise these graces, should either\nhave some instances of temporal deliverance vouchsafed to them; or if\nnot, that they should have no reason to complain that the exercise\nthereof was altogether in vain.\nAs for that scripture, in which the apostle bids Timothy to exhort those\nthat oppose the gospel, _if, peradventure, God would give them\nrepentance to the acknowledging of the truth_; the meaning is, that it\nwas uncertain to Timothy whether God would give this grace or no; and\ntherefore he must preach the gospel, whatever were the event thereof:\nNevertheless, it was no matter of uncertainty, with respect to God, who\nmust be supposed to know what grace he designs to bestow, and therefore\nthe event of things may be dubious to us, and yet be certain with\nrespect to him.\n_Object._ 4. Another objection, against the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, is, that it is altogether inconsistent with the preaching\nof the gospel; for if God has determined the final state of man, so that\nhis purpose cannot be altered, then it is a preposterous thing, not to\nsay illusory, for grace to be offered to the chief of sinners, which\nmust certainly argue, that it is impossible to be attained by them; and,\nsince the overture is universal, we must conclude that God has put all\nmankind into a salvable state, and consequently not excluded any from\nsalvation by his peremptory and unchangeable decree. To what purpose are\nthe promises of the gospel held forth, to all that sit under the sound\nthereof, if it be impossible for them to attain the blessings promised\ntherein? Or what regard could men be supposed to have to the promises,\nif they were not a declaration of God\u2019s purpose? And, on the other hand,\nthe threatnings denounced would be as little regarded, as an expedient\nto deter men from sinning, if their state were unalterably fixed by God,\naccording to this doctrine of election, as it has been before\nconsidered.\n_Answ._ That we may proceed with greater clearness in answering this\nobjection, we shall first shew what we mean by preaching the gospel,\nwhich is nothing else but a declaration of God\u2019s revealed will, and our\nduty pursuant thereunto, which is to be made known, particularly what is\ncontained in the word of God, relating to the salvation of men, and the\nway which he has ordained in order to their attaining it. Therefore,\n1. When this salvation is said to be offered in the gospel, we intend\nnothing else thereby, but that a declaration is made to sinners, that\nthere are many invaluable privileges which Christ has purchased for, and\nwill, in his own time and way, apply to all those whom God has purposed\nto save; and, since we cannot describe them by name, and no unregenerate\nperson has ground to conclude that he is of that number, therefore there\nis a farther declaration to be made, namely, that God has inseparably\nconnected this salvation, which he has chosen them to, with faith and\nrepentance, and the exercise of all other graces, which, as they are\nGod\u2019s gift, and to be prayed for, and expected, in a diligent attendance\non all his ordinances; so they are to be considered as the mark and\nevidences of their being chosen to salvation, without which, it is\ncertainly a vain and presumptuous thing for any one to pretend that he\nhas a right to it, as the object of God\u2019s eternal election.\n2. No one, who preaches the gospel, has any warrant from God to tell any\nindividual person that whether he repents and believes, or no, he shall\nbe saved; or, to direct his discourse to him, as one that is chosen\nthereunto, much less to give the impenitent sinner occasion to conclude,\nthat, though he obstinately, and finally, remain in a state of rebellion\nagainst God, notwithstanding he may hope to be saved, because there is a\nnumber of mankind chosen to salvation; for this is not to declare God\u2019s\nrevealed will, but that which is directly contrary to it, and therefore\nnot to preach the gospel. Therefore,\n3. All, who sit under the sound of the gospel, ought to look upon it as\na declaration of God\u2019s design to save a part of mankind, under the\npreaching thereof, and among them the chief of sinners, which they have\na sufficient ground to conclude themselves to be; but yet a door of hope\nis so far opened hereby, that they have no reason to conclude that they\nare rejected, any more than that they are elected; and, while they wait\non God\u2019s instituted means of grace, they have, at least, this\nencouragement, that, peradventure, they may be of the number of God\u2019s\nelect; and, when they find in themselves that faith, which is the\nevidence thereof, then they may determine their interest in, and lay\nclaim to this privilege, when they are enabled to make their calling,\nand thereby their election sure.\nAnd as for the promises and threatnings, these are to be considered by\nunregenerate persons, without determining their right to the one, or\nfalling under the other, as elected or rejected; for that is still\nsupposed to be a secret; therefore they are to regard the promise, as a\ndeclaration of God\u2019s purpose, relating to the connexion that there is\nbetween faith and salvation, as an inducement to perform the one, in\nexpectation of the other. And as for the threatnings, though they\ndetermine the present state of impenitent sinners to be such, in which\nthey are undone and miserable, yet they are not to be extended to those\nevents, which are hid in the purpose of God, so as to give any one\nground to conclude that he is thereby finally excluded from salvation,\nsince such an exclusion as this is inseparably connected with final\nimpenitency and unbelief.\n_Object._ 5. It is farther objected, that this doctrine is, in many\ninstances subversive of practical religion. And,\n1. That it is inconsistent with the duty of prayer; for if God has\ndetermined to save a person, what need has he to ask a blessing, which\nis already granted? and, if he has determined to reject him, his prayer\nwill be in vain.\n2. It is farther supposed, that it leads to presumption, on the one\nhand, or despair, on the other; election, to presumption; reprobation,\nto despair. And,\n3. They add, that it leads to licentiousness, as it is inconsistent with\nour using endeavours that we may be saved: for to what purpose is it for\npersons to strive to enter in at the strait gate, when all their\nendeavours will be ineffectual, if they are not elected? or to what\npurpose is it for persons to use any endeavours to escape the wrath of\nGod, due to sin, if they are appointed to wrath, and so must necessarily\nperish?\n_Answ._ This objection is, beyond measure, shocking; and it is no\nwonder, that a doctrine, that is supposed to have such consequences\nattending it, is treated with the utmost degree of detestation: but as\nthe greatest part of the objections against it, are no other than\nmisrepresentations thereof, so it is no difficult matter to reply to\nthem, to the conviction of those who are disposed to judge impartially\nof the matter in controversy between us. We shall therefore proceed to\nreply to the several branches of this objection. And,\n1. As to what concerns the duty of prayer; when we are engaged in it, we\nare not to suppose that we are to deal with God, in such a way, as when\nwe have to do with men, whom we suppose to be undetermined, and that\nthey are to be moved, by intreaties, to alter their present resolutions,\nand to give us what we ask for; for that is to conceive of him as\naltogether such an one as ourselves; accordingly, we are not to\nconclude, that he has not determined to grant the thing that we are to\npray to him for; for that would be presumptuously to enter into his\nsecret purpose, since he has no where told us we shall be denied the\nblessings we want; but rather that there is forgiveness with him, and\nmercy for the chief of sinners, as an encouragement to this duty; and,\nbesides this, has given us farther ground to hope for a gracious answer\nof prayer, where he gives a heart to seek him. Therefore we are to\nbehave ourselves, in this duty, as those who pretend not to know God\u2019s\nsecret purpose, but rather desire to wait for some gracious intimation\nor token for good, that he will hear and answer our prayer; therefore\nhis secret purpose is no more inconsistent with this duty, than if, with\nthose that deny the doctrine we are maintaining, we should conclude that\nthis matter is not determined by him.\n2. As to this doctrine\u2019s leading to presumption, or despair, there is no\nground to conclude that it has a tendency to either of them. It cannot\nlead to presumption, inasmuch as election is not discovered to any one\ntill he believes; therefore an unconverted person has no ground to\npresume and conclude, that all is well with him, because he is elected;\nfor that is boldly to determine a thing that he knows nothing of; the\nobjection therefore, with respect to such, supposes that to be known,\nwhich remains a secret. And, on the other hand, they have no ground to\ndespair, on a supposition that they are finally rejected; for it is one\nthing to be the object of the decree of reprobation, which no one can,\nor ought to determine, concerning himself, so long as he is in this\nworld, much more if we consider him as enjoying the means of grace, and\na door of hope is open to him therein; and God has pleased to declare,\nin the gospel, that he will receive sinners that repent and believe in\nhim, how unworthy soever they are; therefore such are not to conclude\nthat their state is desperate, though it be exceeding dangerous, but to\nwait for the efficacy of the means of grace, and those blessings that\naccompany salvation.\nAnd as for those that are in a converted state, this doctrine is far\nfrom having a tendency, either to lead them to presumption, or despair;\nbut, on the other hand, to thankfulness to God, for his discriminating\ngrace, which, when persons experience, they are not only encouraged to\nhope for farther blessings, but to perform those duties whereby they may\nexpress their gratitude to him. As for presumption, which is the only\nthing that election is pretended to lead them to, that cannot be the\nnatural consequence or tendency thereof; for if they presume that they\nshall be saved, this is not to be reckoned a crime in them; for that\npresumption which is supposed to be so in the objection consists in a\nperson\u2019s expecting a blessing without reason; but this is contrary to\nthe supposition that he is a believer; and it would be a strange method\nof reasoning to infer, that he, who has ground to conclude that he has a\nright to eternal life, from those marks and evidences of grace, which he\nfinds in himself, is guilty of a sinful presumption, when he is induced\nhereby to lay claim to it; and therefore the sense of the objection,\nmust be this, that a believer having been once enabled to conclude\nhimself elected, may, from hence, take occasion, supposing that his work\nis done, and his end answered, to return to his former wicked life, and\nyet still presume that he shall be saved; whereas that would be a\ncertain indication that he had no ground to conclude this, but was\nmistaken, when he thought that he had; so that this doctrine cannot lead\na believer, as such, to presumption, and consequently the objection, in\nwhich it is supposed that it does, is founded on one of these two\nmistakes, _viz._ that every one, who is elected to salvation, knows his\ninterest in this privilege, as though it were immediately revealed to\nhim, without inferring it from any marks and evidences of grace that he\nfinds in himself; or else, that it is impossible for any one, who thinks\nthat he believes, and, from thence, concludes that he is elected, to\nappear afterwards to have been mistaken in the judgment, which he then\npassed upon himself; but either of these contain a misrepresentation of\nthe consequences of the doctrine of election; neither is there any\nregard had to that necessary distinction that there is, between a\nperson\u2019s being chosen to eternal life, and his being able to determine\nhimself to be interested in this privilege; and it is contrary to what\nwe have before considered, that whenever God chooses to the end, he\nchooses to the means, which are inseparably connected with it, which is\nthe only rule whereby we are warranted, when applying it to ourselves,\nto conclude that we shall be saved.\n3. It cannot, in the least, be proved that this doctrine has any\ntendency to lead persons to licentiousness; nor is it inconsistent with\nour using the utmost endeavours to attain salvation. If it be said, that\nmany vile persons take occasion, from hence, to give the reins to their\ncorruption; that is not the natural, or necessary consequence thereof;\nsince there is no truth but what may be abused. The apostle Paul did not\nthink the doctrine of the grace of God, which he so strenuously\nmaintained, was less true, Or glorious, because some drew this vile\nconsequence from it, _Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound_,\nRom. vi. 1.\nAnd as for those means, which God has ordained to bring about the\nsalvation of his people, we are obliged to attend upon them, though we\nknow not, before-hand, what will certainly be the event thereof; and if\nthrough the blessing of God accompanying them, we are effectually called\nand sanctified, and thereby enabled to know our election, this will\n(agreeably to the experience of all true believers,) have a tendency to\npromote holiness.\n_Object._ 6. It is farther objected, that more especially against the\ndoctrine of reprobation, that it argues God to be the author of sin; and\nparticularly in such instances as these, _viz._ with respect to the\nfirst entrance of sin into the world, and in God\u2019s imputing the sin of\nour first parents to all their posterity, and afterwards suffering it to\nmake such a progress as it has done ever since; and, most of all, when\nit is supposed that this is not only the result of the divine purpose,\nbut that it also respects the blinding men\u2019s minds, and hardening their\nhearts, and so rendering their final impenitency and perdition\nunavoidable.\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered,\n1. As to what concerns the first entrance of sin into the world, it\ncannot reasonably be denied, that the purpose of God was concerned about\nit, before it was committed, in the same sense as his actual providence\nwas afterwards, namely, in permitting, though not effecting it;\nnotwithstanding this was not the cause of the committing it, since a\nbare permission has no positive efficiency in order thereunto; the not\nhindering, or restraining a wicked action, does not render him the\nauthor of it. It is true, God knew how man would behave, and\nparticularly, that he would mis-improve and forfeit that original\nrighteousness, in which he was created, and that, by this means, he\nwould contract that guilt, which was the consequence thereof, and\nthereby render himself liable to his just displeasure; to deny this,\nwould be to deny that he foreknew that, from eternity, which he knew in\ntime. And, so far as the actual providence of God was conversant about\nwhat was natural therein, so far his purpose determined that it should\nbe; but neither does this argue him to be the author of sin. But this\nwill be farther considered, when we speak concerning the actual\nprovidence of God under a following answer.[235]\n2. As to that part of the objection, which respects the imputing the sin\nof our first parents to all their posterity, that is more frequently\nbrought against this doctrine than any other; and it is generally\nrepresented in the most indefensible terms, without making any\nabatements as to the degree of punishment that was due to it; and,\naccordingly, they think that we can hardly have the front to affirm,\nthat our arguments, in defence hereof, are agreeable to the divine\nperfections, as we pretend those others are, which have been brought in\ndefence of this doctrine. But, I hope, we shall be able to maintain the\ndoctrine of _original sin_, in consistency with the divine perfections,\nas well as scripture, in its proper place, to which we shall refer\nit.[236] Therefore all that I shall add, at present, is, that if the\ndoctrine of original sin be so explained, as that it does not render God\nthe author of sin, his purpose relating thereunto, which must be\nsupposed, in all respects, to correspond with it, does not argue him to\nbe the author of it.\n3. As to the progress of sin in the world, and the proneness of all\nmankind to rebel against God; this, as before was observed, concerning\nsin in general, is the object of his permissive, but not his effective\nwill; though there is this difference between God\u2019s suffering sin to\nenter into the world at first, and his suffering the continuance, or\nincrease of it therein, that, at first, he dealt with man as an innocent\ncreature, and only left him to the mutability of his own will, having\nbefore given him a power to retain his integrity. But the fallen\ncreature is become weak, and unable to do any thing that is good in all\nits circumstances, and afterwards is more and more inclined to sin, by\ncontracting vicious habits, and persisting therein. Now, though God\u2019s\nleaving man to himself at first, when there was no forfeiture made of\nhis preventing grace, must be reckoned an act of mere sovereignty, his\nleaving sinners to themselves may be reckoned an act of justice, as a\npunishment of sin before committed, and neither of these argue him to be\nthe author of it; neither does the purpose of God, relating thereunto,\ngive the least occasion for such an inference.\nAgain, we must distinguish between the occasion and the cause of sin.\nGod\u2019s providential dispensations, though unexceptionably holy and\nrighteous, are often-times the occasion thereof: thus his afflictive\nhand sometimes occasions the corruptions of men to break forth, in\nrepining at, and quarrelling with his providence; and his giving outward\nblessings to one, which he withholds from another, gives occasion, to\nsome, to complain of the injustice of his dealings with them; and the\nstrictness, and holiness of his law, and gives occasion, to corrupt\nnature to discover itself in the blackest colours; the apostle plainly\nevinces this truth, when he says, _Sin taking occasion by the\ncommandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence_, Rom. vii. 8.\nand, indeed, there is nothing in the whole compass of providence, or in\nthe methods of the divine government therein, but what may be, and often\nis, an occasion of sin, in wicked men. But certainly it is not the cause\nof it; even as the clemency of a prince may occasion a rebellion among\nhis subjects; but it is the vile ingratitude, and wickedness of their\nnature, that is the spring and cause thereof; so the providence, and\nconsequently the purpose of God, which is executed thereby, may be the\noccasion of sin, and yet the charge brought in this objection, as though\nGod hereby was argued to be the author of sin, is altogether groundless.\n4. As to what is farther objected, relating to the purpose of God, to\nblind the minds, and harden the hearts of men, and that final\nimpenitency, which is the consequence thereof, God forbid that we should\nassert that this is a positive act in him; and, so far as it contains\nnothing else but his determining to deny that grace, which would have\nhad the contrary effect, or his providence relating thereunto, this does\nnot give any countenance to the objection, or weaken the force of the\narguments that we have before laid down, which is very consistent\ntherewith.\n_Object._ 7. There is another objection, which is generally laid down in\nso moving a way, that, whether the argument be just or no, the style is\nadapted to affect the minds of men with prejudice against this doctrine,\nand that is taken from the inconsistency thereof with God\u2019s judicial\nproceedings against the wicked in the day of judgment, and that it will\nafford the sinner a plea, in which he may say to this effect: Lord, I\nsinned by a fatal necessity; it was impossible for me to avoid that\nwhich thou art now offended with me for; it was what thou didst decree\nshould come to pass. I have been told, that thy decrees are unalterable,\nand that it is as impossible to change the course of nature, or to\nremove the mountains, which thou hast fixed with thy hand, as to alter\nthy purpose; wilt thou then condemn one, who sinned and fell pursuant to\nthy will? Dost thou will that men should sin and perish, and then lay\nthe blame at their door, as though they were culpable for doing what\nthou hast determined should be done?\n_Answ._ This objection supposes that the decree of God lays a necessary\nconstraint on, and enforces the will of man to sin; which, if they could\nmake it appear that it does, no reply could be made to it. But this is\nto represent the argument we are maintaining in such a way, in which no\none, who has just ideas of this doctrine, would ever understand it, and\nit is directly contrary to the foregoing method of explaining it. We\nhave already proved, in our answer to the third objection, that sin is\nnot necessary in that sense, in which they suppose it to be, or that,\nthough the decree of God renders events necessary, yet it does not take\naway the efficiency of second causes, and therefore the purpose of God,\nrelating thereunto, is not to be pleaded, as an excuse for it, or as a\nground of exemption from punishment. We read of the Jews, that, _with\nwicked hands, they crucified_ our Saviour; the crime was their own; but\nthis is expressly said to have been done by, or, in pursuance of, _the\ndeterminate counsel and fore-knowledge of God_, Acts ii. 23. He\nfore-knew what they would do, and purposed not to prevent it; but yet he\ndid not force their will to commit it. And elsewhere God says,\nconcerning Israel, _Thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; from that\ntime thine ear was not opened_; and then he adds, _I knew that thou\nwouldest deal very treacherously_, Isa. xlviii. 8. Israel might as well\nhave pleaded, that God knew, before-hand, how they would behave\nthemselves, and so have thrown the blame on him, for not preventing this\nforeseen event, but suffering them to go on in this destructive way,\nwith as much reason, as the sinner is supposed, in the objection, to\nhave, when taking occasion so to plead, as he is represented, as having\nground to do, in the day of judgment, as a consequence from the doctrine\nwe are maintaining.\nAgain, whatever has been said concerning the immutability of the divine\npurpose, yet this does not give the least countenance to any one\u2019s\ncharging his sin on God; as we have, in answer to the last objection,\nproved that it does not render him the author of sin; and therefore\nman\u2019s destruction must lie at his own door. It is one thing to say, that\nit is in the sinner\u2019s power to save himself, and another thing to say,\nthat the sin he commits is not wilful, and therefore that guilt is not\ncontracted thereby; and, if so, then this affords no matter of excuse to\nthe sinner, according to the import of the objection.\nIX. We are now to consider some things that may be inferred from the\ndoctrine we have been insisting on, and how it is to be practically\nimproved by us, to the glory of God, and our spiritual advantage. And,\n1. From the methods taken to oppose and decry it, by misrepresentations,\nwhich contain little less than blasphemy, we infer, that however unjust\nconsequences deduced from a doctrine may be an hindrance to its\nobtaining in the world; yet this method of opposition will not render it\nless true, or defensible; nor ought it to prejudice the minds of men\nagainst the sacred writings, or religion in general. We cannot but\nobserve, that while several scriptures are produced in defence of this\ndoctrine and others in opposition to it, and the utmost cautions have\nnot been used to reconcile the sense given thereof with the natural\nideas which we have of the divine perfections; and many, in defending\none side of the question have made use of unguarded expressions, or\ncalled that a scripture-doctrine which is remote from it; and others, in\nopposition hereunto, have, with too much assurance, charged the\ndefenders thereof with those consequences, which are neither avowed by\nthem, nor justly deduced from their method of reasoning; the unthinking\nand irreligious part of mankind have taken occasion, from hence, with\nthe Deists, to set themselves against revealed religion, or to give way\nto scepticism, as though there were nothing certain, or defensible, in\nreligion; and take occasion to make it the subject of satire and\nridicule. But, passing this by, though it is a matter very much to be\nlamented we will consider this doctrine as rendered less exceptionable,\nor more justly represented; and, accordingly,\n2. We may infer from it, that as it is agreeable to the divine\nperfections, so it has the greatest tendency to promote practical\ngodliness. For,\n(1.) Since God has fore-ordained whatever comes to pass; this should\nlead us to an humble submission to his will, in all the dispensations of\nhis providence. When we consider that nothing, in this respect comes by\nchance; this should have a tendency to quiet our minds, and silence all\nour murmuring and uneasy thoughts, whatever afflictions we are exposed\nto. We are too apt to complain sometimes of second causes, as though all\nour miseries took their rise from thence; and, at other times, to\nafflict ourselves beyond measure, as apprehending that those proper\nmeans have not been used, which might have prevented them; as Martha\ntells our Saviour, _If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died_,\nJohn xi. 21. whereas we ought rather to consider, that all this befalls\nus in pursuance of God\u2019s purpose: had he designed to have prevented the\naffliction, he would have directed to other means conducive to that end,\nor would have attended those that have been used, with their desired\nsuccess. We use the means as not knowing what are the secret purposes of\nGod, with respect to the event of things; but, when this is made known\nto us, it should teach us to acquiesce in, and be entirely resigned to\nthe divine will.\n(2.) When we cannot see the reason, or understand the meaning of the\ndispensations of divine providence, and are not able to pass a judgment\nconcerning future events, whether relating unto ourselves, or others;\nand, when all things look with a very dismal aspect, as to what concerns\nthe interest and church of God in the world, we must be content to wait\ntill he is pleased to discover them to us; what he oftentimes does, _we\nknow not now, but shall know hereafter_, as our Saviour said to one of\nhis disciples, John xiii. 7. It is no wonder that we are at a loss, as\nto God\u2019s purposes, since secret things belong to him; and therefore all\nthat we are to do, in such a case, is, to rest satisfied, that all these\nthings shall, in the end, appear to have a tendency to advance his own\nperfections, and bring about the salvation of his people.\n(3.) Since the purpose of God respects the means, as well as the end,\nthis should put us upon the use of those proper means, in which we may\nhope to obtain grace and glory; and therefore this doctrine does not\nlead us to sloth, and indifference in religion; for that is to suppose,\nthat the ends and means are separated in God\u2019s purpose: and when,\nthrough his blessing attending them, the ordinances, or means of grace,\nare made effectual for the working of faith, and all other graces, these\nbeing connected, in God\u2019s purpose, with glory, it ought to encourage our\nhope relating to the end of faith, even the salvation of our souls.\n(4.) Let us take heed that we do not peremptorily, without ground\nconclude ourselves elected unto eternal life, on the one hand, or\nrejected on the other. To determine that we are chosen to salvation,\nbefore we are effectually called, is presumptuously to enter into God\u2019s\nsecret counsels, which we cannot, at present, have a certain and\ndeterminate knowledge of; but to lay this as a foundation, as to what\nconcerns the conduct of our lives, is oftentimes of a very pernicious\ntendency. If, as the result of this conclusion made, we take\nencouragement to go on in sin, this will cut the sinews of all religion,\nand expose us to blindness of mind, and hardness of heart, and a greater\ndegree of impenitency and unbelief, as the consequence of this bold\npresumption and affront to the divine Majesty.\nNeither, on the other hand, are we to conclude that we are not elected;\nfor though we may be in suspense about the event of things, and not know\nwhether we are elected or rejected, this is not inconsistent with our\nusing endeavours to attain a good hope, through grace; yet to determine\nthat we are not elected, is to conclude, against ourselves that all\nendeavours will be to no purpose; which we have no ground to do, since\nit is one thing to conclude that we are in a state of unregeneracy, and\nanother thing to determine that we are not elected. The consequence of\nour concluding that we are in an unconverted state, ought to be our\npraying, waiting, and hoping for the efficacy of divine grace, which\nextends itself to the chief of sinners, as a relief against despair,\nthough such can have no ground to say, they are elected; therefore the\nsafest way, and that which is most conducive to the ends of religion, is\nto be firmly persuaded, that though the final state of man be certainly\ndetermined by God, yet this is to be no rule for an unregenerate person\nto take his measures from, any more than if it were a matter of\nuncertainty, and, in all respects, undetermined by him.\n(5.) Let us, according to the apostle\u2019s advice, _Give diligence to make\nour calling and election sure_, 2 Pet. i. 10. It is certainly a very\ngreat privilege for us, not barely to know, that some were chosen to\neternal life, but to be able to conclude that we are of that happy\nnumber; and, in order hereunto, we must not expect to have an\nextraordinary revelation thereof, or to find ourselves described by name\nin scripture, as though this were the way to attain it; for the rule by\nwhich we are to judge of this matter, is, our enquiring whether we have\nthose marks, or evidences thereof, which are contained therein; and\ntherefore we are, by a diligent and impartial self-examination, to\nendeavour to know whether we are called, or enabled, to perform the\nobedience of faith, which God is said to elect his people to; or whether\nwe are holy, and without blame, before him in love? whether we have the\ntemper and disposition of the children of God, as an evidence of our\nbeing chosen to the adoption of children, and as such, are conformed to\nthe image of Christ?\n(6.) If we have ground to conclude that we are chosen to eternal life,\nthis ought to be improved to the glory of God, and our own spiritual\nadvantage; it ought to put us upon admiring and adoring the riches of\ndiscriminating grace, which is herein eminently illustrated; and such\nare under the highest obligation to walk humbly with God, as well as\nthankfully; for it is owing to his grace, not only that they are chosen\nto eternal life, but that they are enabled to discern their interest in\nthis privilege.[237]\nFootnote 183:\n  \u201cCertainly, it is not to be understood, in a literal or strict sense,\n  that He _does_, all that is done. \u2018Far be it from God,\u2019 says Elihu,\n  \u2018that he should do wickedness: and from the Almighty, that he should\n  commit iniquity.\u2019 Doing wickedness, and committing iniquity, are\n  synonymous phrases: but to impute to the Most High, any thing like\n  what is commonly meant by either of these phrases, is evident\n  blasphemy.\n  \u201cNor are we to imagine, certainly, that God _makes_ his creatures do,\n  whatever is done by them, in any such manner as is inconsistent with\n  their own proper agency. Rational creatures certainly act; and act as\n  freely, as if there were no being above them to direct their steps, or\n  to govern their actions. When God works in men, to will and to do that\n  which is good; they, nevertheless will and do it themselves; and are\n  really praise-worthy. And he does not, surely, so influence any to\n  evil, as to render them unactive, involuntary, or undeserving of\n  blame.\n  \u201cNor do I believe it true, literally and strictly speaking, that God\n  _creates_, whatsoever comes to pass; particularly darkness, and moral\n  evil.\n  \u201cBut this must not be taken for granted, nor hastily passed over:\n  because, however indisputable, it is disputed. There are some among\n  us, and some who are deservedly in reputation for wisdom, and general\n  soundness in the faith; who appear to be of opinion, that God is the\n  direct Author\u2014the immediate Cause\u2014the proper Creator, of all evil, as\n  well as of all good\u2014of all sin, as well as holiness, in heart and\n  life\u2014in thought, word, and deed.\n  \u201cThis opinion, however, notwithstanding my high esteem and particular\n  friendship for some of the holders of it, I am not yet ready to adopt,\n  for several reasons.\n  \u201c1. To suppose that the actions of men, whether virtuous or vicious,\n  are _created_, seems to confound all distinction between creation and\n  Providence; or rather, wholly to exclude the latter.\n  \u201cThe work of creation, we used to think, was God\u2019s making creatures\n  and things, at first; or giving the beginning of existence to matter\n  and minds, with their various properties, instincts and organizations.\n  And that God\u2019s works of Providence, were his preserving things already\n  made, and governing all their operations. But according to this new\n  philosophy, creation is all; Providence is nothing. For what\n  preserving and governing of creatures or actions can there be, when\n  every creature and every action, is every moment created anew? An\n  action, a thought, or volition, whether good or evil, is a new and\n  strange kind of creature, or created thing. But, in a theological\n  view, the question before us is of chief importance, as it respects\n  moral evil. I add, therefore;\n  \u201c2. It appears to me, that to suppose God the Creator of sin, whether\n  in principle or action, is hardly reconcilable with his perfect\n  holiness. \u2018Doth a fountain send forth, at the same place, sweet waters\n  and bitter?\u2019 Can darkness proceed from Him, as its proper source, in\n  whom there is no darkness at all?\n  \u201cIt is true, God has created many things which are of a _different_\n  nature from himself; as the bodies of men and beasts, and all parts of\n  the world of matter: but nothing, I conceive, directly _opposite_ to\n  his own nature; as is sin. The sun is the immediate cause of the\n  growth of vegetables; though these are essentially different from the\n  sun itself: but it is not thus the cause of ice and darkness; which\n  are no more of a contrary nature to it, than sin is to the nature of\n  \u201cI am sensible it has been said, there is no more inconsistency with\n  the holiness of God, in supposing him the efficient, immediate cause\n  of sin, for necessary good purposes; than in supposing he only permits\n  it, for wise ends, and so orders things that he knows it will be\n  committed.\n  \u201cBut these two ways of accounting for the existence of moral evil,\n  appear to me materially different. There are supposable cases in which\n  it would be right for a _man_, not to hinder another from sinning,\n  when he could hinder him; and also to place him in circumstances of\n  temptation, expecting that he would sin. For instance, a parent may\n  leave money in the way of a child suspected of being given to theft;\n  and may conceal himself and let the child steal it; with a view to\n  correct him, in order to reclaim him, or as a warning to his other\n  children. All this might be perfectly right in the parent; however\n  certainly he might know, that the child would be guilty of the\n  expected crime. But I question whether any case can be supposed in\n  which it would not be wrong, directly to influence another to do evil,\n  that good might come. Exciting one to sin by power or persuasion; and\n  placing one in circumstances of trial, wherein he would be tempted to\n  sin, without restraining him from it, are surely different things,\n  although the certainty of his sinning may be the same.\n  \u201c3. I dare not think that God creates sin, and all kinds of evil,\n  because this seems plainly contrary to the general current of the holy\n  scriptures.\n  \u201cIn the first chapter of Genesis, it is said, \u2018God saw every thing\n  that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.\u2019 Of his making two\n  great lights, we are told; and that he made the stars also: but no\n  account is there given of his creating darkness. Respecting our own\n  species, the inspired historian particularly informs us, that \u2018God\n  created man in his own image: in the image of God created he him: male\n  and female created he them.\u2019 Nor do we find in that book, or in all\n  the Bible, that he hath since ever created them otherwise. Solomon\n  three thousand years after the fall, having made diligent search among\n  men and women, to find out their true character, and the cause of\n  their so universal depravity, says; \u2018Lo, this only have I found, that\n  _God_ made man upright; but _they_ have sought out many inventions.\u2019\n  Wicked practices, and deceitful inventions to conceal their\n  criminality, are ever ascribed in scripture to mankind themselves, or\n  to other fallen creatures, and never to God, as their efficient cause.\n  \u201cIn the New-Testament, christians are said to be \u2018created unto good\n  works:\u2019 and we read of \u2018the new man, which after God, is created in\n  righteousness and true holiness\u2019. But no where do we read of any one\n  that was created unto _evil_ works; or after _Satan_ in\n  unrighteousness and sin. It is written, 1 Cor. xiv. 33, \u2018God is not\n  the author of confusion, but of peace.\u2019 And James i. 13-17, \u2018Let no\n  man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be\n  tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is\n  tempted when he is led away of his own lust and enticed.\u2014Do not err,\n  my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from\n  above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.\u2019 Can any thing be\n  more express to teach us, that a distinction ought carefully to be\n  made between the origin of good and evil; and that we should not\n  conceive them both alike to come from God?\n  \u201cFor scripture proof that God is not the efficient author of sin, I\n  will only add, that the fruits of the Spirit, and works of the flesh,\n  are set in contrast and spoken of as diametrical opposites: whereas,\n  did God create sinful propensities in men, or directly influence them\n  to evil actions, the works of the flesh would be as real and immediate\n  fruits of the divine Spirit, as the holiest exercises of the best\n  saints.\n  \u201c4. I see no occasion for the supposition of God\u2019s being thus the\n  author of all evil: nor any good ends that it can answer.\n  \u201cCould it be seen how evils might be accounted for, without supposing\n  them any part of the creation of God; and how God might have an\n  absolute dominion over all events, without being the immediate cause\n  of bad things; no good man, I conclude, would wish to conceive of Him\n  as being thus the proper source of darkness and evil. And indeed, were\n  it so, that our weak minds were unable to comprehend how God can work\n  all things after the counsel of his own will, or how natural and moral\n  evil could ever have been, without believing that God is as much, and\n  as immediately, the cause of evil as of good; yet it might be more\n  modest, and more wise, to leave these among other incomprehensibles,\n  than to have recourse to so bold an hypothesis for the solution of\n  them. But, I apprehend, there is no need of this hypothesis in order\n  to account for the existence of evil, or in order to an understanding\n  belief of the universal government of the Most High.\n  \u201cEvils, of most if not all kinds, are such negative things\u2014such mere\n  defects, in their origin at least, as do not need creation, or require\n  a positive omnipotent cause. This is the case, evidently, with respect\n  to natural darkness: it is only the want of light. This is the case,\n  also, with respect to natural death: it is only the cessation, the\n  loss, the want of life. And this may be the case, with respect to\n  spiritual darkness, and spiritual death. It has heretofore been the\n  orthodox opinion, that all moral evil consists radically in privation;\n  or, that unholiness, at bottom, is the mere want of holiness. And,\n  notwithstanding all the floods of light, from various quarters, which\n  have come into the world in this age of new discoveries, possibly this\n  one old opinion may yet be true. \u2018God made man _upright_.\u2019 That is, He\n  formed him with a disposition impartially just and good: He created in\n  him a principle of universal righteousness. When man fell, by eating\n  the forbidding fruit, this principle had not been preserved in perfect\n  strength and exercise. In consequence of that disobedience, the divine\n  internal influence was so withdrawn, that this principle was entirely\n  lost. But we are not told, nor need it be supposed, that any opposite\n  principle was then created in him. Our first parents had, I believe,\n  in their original formation, all the radical instincts of nature which\n  they had after the fall; or which any of their posterity now have.\n  Such as a principle of self-preservation, a desire of self-promotion,\n  and a propensity to increase and multiply; together with all the more\n  particular appetites and passions, subservient to these purposes. All\n  these are innocent in themselves, though not in themselves virtuous.\n  But these private instincts, when left to operate alone, without the\n  governing influence of a public spirit, or a just regard for other\n  beings, will naturally lead to all manner of iniquity, in heart and\n  life. To avarice and ambition; to envy and malice; to intemperance and\n  lewdness; to frauds and oppressions; to wars and fightings.\n  \u201cThere is no need of supposing any other divine agency, than only to\n  uphold in existence creatures that have lost their virtue, amidst\n  surrounding temptations, in order to account for all the evil\n  affections which we ever feel, and for all the external wickedness\n  that is ever committed. Nor, in order to the holiest creatures losing\n  their virtue, need any thing more be supposed on God\u2019s part, than only\n  his leaving them to themselves; or not upholding in them, and\n  constantly invigorating, a virtuous disposition.\n  \u201cAnd as, in this way, we can account for the existence of all manner\n  of evil; so we can thus understand how it is possible for God to bring\n  about whatsoever comes to pass, without his being the actor, or maker,\n  or instigator, of any thing that is not perfectly good. When He does\n  not cause light, there will be darkness. When He does not make peace,\n  there will be evil. The darkness takes place according to his\n  appointment, with the same exactness and certainty, as if He actually\n  created it; and so does evil of every kind. What He determines to\n  permit, knowing perfectly the circumstances and dispositions of every\n  agent concerned, will as infallibly come to pass, as what he\n  determines to do himself, or to effect by his own positive influence.\n  The king\u2019s heart, and the rivers of water; the waves of the sea, and\n  the tumults of the people, are in the hand of the Lord, to all\n  important intents and purposes, if it be only true that He restrains\n  them, or lets them run; stilleth them, or suffereth them to rage, just\n  as he sees fit.\n  \u201cIn this sense, I conceive, it is to be understood, that God forms the\n  light, and creates darkness; makes peace, and creates evil. He has the\n  absolute government\u2014the perfect control\u2014the entire superintendency, of\n  all these things.\n  \u201cWhen any folly has been committed or any mischief has been done, some\n  are ready to say, _It was so ordered_; as if therefore nobody was to\n  be blamed. But this is a false inference, from just premises. True, it\n  was so ordered of God; and ordered righteously and wisely: but it was\n  so ordered by the doer of the mischief also; and ordered carelessly,\n  perhaps, or wickedly. You will say, It must have been so, and the\n  actor could not have done otherwise: but, I say, he might have done\n  otherwise, if he would. It is true, there is a kind of necessity in\n  the actions of men. They necessarily act according to their own\n  choice; and they necessarily choose to act according to their own\n  disposition. Under this kind of necessity God himself acts. It is\n  impossible for him to do, because it is impossible for him to will\n  that which is contrary to his own nature. He necessarily wills and\n  does, what is agreeable to his moral perfections. But such a necessity\n  as this, is so far from being inconsistent with freedom, that it is\n  essential to all free agency. Actions which can and do take place,\n  contrary to the inclination of the agent, are not _his_ actions. He\n  has no command over them; and therefore can deserve no praise or blame\n  for them.\n  \u201cThe necessity of acting according to our own minds, is all the\n  necessity which need be supposed, when we suppose that all our actions\n  were decreed, and are ordered of God. A creature that acts according\n  to any laws of nature, and not at perfect random, without any\n  self-government, acts in such a manner that He who knows what is in\n  him, may fore-know all his actions; and in such a manner that He in\n  whose hand his times are, may govern all his volitions. Men follow\n  their several courses, as freely as the rivers of water, and with a\n  higher kind of freedom; yet, since they run agreeably to their own\n  inclination, and cannot do otherwise, a Being omniscient and\n  omnipotent, can calculate before hand all their motions; can keep them\n  in the channels decreed for them, and can turn them whithersoever he\n  will. If any do not comprehend this, yet let them not think they so\n  fully comprehend the contrary, as to feel certain, that either man\n  cannot be free, or God cannot govern the world. Certainly the\n  providential government of God, over the hearts and ways of men,\n  though most absolute, is not such but that, if they do well, they are\n  praise-worthy; and if they do not well, the sin lieth at their own\n  door.\n  \u201cNeither let it be imagined that the criminality of a bad action is\n  taken away, or at all extenuated, because it will be over-ruled for\n  good. Actions are good or evil, according to the nature of them, and\n  the intention of the agent, and not according to undesigned\n  consequences. When we act wickedly, and with a wicked mind, its being\n  productive of happy effects, alters nothing in regard to our\n  blame-worthiness. In the divine decrees, and in the divine providence,\n  \u2018Whatever is, is right:\u2019 but in the conduct of creatures, many things\n  that are, are not at all the less wrong. God\u2019s governing all things,\n  so as to make them subserve his wise and holy designs, should not lead\n  us to think any more favourably of our own, or of our neighbour\u2019s\n  foolish and sinful actions.\u201d\n  SMALLEY\u2019S SERMONS.\nFootnote 184:\n  \u201cThere is a vast difference between the sun\u2019s being the cause of the\n  lightsomeness and warmth of the atmosphere, and of the brightness of\n  gold and diamonds, by its presence and positive influence; and its\n  being the occasion of darkness and frost in the night, by its motion\n  whereby it descends below the horizon. The motion of the sun is the\n  occasion of the latter kind of events; but not the proper cause,\n  efficient, or producer of them.\u2014No more is any action of the divine\n  Being, the cause of the evil of men\u2019s wills. If the sun were the\n  proper _cause_ of cold and darkness, it would be the fountain of these\n  things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something\n  might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of\n  nature in the sun; and it might be justly inferred that the sun itself\n  is dark and cold: but from its being the cause of these, no otherwise\n  than by its absence, no such thing can be inferred, but the contrary.\n  It may justly be argued that the sun is a bright and hot body, if cold\n  and darkness are found to be the consequence of its withdrawment; and\n  the more constantly and necessarily these effects are connected with\n  and confined to its absence, the more strongly does it argue the sun\n  to be the fountain of light and heat. So, in as much as sin is not the\n  fruit of any positive influence of the Most High, but on the contrary,\n  arises from the withdrawment of his action and energy, and under\n  certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his\n  influence, this is no argument that he is sinful, or his operation\n  evil; but on the contrary, that he and his agency are altogether holy,\n  and that he is the fountain of all holiness. It would be strange\n  arguing indeed, because men never commit sin, but only when God leaves\n  them to themselves; and necessarily sin when he does so, that\n  therefore their sin is not from themselves, but from God: as strange\n  as it would be to argue, because it is always dark when the sun is\n  gone, and never dark when he is present, that therefore darkness is\n  from the sun, and that his disk and beams must be black.\u201d\n  _Edwards on the Will._\n  Page 259. _Boston Ed._ 1754.\nFootnote 185:\n  _Dr. Whitby, in his discourse of election, &c._\nFootnote 186:\n  _See his discourse concerning election, page 36. 37. &c._\nFootnote 187:\n  _See the contrary opinion defended by Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 188:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s discourse, &c. page 40, & seq._\nFootnote 189:\n  _See_ Twiss. Vind. Grat. & de Pr\u00e6dest. _and his riches of God\u2019s love,\n  against Hord; and also that part of the writings of some others, in\n  which they treat of predestination_, _viz._ _Beza, Gomarus, Piscator,\n  Maccovius, Rutherford, Whitaker, and Perkins_.\nFootnote 190:\n  _Among these were bishop Davenant, and other divines, who met in the\n  synod of Dort; also Calvin, P. Du Moulin, Turrettin, and, indeed, the\n  greater number of those who have defended the doctrine of\n  predestination; and there are many others, who, when they treat of it,\n  seem to wave the particular matter in controversy, as thinking it of\n  no great importance or that this doctrine may be as well defended,\n  without confining themselves to certain modes of speaking, which have\n  been the ground of many prejudices against it, whose prudence and\n  conduct herein cannot be justly blamed._\nFootnote 191:\n  \u039f\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03be \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd. non solum ex Jud\u00e6is; _that is, those who are\n  called from among the Jews, as distinguished from the rest of them\n  that were rejected_.\nFootnote 192:\n  \u05d6\u05d2\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5\nFootnote 193:\n  _See Questions_ lxvii, lxviii, lxxii, lxxv, lxxvi.\nFootnote 194:\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\nFootnote 195:\n  _See Prov._ viii. 23.\nFootnote 196:\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\nFootnote 197:\n  _Vid. Grot. in loc._\nFootnote 198:\n  \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\nFootnote 199:\n  _Vid. Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 200:\n  _Vid. Beza in loc._\nFootnote 201:\n  _The principal text that Dr. Whitby refers to, as justifying his sense\n  of the word, is in Acts_ xx. 13. We went to Assos, there intending to\n  take in Paul, for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot;\n  _the words are_, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n  _which he understands as though the meaning was, that the apostle was\n  disposed, in his own mind, to go afoot; but that sense is not\n  agreeable to the scope of the text, for the meaning of it seems to be\n  this: That it was determined, ordered, or preconcerted by them, before\n  they set sail; that Paul should be taken in at Assos, since he was to\n  go there afoot; so that this makes nothing to that author\u2019s purpose,\n  but rather to the sense that we have given of the word._\nFootnote 202:\n  _See Grot. in loc._\nFootnote 203:\n  _See Dr. Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 204:\n  _See Quest._ xliv, lxviii.\nFootnote 205:\n  _See Dr. Goodwin, vol. 2. of election._\nFootnote 206:\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\nFootnote 207:\n  _See page 137._\nFootnote 208:\n  _This is what is meant by that axiom, used by the school-men_,\n  Decretum Dei, nihil ponit in esse.\nFootnote 209:\n  _Thus the school-men distinguish between_ necessitas consequentis,\n  _and_ consequenti\u00e6; _so that that, which is not in itself necessary,\n  is rendered eventually so, as the consequence of God\u2019s purpose, that\n  it shall be_.\nFootnote 210:\n  \u201cThere is no necessity for supposing a predestination to death, in the\n  same sense as unto life, that is to the means and the consequent end:\n  For the occurrence of sin may be satisfactorily accounted for on other\n  principles; though without pretending to the removal of every\n  difficulty in a subject the entire comprehension of which is probably\n  unsuited to our present state and faculties.\u201d[211]\n  SMITH\u2019S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.\nFootnote 211:\n  It is acknowledged that this view of the subject is different from\n  that which most Calvinistic writers have given. Yet several eminent\n  divines have laid down the fundamental principles, at least, of this\n  sentiment, and have opened the way to it: particularly Augustine,\n  Theophilus Gale, and a class of German Theologians who may be termed\n  the school of Leibnitz. A short time ago an attempt was made to excite\n  the attention of thinking men to his doctrine, by a _Sermon on the\n  Divine glory, displayed by the Permission of Sin_. But, since the\n  publication of that pamphlet, the subject has been more ably and fully\n  treated by my reverend tutor, the Rev. Dr. Williams, in his _Discourse\n  on Predestination to Life_, published very lately.\nFootnote 212:\n  \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9.\nFootnote 213:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Paraphrase, &c. on Jude, ver. 4._\nFootnote 214:\n  _Thus Beza in loc. calls them_ vessels, _because, as creatures, they\n  are the workmanship of God, the great potter, but vessels prepared for\n  destruction by themselves, and therefore adds_, Exitii veras causas\n  minime negem in ipsis vasis h\u00e6rere juxta illud _perditio, tua ex te\n  est_.\nFootnote 215:\n  _It ought to be observed, that the word, here used, is_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, _and not_ \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1; _nor is there any thing added\n  to the word, that signifies, that this preparation thereunto was\n  antecedent to their being; or as though it took its rise from God, as\n  the cause of that sin for which he designed to punish them; whereas,\n  on the other hand when the apostle in the following verse, speaks of\n  God\u2019s_ making known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,\n  _to wit, the elect, they are described as those whom he had_ afore\n  prepared unto glory, \u1f01 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03bd. _What should be the\n  reason that the apostle alters the phrase, but that we may hereby be\n  led to consider, that when God chose the elect to glory they are\n  considered in his purpose as those whom he designed, by his grace, to\n  make meet for it! So that the vessels of wrath are considered as\n  fitting themselves for destruction; the vessels of mercy, as persons\n  whom God would first prepare for, and then bring to glory._\nFootnote 216:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, &c. page 10._\nFootnote 217:\n  _See his Riches of God\u2019s love, against Hord. Part II. page 50._\nFootnote 218:\n  _See Bishop Patrick in loc._\nFootnote 219:\n  _This agrees with the sense given of it by Grot. in loc. and Whitby in\n  his discourse, &c. page 11. and it agrees very well with the sense of\n  the Hebrew words_, \u05e4\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05e8\u05d4 _which does not so much signify to make,\n  as to dispose, and adapt one thing to another, which the lxx. render_,\n  \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2, &c. the wicked is reserved to the day of evil.\nFootnote 220:\n  _See Quest. xliv._\nFootnote 221:\n  _The words are_, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1, _that is_, all four-footed beasts.\nFootnote 222:\n  _Matt. iv. 23. The words are_, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, every sickness, and every disease; _and so the same words\n  are translated, in Matt. ix. 35._\nFootnote 223:\n  It is improper to say we have no power, when we can do the thing if we\n  will; and criminal to take the glory, which is God\u2019s.\nFootnote 224:\n  _See Whitby of Election, Chap. 5. Limborch. Amic. Collat. page 242._\nFootnote 225:\n  _Vid. Sixt Senens. Bibliothec. Lib. V. Annotat 101. Annotavit quidam\n  Chrytostomum interdum natur\u00e6 nostr\u00e6 vires plus \u00e6quo extulisse ex\n  contentione disceptandi cum Manich\u00e6is & Gentilibus, qui hominem\n  asserebant, vel natura malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum\n  compelli._\nFootnote 226:\n  _Vid. Aug. Retrac. I. Cap. 25._\nFootnote 227:\n  _Vid. Aug. de Pr\u00e6dest. Sanet. Cap. 14. Quid igitur opus est, ut eorum\n  scrutemur opuscula, qui prius quam ista h\u00e6resis oriretur, non\n  habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum qu\u00e6stione\n  versari: quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur._\nFootnote 228:\n  _Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Historico-Theol. Lib. VIII. Cap. 28. \u00a7 16, &c.\n  & Joh. Jacobi Hottingeri, Fata Doctrin\u00e6 de Pr\u00e6destinat. Lib. I. \u00a7 35,\nFootnote 229:\n  _Vid. G. J. Vossii Hist. Pelag. Lib. VI. Thes. 8, 9, 10._\nFootnote 230:\n  _Vid. Calv. Instit. Lib. III. Cap. 22. \u00a7 1. Certior est hic Dei\n  veritas, quam ut concutiatur, clarior quam ut obruatur hominum\n  authoritate._\nFootnote 231:\n  _See the epistles that passed between Berevov, a physician at Dort,\n  and several divines at that time, in_ Lib. de Term vit\u00e6.\nFootnote 232:\n  _Seneca de Consol. ad Marciam, cap. 20. Nemo nimis cito moritur, qui\n  victurus diutius quam vixit non fuit, fixus est cuique terminus,\n  manebit semper ubi positus est, nec illum ulterius diligentia aut\n  gratia promovebit. Et Cicero de Senect. Quod cuique temporis ad\n  vivendum datum, eo debet contentus esse. Virg. \u00c6n. X. Stat sua cuique\n  dies. Serv. Fixum est tempus vit\u00e6._\nFootnote 233:\n  Evil as well as good actions are links in the chain of providence, and\n  yet do not impeach Divine holiness.\nFootnote 234:\n  _Vid. Senac. de Prov. cap. 5. August, de Civ. Dei, Lib. V. cap. 1, &\n  8. Lips Phys. Stoic. Lib. J. Diss. 12._\nFootnote 235:\n  _See Quest. XVIII._\nFootnote 236:\n  _See Quest. XXI, XXII._\nFootnote 237:\n  When we contend for this doctrine as a _truth_, it should be viewed in\n  connexion with its real _importance_. These two objects are extremely\n  different in things natural, civil, and religious. There are many\n  things true in history, in philosophy, in politics, and even in\n  theology, which no sober person deems important. There are other\n  things hypothetically important, whether actually true or not. And of\n  this kind is the subject before us. Such is the nature, the connexion,\n  and consequences of it, that _if_ it be true, it cannot fail of being\n  of the first importance.\n  But how are we more particularly to estimate the importance of this\n  subject? By the influence which the admission or the denial of it has\n  on the very foundations of religion. For instance, if it be NOT true,\n  either _man_ himself or mere _chance_ has the principal share in\n  effecting our actual salvation, and investing us with eternal glory.\n  Some indeed are so lost to modesty and self-knowledge, and so\n  unacquainted with the leading truths of christianity, that they do not\n  scruple to ascribe the eventual difference in our future state,\n  whether good or bad, to man himself, but attended with some verbal,\n  unmeaning compliment to divine mercy. Such persons should first learn\n  the rudiments of christianity, before they have a right to expect any\n  deference shewn to their opinions. On the other hand, if this BE true,\n  its utility is plain; it will hide pride from man; it will exclude\n  chance from having any share in our deliverance; it will exalt the\n  grace of God; it will render salvation a certain, and not a precarious\n  thing; and, in a word, it will secure to them who have the Spirit of\n  Christ the greatest consolation.\n  This was the view which our episcopal reformers had of the doctrine,\n  both as to its truth, and the importance of it. \u2018Predestination to\n  life\u2019 say they, \u2018is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before\n  the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by\n  his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those\n  whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by\n  Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.\u2014The godly\n  consideration of Predestination and our election in Christ is full of\n  sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as\n  feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the\n  works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their\n  minds to high and heavenly things; as well because it doth greatly\n  establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed\n  through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards\n  God.\u2019\u2014Another observation I would make is,\n  2. That it is highly proper, in order to investigate the present\n  subject with success, to keep it perfectly distinct, and free from all\n  _impure mixtures_. This is what some of our early reformers, and many\n  of the modern defenders of this doctrine have not done. For want of\n  this, many bitter enemies have opposed it. Dr. WHITBY, for instance,\n  and most who have written on the same side of the question since his\n  time, place predestination to death, or reprobation to misery, as the\n  very foundation of Calvinism, and inseparable from predestination to\n  life. But so far is predestination to death from being true, that\n  nothing can be more untrue. It is but an arbitrary assumption; a\n  foreign, impure mixture, having no foundation either in the real\n  meaning of holy writ, or in the nature of things; except indeed we\n  mean by it, what no one questions, a determination to punish the\n  guilty.[238] But is not one man\u2019s misery as _certain_ as another man\u2019s\n  happiness? Yes; _equally certain_. What then; must they therefore be\n  equally _predestinated_? No. But how can a thing be _certain_, if it\n  be not _predestinated_? Have a little patience and I will tell you.\n  The previous question is, Does God predestinate to _sin_ as the means,\n  and to death or misery as the end, in the same way as he predestinates\n  to holiness as the means, and eternal glory as the end? This we deny,\n  as it would be infinitely unworthy of God, making him the author of\n  sin, or doing evil that good may come. Some indeed have distinguished\n  between being the author or the cause of sin, and being a sinner. But\n  the distinction itself is not solid, nor could it fully satisfy those\n  who have made it in clearing the divine character.[239]\n  In fact, sin and holiness are not only different, but _opposite\n  effects_, and their causes equally opposite; but as God is the sole\n  cause, the sole exclusive cause of holiness, the creature, in some\n  way, must be the sole and exclusive cause of sin. If you ask how? I\n  reply, by exercising his _liberty_, which is a mere natural\n  instrument, on _himself_, rather than on God. But how came he to do\n  that? By his _passive power_. What is passive power? In general, it is\n  that which distinguishes the creature from the Creator. But more\n  particularly, it is that tendency to nothing as to being, and to\n  defection as to well being, which is essential to every created\n  existence. If every creature have, and must of necessity have this\n  passive power, you will ask, how came the holy angels, and the spirits\n  of the just, not to sin? The answer is, because divine grace upholds\n  them. These things duly considered, though briefly stated, will shew,\n  that as God is not the author of sin, so neither has he predestinated\n  sin. He is the author and cause of good only. He is the author of our\n  liberty; but that in itself is not evil. And he is the author of our\n  nature as limited; that also of itself is no moral evil. But when our\n  liberty unites with this limited nature, or terminates on passive\n  power, when this latter is not controuled by grace, their offspring is\n  imperfect, or sinfulness attaches to our moral acts.\n  Hence you may learn, that sin and future misery are events perfectly\n  certain, though not predestinated. It has been often assumed, but\n  without propriety or truth, that an event is foreknown only because it\n  is decreed. In reality all _good_ is foreknown, because it is decreed;\n  for there is no other ground of its existence. But sin, as before\n  shewn, has another ground of existence, namely, passive power, which\n  can no more be an object of divine predestination or decree than its\n  perfect opposite, the all-sufficiency of Jehovah. Yet, observe\n  attentively, this has its _proper nature_, and God sees all things,\n  and all essences, in their proper nature. What! Does not God foreknow\n  the sinfulness of any event in its _deficient_ cause, as well as the\n  goodness of another in that which is efficient? Beside, passive power\n  in union with liberty is an _adequate_, a fully adequate ground of sin\n  and death; and therefore to introduce a predestination of sin and\n  death, is to ascribe to God what is equally impious and\n  needless.[240]\u2014Let us, therefore, keep this doctrine free from all\n  impure mixtures, and now proceed to a\n  3rd Observation, that is, When the _end_ is maintained to be\n  infallibly certain, the _means_ to promote that end are included. Thus\n  you may suppose a chain suspended from a great height, and to the\n  lowest link a weight is fixed, which is borne by it. You do not\n  suppose that this link is unconnected with the next, and so on till\n  you come to the highest. Every one of the links is equally necessary\n  with that which is next the weight; and the whole is connected with\n  something else which is stronger than the weight, including that of\n  the chain also, however long and heavy.\n  Thus also in the cultivation of our land, though it is decreed that on\n  such a field there shall be this very season a crop of wheat, this was\n  not independent of providential virtue giving the increase, the genial\n  showers, the solar warmth, and the vivifying air. It is not\n  unconnected with the proper seed sown, needful tillage, plowing and\n  harrowing, and the quality of the soil. And the same holds true as to\n  the health of the body, and the prolongation of life to an appointed\n  period. He who dies must first have life; he who grows to manhood must\n  arrive at it through the previous stages of youth, childhood and\n  infancy. So likewise an the education of our children; if learning be\n  the end, that supposes the previous means of application; and if it is\n  determined who shall be the first scholar of the age in which he\n  lives, it is _equally_ determined that he shall begin with the\n  rudiments of letters, and diligently prosecute his literary studies.\n  And respecting religious attainments the matter is equally plain; if\n  life or eternal glory be the end predestinated, the previous steps of\n  purity of heart, justification and a new birth unto righteousness,\n  preservation in Christ, and every individual event and circumstance\n  preceding, is included in the decree, as far as there is any\n  _goodness_ in them. As to the _evil_ with which any events or\n  circumstances are blended, that has been already accounted for on\n  another principle. Nothing can be more true or plain, God had\n  predestinated an everlasting righteousness to be brought in by the\n  Lord Jesus Christ. But is it not equally true and plain that the birth\n  of Jesus, and of his virgin mother, the existence of David, the call\n  of Abraham, the preservation of Noah, and the creation of Adam and Eve\n  were predestinated?\u2014Let us therefore guard against separating the end\n  and the means; and what God joins together in his predestinating care\n  and love, let no man put asunder.\u2014We now come\n  II. To consider some proofs of this doctrine.\u2014That the scriptures,\n  especially those of the New Testament, _appear_, at least, to maintain\n  the doctrine in question, no person of common modesty will deny. Thus,\n  for instance, Rom. viii. 29, 30. \u201cWhom he did foreknow, he also did\n  _predestinate_ to be conformed to the image of his Son.\u201d Again, Eph.\n  i. 4-6. \u201cAccording as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation\n  of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in\n  love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus\n  Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the\n  praise of the glory of his grace.\u201d And again, ver. 11. \u201cIn whom also\n  we have obtained an inheritance, being _predestinated_ according to\n  the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own\n  will.\u201d Believers are said to be \u201ccalled according to God\u2019s _purpose_;\u201d\n  and certain discriminations are made between man and man, between\n  nation and nation, \u201cthat the _purpose_ of God according to election,\n  might stand, not of works but of him who calleth.\u201d \u201cThe _election_\n  hath obtained it.\u201d \u201cSo then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him\n  that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.\u201d \u201cShall the thing formed\n  say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?\u201d\u2014\u201cI will have\n  mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I\n  will have compassion.\u201d\n  These are some of the many passages of holy writ which at least _seem_\n  to hold this doctrine. But it is of importance to observe, that to\n  establish this very doctrine is the main drift of the apostle Paul\u2019s\n  elaborate argument in a considerable part of his epistle to the\n  Romans. See Rom. ix.-xi.\u2014But more particularly,\n  1. It is evidently inconsistent with God\u2019s infinite perfection to\n  suppose that he has _no_ purposes, designs, or aims in his operations;\n  or, which is virtually the same thing, to suppose that he decrees or\n  predestinates _nothing_. Wherein would he then differ from blind,\n  unmeaning chance, which hath neither wisdom, power, nor properties? An\n  intelligent spirit without _any_ plan or purpose, is inconceivable;\n  much less is the infinitely perfect Jehovah such a being.\n  But if he purposes _any thing_, what can be conceived of in this world\n  of higher importance, or more worthy of his predestinating care, than\n  the _salvation_ of his people, that is, of those who are eventually\n  saved? Shall he purpose from eternity to give his Son to appear in the\n  form of a servant, to suffer an ignominious death, and to be head over\n  all things to the church, at an _uncertainty_? Does he bestow his Holy\n  Spirit without knowing, or without intending, who shall be ultimately\n  changed into the divine image from glory to glory, and made meet for\n  the inheritance of the saints in light? Truly, if in time he draws\n  with loving-kindness, it is because he has loved with an everlasting\n  love.\n  2. What scripture and experience teach of man\u2019s condition as a sinner,\n  utterly excludes every other cause of salvation but God\u2019s\n  predestinating love. From our very birth we are sinful, guilty, and\n  without strength. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The graceless\n  heart is a heart of stone; in spiritual concerns unfeeling and\n  impenetrable. Well may our Lord say to his disciples, Ye have not\n  chosen me, but I have chosen you. If then those who were dead in\n  trespasses and sins have been quickened, if persecutors have been\n  arrested and alarmed, if those who were fully bent on rebellion have\n  been instantly rendered humble, meek, loving and obedient, to what can\n  we rationally ascribe it but to the discriminating and sovereign\n  pleasure of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own\n  will? If such are not predestinated, how came they to be called,\n  converted, and regenerated?\n  Consult the good man\u2019s experience. Will he coolly and deliberately\n  arrogate any thing to himself? Follow him to the throne of grace; what\n  is his language before God? Listen to his most holy, happy, and\n  animated praises in the church. Attend to him in his happiest\n  frames\u2014or, when emerging from the deep waters of affliction\u2014when\n  restored from backslidings\u2014or with faltering speech on the brink of\n  eternity; and you will find him steady to one point; \u201cBehold, God is\n  my salvation.\u201d My recovery from sin and woe is all of grace. Yea,\n  follow him to heaven, when he joins the noble army of martyrs, and the\n  countless myriads of the redeemed from among men, and there he shouts\n  aloud in chorus, \u201cUnto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins\n  in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his\n  Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.\u201d\u2014\u201cThou\n  art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power; for thou\n  hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were\n  created.\u201d If we search eternally into the origin and cause of our\n  deliverance from sin, and our exaltation to happiness and glory, none\n  can be found but God\u2019s predestinating love.\n  3. Nothing short of eternal predestination could secure that which is\n  demonstrably the most worthy, the most glorious, the most real _end_\n  of God in the salvation of man, that is, the praise of the glory of\n  his grace. No _end_ can be compared to this in excellence; it is\n  expressly the end which God has proposed to himself in the salvation\n  of his people; \u201chaving predestinated us unto the adoption of children\n  by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his\n  will, to the praise of the glory of his grace.\u201d If there be no\n  predestination, how can such an end ever be proposed, and how\n  infallibly secured? Can there be any effect without an adequate cause?\n  Or can the invention of men or angels discover any other cause than\n  predestination?\n  On any other supposition, how can divine love, grace, and mercy be\n  glorified, _infallibly_ glorified? Is the honour of these glorious and\n  blessed perfections of Jehovah to be suspended on a feeble\n  peradventure? Or is the spiritual temple constructed of some materials\n  which come by chance, or approach of themselves, while others are\n  brought forth by a divine hand out of the quarry of nature, and placed\n  on the living foundation? Is the glory of the Creator to depend upon\n  the precarious will of man? The supposition is too absurd to admit a\n  thought.\u2014Again,\n  4. Predestination to life is essentially necessary to secure the _full\n  end_ of the _death of Christ_ and the efficacy of divine influence.\n  What though he laid down his life for his sheep, if after all he do\n  not bring them into his fold? For him to lay down his life a _ransom_\n  for many, and then leave it to _them_ whether they should come for\n  life, and all the benefits of his death, righteousness and grace, is\n  to suppose them possessed of more power than Adam had before the fall.\n  For the power he needed was only that which might keep him from\n  falling; but the power which fallen man requires is that by which he\n  may rise from his fallen state, and enter into the favour of God, into\n  union with Christ, into spiritual sensibility and life, into wisdom,\n  righteousness and holiness, and into eternal glory. Now what can be\n  adequate to this but omnipotent power helping our infirmities?\n  If it be said, Though we cannot of ourselves do this, may we not\n  through Christ and his holy Spirit assisting us? I reply, _assistance_\n  is of two kinds; it is either affording us proper _means_, such as the\n  holy scriptures, the ministry of the word, ordinances of religion, and\n  precious promises by way of encouragement;\u2014or, it is actually to\n  _influence_ the mind by supernatural agency. If this latter assistance\n  be afforded, the event is secured; for nothing is requisite to secure\n  the volitions, and all the exercises of the will, in faith,\n  repentance, love, hope, and even perseverance therein unto the end,\n  but _this kind_ of influence to a certain degree. But does God impart\n  any gracious influence without _purposing_ to do so? And does he not\n  know what influence is necessary to secure the end? Without\n  predestination to life, what security can there be, that the death of\n  Christ will not prove abortive and unavailing?\n  The notion that a _sufficient_ degree of grace is given to all, but\n  that a degree _more_ than sufficient is given to the elect; that all\n  the elect are certainly and infallibly saved, but the others left at\n  uncertainty, with a _perhaps_ that some of them may be saved in\n  _addition_ to the elect\u2014this notion is neither founded in revealed\n  truth, nor capable of rational consistency.[241]\n  Without predestination to life, the influences of the Holy Spirit,\n  which, it is confessed, are given to some, might be given in vain, or\n  without effecting any saving purpose in any one of the human race.\n  Where then could be the wisdom of a dispensation of the Spirit, or of\n  communicating the influence of grace? Does God foresee that some will\n  be so good and pliable as to improve a _common_ favour in such a way\n  and to such a degree as to constitute the difference between them and\n  others that perish? But where is this divinity taught, and by whom is\n  it sanctioned? It is not sanctioned by the patriarchs and prophets, by\n  Christ and his apostles, nor is it contained in the words of\n  inspiration, or even in the tablet of unsophisticated reason.\n  5. Setting aside this doctrine, or supposing it not true, what room is\n  left for a covenant of grace between the Father, Son, and Spirit? Has\n  not the Father given to the Son a people for whom he should be\n  obedient unto death, for whom he should give his life a ransom, for\n  whom he should rise, live, and reign till all his enemies be subdued,\n  and to whom Christ has engaged to give eternal life? If we reject\n  predestination to life, what meaning is there in his office of\n  _surety_? Is not Jesus a surety for his people? But what is a surety?\n  It is one who undertakes for another. What does Jesus undertake to do?\n  He undertakes not only to become incarnate for them, to obey the law,\n  to endure the contradiction of sinners and cope with the rigid demands\n  of equity, but also to justify many, to give them life, to keep them\n  from every rapacious hand, to purify them by his blood, to save them\n  from sin and hell, and to bring them to the beatific vision of his\n  glory.\n  In a word, take away this doctrine, and you take away the foundation\n  of God\u2014the foundation of his covenant\u2014the foundation of his temple,\n  the church\u2014the foundation of the saints\u2019 hope and joy. But, blessed be\n  God, his foundation standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth\n  them that are his. Known unto God are all his ways, and all his people\n  from the beginning. Blind chance and impotent free will shall never be\n  the partners of his throne.\n  We next come to notice\n  III. Some objections which may be, and often are, made to this\n  doctrine. And\n  1. If this doctrine be true, it is urged by some, God would then be an\n  arbitrary and partial being. This objection supposes that God has _no\n  right_ to be so; but on the contrary, nothing appears more worthy of\n  him than to exercise arbitrary power, and to manifest partiality. No\n  such right is vested in man, as to do what he pleases, while he\n  disdains to consult any other will than his own. But whose will beside\n  his own can the infinitely perfect God consult? Who hath known the\n  mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Or, who hath first\n  given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him,\n  and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever.\n  Let us appeal to facts. Are there not marks of high sovereignty and\n  holy partiality through universal nature? Are they not visible in the\n  heavens above, and in this lower world? Is there not a greater light\n  that rules the day, and the lesser lights that rule the night? And\n  does not one star differ from another star in glory? Are not these\n  marks visible in the operations of providence, in the persons of men,\n  their corporeal forms and mental endowments? Are they not constantly\n  seen in the history of nations, the changes of empires, and the\n  dispensations of grace to different tribes of men? How conspicuous is\n  this in God\u2019s conduct towards Abraham and his posterity for a series\n  of ages, and afterwards in the calling of the Gentiles? And how\n  becoming in us to adopt the same language with the apostle Paul on\n  that occasion: \u201cO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and\n  knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways\n  past finding out!\u201d And is not the same partiality visible at this very\n  day? Yet is he holy in all his works, and righteous in all his ways.\n  2. It is objected, If this doctrine be true, then is man reduced to a\n  mere machine. No, a mere machine has no sensibility, no consciousness,\n  no reason, and no will. But he is acted upon, they say, and therefore\n  not an agent. Is it then essential to an agent not to be acted upon?\n  Then there is but one agent in the universe; for every thing but the\n  first cause is acted upon more or less. The fact is, there is no\n  contrariety in these two things. Angels and men are acted upon, yet\n  they are moral agents. The holy agency upon them respects chiefly\n  their _disposition_ itself, but the agency they exert is the\n  _exercise_ of their faculties, will, and disposition. Whether their\n  disposition be good or bad, still they are agents. If this be made\n  good, it must be by sovereign influence; and then the agency and\n  choice will be good: but if this be bad, the agency is bad too.\n  But granting to the objector that the objects of predestination are,\n  in the sense now mentioned, machines, or instruments in the hand of\n  divine sovereignty; what then? I fain would know what better lot can\n  be assigned us than to be instruments in the hand of a predestinating\n  God? I solemnly protest that I desire no better, no other lot. And who\n  can describe the nature of this high privilege! This people have I\n  formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise. O the blessedness\n  of being entirely passive in the hand of that God who predestinates\n  nothing but good? Was Paul obliged to the Lord, or was he not, for\n  arresting him in the midst of his wicked career? Has that man any\n  reason to complain, who is restrained from wickedness, but compelled\n  to embrace happiness? Then, say some, his will would be forced. O no!\n  this by no means follows. My people, saith the Lord, shall be willing\n  in the day of my power. Surely God can put his Holy Spirit in either\n  man or child without forcing the will. And let there be but the\n  active, regenerating renewing presence of this divine agent, the\n  choice of good will be no more compelled, or the will no more forced,\n  than in the most free acts of which the human mind is capable.\n  3. This doctrine, it is said, tends to licentiousness.\u2014This is an\n  assertion which has been often made, but, I apprehend, never fairly\n  proved; for it is contrary to universal experience. Turn your eyes to\n  a vast army, headed by experienced officers\u2014what is the language of\n  nature and experience? You uniformly find great generals anxious to\n  impress the sentiment on the minds of their troops that they are\n  _destined_ to victory. What gives rise to this kind of oratory? What\n  is the philosophy of such rhetoric? It is founded in the nature of\n  man, and confirmed by the experience of ages, that confidence in a\n  favourable issue animates exertion.\n  Consult a serious christian, who, through a long pilgrimage, has\n  believed this doctrine. Will he deliberately tell you that it has this\n  tendency, or that he has found this effect in his own experience? No,\n  he will tell you nothing gives him more courage and vigour against\n  sin.\u2014It is not when in a dry, backsliding frame of mind, or when\n  verging to licentiousness, that he can rest in this doctrine; but when\n  he is most resolved for God and heaven\u2014when most diligent in the high\n  way of holiness. Then, indeed, he can say, I know that all things work\n  together for my good\u2014my predestination includes conformity to Christ,\n  my calling, my justification, and warfare against sin. If God be for\n  me, who can be against me? Who shall lay any thing to my charge? It is\n  God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that\n  died, is risen, and maketh intercession. Who shall separate me from\n  the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or\n  persecution, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay, in all these\n  things I am more than conqueror through him that loved me. For I am\n  persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor\n  principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,\n  nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to\n  separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord.\n  4. Some would insinuate, that though this doctrine be true, yet it\n  should not be preached, because it is a secret in the mind of God. But\n  I hope it has been proved, that as a _doctrine_ it is not a secret,\n  but is revealed in the holy scriptures, and supported by the soundest\n  arguments. The objects, indeed, or the persons who are predestinated,\n  are known to God only before they bear fruit, By their _fruits_ WE can\n  come to know them, in the _ordinary_ course of things; nor is it any\n  part of the doctrine asserted, that it belongs to man to ascertain the\n  individual objects any farther than by character.\n  But there are other ends to be answered by this doctrine.\u2014To be in the\n  way to eternal glory is an unspeakable privilege; and it is the proper\n  part of a christian to enquire into the cause of it. His own humility\n  and gratitude are involved in it. The honour of God, the wisdom of his\n  counsel, and the lustre of his grace; the offices of Christ, the\n  surety of a better covenant, and the good Shepherd of the sheep; his\n  powerful intercession, and his government over all things to the\n  church\u2014all are involved in the proper declaration of this truth.\u2014Once\n  more,\n  5. This doctrine, it may be said, is dangerous, in proportion as it is\n  insisted upon, in that it prevents the more needful enquiry, \u201cAm I\n  born again!\u201d Yes, there would be danger, if _all_ the attention of\n  ministers and people, or even a disproportionate share of it were\n  confined to this. But, thou mistaken objector, because there are some\n  who will take the bread of children and cast it away, are the children\n  not to be fed? Because there were corrupt men disposed to turn the\n  grace of God into lasciviousness, would you rob any child of God of\n  this holy triumph. He will choose our inheritance for us! The Lord\n  will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.\n  For the Lord is our defence, the Holy One of Israel is our King. I\n  will trust and not be afraid, for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and\n  my song, he also is become my salvation.\u2014\u2014For the same reason that we\n  ought not to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, we need not, we ought\n  not to be ashamed of this doctrine.\n  I would now offer\n  IV. A few practical uses of the subject. And,\n  1. This doctrine is a source of great comfort, when contrasted with\n  the fickleness of men, and the perpetual vicissitudes of the world.\n  The lot may be cast, but the Lord is the disposer of it. He worketh\n  all things after the counsel of his own will. His counsel shall stand,\n  and he doeth, and will do, all his pleasure. The wrath of man shall\n  praise him, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain. All things\n  work together for good to them who love God, to them who are the\n  called according to his purpose. He doeth all things well.\n  After viewing the present perturbed state of the world, the\n  revolutions of empire, the devastations of war, the alarms of\n  invasion, the degradation of some, and the exaltation of other\n  characters\u2014how pleasing and consolatory to view a steady hand\n  over-ruling, guiding, and influencing all! Providence is \u201cas it were a\n  wheel in the middle of a wheel.\u201d\u2014As for their rings, they are so high\n  that they are dreadful, and are full of eyes round about them. But how\n  delightful to reflect, that within these perpetually revolving wheels\n  there is an immoveable centre! God\u2019s aim is steady, he is of one mind,\n  who can turn him?\n  2. As the predestination for which we contend is only to _good_, it\n  affords the most pleasing view of the divine character. God is love.\n  In him is no such inconsistency as is but too frequently found among\n  men. He is not a fountain sending forth at the same place both sweet\n  water and bitter, yielding both salt water and fresh. With the utmost\n  safety and confidence may a humble soul commit itself into the arms of\n  such a being. No one has any thing to fear from God but the proud and\n  rebellious, the unbelieving and impenitent. And surely bad must be the\n  doctrine that speaks peace to the wicked.\n  3. As in the present case the end, and the way leading to it, are\n  inseparable; every reason and argument, every alarming topic, every\n  scriptural exhortation, and every obligation to duty, are in full\n  force. They who represent these things as inconsistent with\n  predestination, either have a wrong view of the subject, or care not\n  what they say nor whereof they affirm. Obligation to duty is founded\n  on widely and totally different considerations.[242]\n  God sustains, with respect to man, a twofold character, the one is\n  that of an equitable governor, the other that of a sovereign disposer.\n  Answerably to this, man sustains a twofold character also; that of an\n  accountable agent, and that of a disposable subject. As _passive_ in\n  the hand of a sovereign God, he is necessitated to good, in proportion\n  as goodness attaches to him; and in the heirs of salvation this is\n  predestination to life. As _active_, or a moral agent, man is treated\n  according to the rules of reason and equity, yet mingled with\n  undeserved favours. So that every man is, in these different respects,\n  at once the subject of liberty and necessity.\n  Equally vague and unprofitable, therefore, is all controversy on the\n  subject now alluded to while one side contends for _liberty_ and the\n  other for _necessity_ to the usual exclusion of the opposite. Neither\n  can be wholly right. For, as sure as God disposes of a man for final\n  good, the doctrine of necessity is true; and as sure as a man is a\n  transgressor of divine law, and thus is fitted for destruction, he is\n  _free_ from all _decretive_ necessity. Therefore,\n  4. Here is no room for the impious inference, that when we do evil we\n  are predestinated to it. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am\n  tempted of God; for as God cannot be tempted with evil, so neither\n  tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of\n  his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth\n  forth sin; and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not\n  err, my beloved brethren; every good gift, and every perfect gift is\n  from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no\n  variableness, neither shadow of turning.\u2014But evil, in whatever person,\n  in whatever place, at whatever time, in whatever form or degree, is\n  from a quarter diametrically opposite.\u2014On the contrary,\n  5. When at any time we are engaged in the work of God, in any thing\n  whatever that is morally good, then are we employed in the execution\n  of the divine purposes; for there is no good done in time but was\n  decreed to be done, in all its circumstances, from eternity. Even all\n  the actions of the wicked, except the deformity or sinfulness which is\n  in them, are also worthy of God to predestinate. This consideration,\n  every one must allow, is a great incentive to virtue and holiness.\n  This remark is applicable both to ministers and people. Are ministers\n  engaged in preaching the law for conviction, the promises for\n  encouragement, and the unsearchable riches of Christ for consolation;\n  are they urging, according to scripture commands and example,\n  repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; do they\n  enforce christian duties, teaching the disciples all things whatsoever\n  our Lord and lawgiver has commanded; do they warn sinners to flee from\n  the wrath to come, or invite the burdened and heavy laden to seek rest\n  in the meek and lowly, the merciful and loving Saviour? They are in\n  all this only the instruments of a sovereign God, or the _appointed\n  means_ whereby he executes his eternal purposes. Again, has God\n  enjoined the necessity of repentance, faith, holiness, obedience, and\n  perseverance; poverty of spirit, holy mourning, purity of heart, love\n  to enemies, &c? our personal compliance, which is evermore of grace,\n  is only the _decreed method_ of bringing us to that eternal glory\n  which is the end. Once more,\n  6. This doctrine properly guarded, and rightly understood, shews with\n  peculiar force the true ground of repentance, and the obligations of\n  gratitude and holiness.\u2014If the sinfulness of no action is decreed, but\n  proceeds wholly from that in us which is opposite to God and his will,\n  whether secret or revealed, rectoral or decretive, what can be more\n  binding and reasonable than repentance toward God? And if all good,\n  whether natural, supernatural, moral or spiritual, in ourselves and\n  others, in time and to eternity proceed from God\u2019s predestination,\n  what a foundation is there laid for gratitude! Put on, therefore, as\n  the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness,\n  humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering. Give all diligence to\n  make your calling and election sure. And let the peace of God rule in\n  your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body, and be ye\n  thankful. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of\n  the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. _Amen._\n  DR. WILLIAMS.\nFootnote 238:\n  Predestination _to Death_ or _misery_, as the end, and to _sin_ as the\n  means, I call \u201can impure mixture;\u201d a _mixture_, because its connexion\n  with Predestination to life is arbitrary and forced;\u2014impure, because\n  the supposition itself is a foul aspersion of the divine character.\n  St. Augustine, Calvin, Perkins, Twisse, Rutherford, &c. &c. though\n  highly valuable and excellent men, upon the whole, were not free from\n  this impure mixture of doctrine. But of all modern authors, if we\n  except the philosophical Necessarians, Hobbes, Collins, Hume, Hartley,\n  Priestly, &c. Dr. Hopkins, of America seems the most open in his\n  avowal of the sentiment, that _sin and misery_ are _decreed_ in the\n  same manner as holiness and happiness, in order to produce the\n  greatest general good. The substance of his reasoning is thus\n  expressed by himself: \u201cAll future existences, events, and actions,\n  must have a cause of their futurition, or there must be a reason why\n  they are future, or certainly to take place, rather than not. This\n  cause must be the _divine decree_ determining their future existence,\n  or it must be in the future _existences themselves_. But the future\n  existences could not he the cause of their own futurition; for this\n  supposes them to exist as a cause, and to have influence, before they\n  have any existence, even from eternity.\u2014The cause therefore can be\n  nothing but _divine decree_, determining their future existence,\n  without which nothing could be future, consequently nothing could be\n  known to be future.\u201d\u2014See his System of doctrines, 2 vol. 8vo.\n  especially Vol. i p. 110-217.\n  On the sentiment itself, by whomsoever held, I would offer the\n  following strictures:\n  1. It is a mere assumption, that _sin_, which the above proposition\n  avowedly includes, has no possible _cause_ of its futurition but\n  either the divine decree, or the future existences themselves. For\n  though God\u2019s decrees are the cause of our being, faculties, and\n  volitions, none of these, nor any thing else that can he traced to\n  divine causation, will constitute _sin_. Nor yet is it true that sin\n  is the _cause of itself_; for then sin would be self-existent. It\n  follows therefore that it must have another origin than either the\n  divine decree or its own existence.\n  2. It is equally plain that the _cause_ of sin is not itself morally\n  evil; For this would involve a contradiction, making cause and effect\n  to be the same thing. Nor yet can the cause be morally good. For as\n  from truth nothing but truth can legitimately proceed, so from good\n  nothing but good can flow. Evil, indeed, is _related_ to good, but not\n  as cause and effect. Though evil could not follow were there no\n  infinite good, no creature, no will, no freedom, yet something else\n  must be sought as the matrix, where the monster sin is generated and\n  fostered, and which, morally considered, is neither good nor\n  evil.\u2014Therefore,\n  3. We assert, that the _origin of moral evil_ is to be found in the\n  _union_ of two principles, neither of which considered alone partakes\n  of a _moral_ character. These two principles are _Liberty_ and\n  _Passive Power_. Liberty, it is manifest is morally neither good nor\n  bad, but is a mere natural instrument, if I may so speak, and may be\n  termed a _natural good_ of which God is the author and decreer. On the\n  contrary, Passive Power is a _natural evil_ of which God is not the\n  author or decreer, yet morally considered is not evil. But this term,\n  being little understood, requires further explanation; at least it is\n  incumbent on me to shew in what sense I use it. My design is not to\n  vindicate the use of it by others, but I adopt it to convey a specific\n  idea, for which I find no other word or phrase more appropriate. By\n  \u2018Passive Power,\u2019 then, I mean, That which is of _unavoidable\n  necessity_ found in every creature, as such, in direct opposition to\n  the self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency of God. In other\n  words, It is that _tendency_ to nihility, physically considered, and\n  to defection, morally considered, which of _absolute necessity_\n  belongs to every dependent or created nature. That there is such a\n  principle is self-evident, nor is it probable that any reasonable\n  being will ever controvert its existence. Now, it is demonstrable that\n  this, from the definition, cannot be the object of divine decree, or\n  of will; for it is stated to be of _absolute_ or _unavoidable_\n  necessity; besides, it is absurd to suppose that God has decreed, or\n  produces, any thing the existence of which stands in _direct\n  contrariety_ to himself. That it is not a _moral_ evil is plain, for\n  the _holiest_ creatures are subjects of it\u2014God alone is exempt.\n  4. Let it be further observed, that the First Cause, being goodness\n  itself, impels, whether decretively or efficiently, to _good only_;\n  and of this character is even our being necessitated to exercise our\n  volitions. Yet, when the exercise of liberty, in itself innocent,\n  _unites_ with passive power, the fruit or offspring of this union is\n  moral evil. This, I am fully persuaded, is the true solution of this\n  question, _Whence cometh moral evil?_ If any person shall think proper\n  candidly to assign his reasons to the contrary, due regard shall be\n  paid to them,\n  5. If it be asked, where lies the difference between _decreeing_ and\n  _permitting_ sin to take place? I answer, the difference is, that the\n  one would be an act of _injustice_, the other is _doing nothing_. So\n  that until it can be shewn that there is no difference between\n  injustice and doing nothing, there is no force in the objection. That\n  to necessitate sin decretively would be an act of injustice, and\n  therefore incompatible with the divine character, is, I think,\n  demonstrable; for, it would be to decree to destruction _antecedently_\n  to desert\u2014to _annihilate_ the sinfulness of any act, making its evil\n  nature to consist in its effects\u2014and to destroy the immutable essences\n  of good and evil. Whereas to _permit_, or to _suffer_ to take place\n  without prevention, is _not to act not to decree_. To \u2018decree to\n  permit,\u2019 therefore, is a contradiction in terms.\n  6. But, it has been said, the _event_ is the same to the sinner,\n  whether he hurried on to sin and misery by a decretive impulse, or\n  these effects are not prevented when in the power of omnipotence to\n  interpose. This objection would have some weight, if the _happiness_\n  of the creature were the only, or even the _principal_ end of God in\n  creation. But this not being the case, its weight vanishes. To\n  illustrate this we may suppose, that the _event_ of a man\u2019s execution\n  is well known to a judge; but, instead of proceeding on the principles\n  of law and equity, and to effect conviction and condemnation according\n  to legal evidence, he orders the man to be executed clandestinely\n  without any equitable process, under pretence that it could make no\n  difference to the sufferer, for the _event_ of his execution was\n  _certain_! Besides, the spirit of the objection reflects on God\u2019s\n  _actual_ dealings with his creatures, in every instance of their\n  sufferings; because it is in the power of omnipotence to interpose.\n  And in fact, it must be allowed, either that the _happiness_ of the\n  Creature is not the _chief_ end of creation, or that the permission of\n  sin is an act of injustice. But the case is plain, that his own glory\n  is the chief end of creation and government, and that there is no\n  injustice in the permission of sin.\n  7. It may be said, If the union of liberty with passive power be the\n  origin of moral evil, and if the holiest creatures in heaven are both\n  free and the subjects of passive power, how is it that they do not\n  sin! If both are united in the same persons, does the one never\n  terminate upon; or unite itself to the other? In answer to this\n  enquiry, we must distinguish between _having_ the principle, and being\n  under its influence without control. Though the spirits of the just,\n  and holy angels, have in them the principle, as the condition of their\n  created existence, yet it is counteracted by sovereign favour. They\n  may say, as well as Paul, by the grace of God we are what we are. The\n  object of divine support is the _disposition_, or the _seat_ of moral\n  action; this being made good, or pure, or holy, prior to all acts of\n  the will, effectually counteracts the influence of passive power. The\n  Liberty and choice of a heavenly being therefore, terminating on such\n  a disposition, no acts but such as are holy can ensue. Hence,\n  8. If we would know how this is consistent with the actual fall of\n  beings who were once in this condition, we must attend to another\n  important consideration; which is, that when God at any time deals in\n  _mere equity_ with a moral agent, without the counteracting influence\n  of sovereign favour, the inevitable consequence is, that his liberty,\n  or free choice, will terminate upon his passive power. Hence the\n  _certainty_ of the futurition of moral evil, in all possible degrees\n  and circumstances, without any decretive efficiency in its\n  production.\u2014If it be asked, why the exercise of _equity_ is assigned\n  as the occasion of this union, rather than _sovereignty_; or, why\n  leaving a free agent to the influence of his passive power should not\n  be considered a sovereign rather than an equitable act? The best\n  answer to this enquiry, is a definition of the two terms. By _equity_\n  then I mean the principle that gives to each his due; by\n  _sovereignty_, a right to do whatsoever is not inconsistent with\n  equity. And from this definition it must appear that there may he a\n  two-fold deviation from equity, _viz._ giving _more_ than is due, or\n  _less_ than is due; more good and less evil, or more evil and less\n  good than is equitable. The former of these, more good and less evil,\n  must needs be for the advantage of the creature; and therefore it may\n  be called a _gracious_ deviation. Without it, there would be no room\n  for either mercy or grace. The latter, more evil and less good than is\n  due, is properly called _injustice_, and is such a deviation from\n  equity as is not compatible with the divine character. Therefore, to\n  do us good _beyond_ our claim is an act of _sovereignty_; but to give\n  us neither more nor less than is our due is to deal with us in _pure\n  equity_.\n  9. Hence it follows, that when God deals with angels or men in\n  _sovereignty_, according to the definitions, he does them _good\n  beyond_ their claim. But to make _this_ to be the immediate _cause_ of\n  the sin of men and angels is absurd. On the other hand, it is\n  incompatible with the divine character, as before observed, to give\n  them less good and more evil than is their due; and therefore _this_\n  cannot be the cause of sin, as sure as God is incapable of exercising\n  injustice.\u2014Wherefore, it remains that then alone can moral agents fall\n  into sin when dealt with in _pure equity_. In the act of defection, or\n  becoming sinful, they are equally free from being impelled by\n  injustice, and upheld by sovereign favour.\n  COROLLARIES.\n  1. All the _good_ and happiness in the universe of created beings are\n  the fruit of Sovereignty and Decree.\n  2. All the _moral evil_ and misery in the universe are the offspring\n  of _liberty_, a natural good, terminating or acting upon, or united to\n  _passive power_, a natural evil not counteracted by sovereignly\n  gracious acts on the disposition, or the seat of the moral principle,\n  which may be called analogically _the heart_.\n  3. As every act and degree of liberty is perfectly fore-known to God,\n  as the effect of his own decree, and every hypothetical tendency of\n  passive power, though itself not an object of decree, is equally\n  fore-known, it follows, that every sin is as accurately fore-known as\n  if decreed, and has an equally infallible ground of certain\n  futurition.\nFootnote 239:\n  It is allowed that there is a difference between the _cause of sin_,\n  as a _principle_, and being a _sinner_; but when applied to an\n  _agent_, to be the author or the cause of sin, and to be a sinner, is\n  the same thing. Therefore, when applied to God, in no proper sense\n  whatever can it be said that he is the _author of sin_.\u2014\u201cIf by _the\n  author of sin_ is meant (says President Edwards) the permitter, or a\n  _not hinderer_ of sin, and at the same time a disposer of the state of\n  events in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and\n  purposes, that sin infallibly follows: I say, if this be all that is\n  meant by the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of\n  sin, though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and\n  custom is apt to carry another sense.\u201d Edwards on the Will, Part iv.\n  Sect. xi.\n  But though this acute and excellent writer disavows the use of the\n  phrase, he no where assigns the _true ground_ why it should not be\n  used. The truth is, he does not seem to have been aware of any\n  alternative between the _certain futurition_ of sin and its being\n  _decreed_. And his only method of warding off the most ruinous\n  consequences appears to have been adopted for want of a better, and\n  not from the satisfactory nature of that method. His view, in brief,\n  is this: God is a being of infinite goodness and wisdom; he can will\n  nothing but good; the system he hath adopted is the best; now, says\n  he, \u201cif the will be good, and the object of his will be, all things\n  considered, good and best, then the choosing and willing it, is not\n  _willing evil_. And if so, then his ordering according to that will is\n  not _doing evil_.\u201d\n  It is very seldom that this eminent author fails in his reasoning; but\n  here certainly he does fail. The phrases _willing evil_, and _doing\n  evil_, are not used in the same sense in both parts of the premises,\n  from whence the conclusion is inferred. A system, all things\n  considered, being best, is no good reason why each individual part of\n  it is good. And it may be forcibly retorted; a system which includes\n  an infinite evil as a part of its institution cannot be from God. Nor\n  can it be said that this is arguing against _fact_, without begging\n  the question, that God has _appointed the evil_ which is blended with\n  the good.\u2014On the subject itself let the following things be\n  considered:\n  1. If choosing and willing a system in which _sin is a decreed part_\n  is not _willing evil_, because the system is good and best, all things\n  considered then it would inevitably follow, that sin, because such a\n  part of that system is _not an evil_. But, it may be said, It is\n  willing it for a _good end_. Does then a good _end_ or intention\n  destroy the _nature_ of sin? Was the sin of Paul or any other saint\n  _anihilated_ because he _sincerely aimed_ at the Glory of God? Or has\n  any _design_, however comprehensive, exalted or sincere, the _least\n  tendency_ to alter the _nature_ of sin?\n  2. Allowing as incontrovertible that the present system of things is\n  the best, all things considered, and that sin is actually blended with\n  it, it does not thence follow that the sin itself is _decreed_, or is\n  any part of divine appointment. For _not to hinder_ sin, is extremely\n  different from being the _cause_ or author of it. The one is perfectly\n  consistent with equity, the other would be an act of _injustice_.\n  3. It is a sentiment so repugnant to all analogical propriety, to _do\n  evil that good may come_, that it cannot be supposed a man of Mr.\n  Edwards\u2019 piety would have adopted any thing like it, but from what\n  appeared to him an inevitable necessity. And indeed whoever assumes\n  the principle, that every event comes to pass from _decretive_\n  necessity, sin not excepted, must of course be driven to his\n  conclusion. But this valuable author had no need to recur to that\n  opinion, in order to establish his theory of _hypothetical_ necessity;\n  for this will stand on a rock, immoveably, without such aid.\n  4. In reality, the certain futurition of _good_, and that of _evil_,\n  arises from _different_, yea from diametrically _opposite_ causes. The\n  one flows from the operative will of God, and is fore-known to be\n  future because decreed, the other flows from a deficient or privative\n  cause, passive power, when united to liberty, as before explained,\n  which exists only in created beings, and in all these, as a contrast\n  to self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency. Yet _this_ is\n  the subject of hypothetical tendencies and results no less than the\n  good to which it stands opposed, in all the boundless varieties of its\n  blendings; therefore no case can be so complicated, but to infinite\n  prescience the event must appear with _equal certainty_ as if decreed.\nFootnote 240:\n  \u201c_Equally impious and needless._\u201d _Needless_, because the existence of\n  sin is fairly and fully accounted for on another principle; _impious_,\n  because it ascribes to God the worst of all principles, the causation\n  of sin. That God superintends, directs, and over-rules the actions of\n  men is worthy of him; and equally so that he does _not hinder_ the\n  existence of moral evil; but that he is a positive and efficacious\n  cause of moral evil, or that this is consistent with either his\n  justice or holiness can never be proved. Dr. Hopkins, indeed, says,\n  that \u201cthe attempt to _distinguish_ between the sinful volitions or\n  actions of men as natural and moral actions; and making God the origin\n  and cause of them considered as natural actions, and men the cause and\n  authors of the _depravity_ and sin which is in them, is, it is\n  believed, _unintelligible_\u2014unless by making this distinction it be\n  meant, that in every sinful action, God is not the sinful cause of\n  it.\u201d The author, however, candidly adds, \u201cBut if the contrary can be\n  made to appear, this doctrine, with all that is implied in it, shall\n  be given up and renounced.\u201d As the removal of this principle, and the\n  establishment of the other, appear to me of the highest importance in\n  theology, a few remarks, in addition to those already made, may not be\n  superfluous, as tending to exhibit the principle here maintained in\n  different lights and connexions; and when all are properly examined,\n  it is probable they will not be wholly \u201c_unintelligible_.\u201d\n  1. God, JEHOVAH, is the infinite and eternal Essence, which is of\n  _absolute necessity_\u2014the self-existent, independent, and\n  all-sufficient Being\u2014from eternity to eternity generating his own\n  light and joy, called his only begotten Son; not from mere will, but\n  of the same necessity.\n  2. God in his boundless all-sufficiency views all _possibles_ with all\n  their positive and privative _tendencies_. That all possibles have\n  their _positive_ tendencies is as plain as that two added to three\n  make five. Were there no positive tendencies, there could be no\n  hypothetical certainty, no law of nature, no connexion between cause\n  and effect. And it is equally true, though not equally plain, that\n  there are _privative_ tendencies in all beings but that one who exists\n  of _absolute necessity_. To suppose the contrary, is the same as to\n  suppose that a creature _may be made_ independent, and all-sufficient.\n  But that is, every reasonable being must allow, _absolutely\n  impossible_, as implying the grossest contradiction. On this\n  demonstrated fact rests unavoidably the existence of that principle in\n  every created nature which I call _Passive Power_. Yet.\n  3. It does not follow that the mere collateral existence of these two\n  principles in the same subject must needs produce moral evil. Then\n  alone does this take place when the one terminates upon, or is united\n  to the other, without the interposition of sovereign favour. It is not\n  in the power of equity to assist. For the exercise of equity is to\n  give each his due; but to _prevent_ sin is not _due_ to the subject of\n  it, otherwise no one _could ever sin_ but on condition of _injustice_\n  in God.\n  4. After all, it may be objected, that the _scriptures_ ascribe to God\n  the causation of moral evil; as, hardening the heart of\n  Pharaoh\u2014hardening whom he will\u2014making the wicked for the day of\n  evil\u2014appointing to destruction\u2014determining the death of\n  Christ\u2014delivering him by determinate counsel\u2014doing all evil in a\n  city\u2014making vessels to dishonour\u2014fitting them for destruction, &c.\u2014In\n  reply to this objection it must be considered, that whatever the\n  import of such representations may be, no interpretation which is\n  _unworthy of God_ can be the true meaning\u2014that the idioms of the\n  sacred languages ascribing cause or operation to God must be\n  understood according to the nature of the subject\u2014and, what is\n  particularly to our purpose, that active verbs which denote _making_,\n  _doing_, _causing_, and the like, often denote a _declaration_ of the\n  thing done, or that shall take place; or a _permission_ of it.\n  Take a few specimens. Thus Acts x. 15. \u201cWhat God hath _cleansed_,\u201d\n  means, what God hath _declared_ to be clean.\u2014Isai. vi. 9, 10. The\n  prophet is commanded to tell the people, \u201cunderstand not, perceive\n  not;\u201d and he is ordered to \u201c_make_ the heart of this people fat, to\n  _make_ their ears heavy, and to _shut_ their eyes.\u201d And what can this\n  mean more than to _declare a fact_, either what they then were, or\n  what they would be?\u2014So Jer. i. 10. The Prophet\u2019s _declaration_ of what\n  should be, is called his _rooting_ out _pulling_ down, &c.\u2014Ezek.\n  xliii. 3. The prophet says, \u201cwhen I came to _destroy_ the city;\u201d his\n  meaning undoubtedly is, When I came to prophecy or _declare_ that the\n  city should be destroyed.\u2014Exod. v. 22. \u201cLord, wherefore hast thou\n  _evil entreated_ this people?\u201d Moses means, Wherefore hast thou\n  _permitted_ them to be evil entreated?\u2014Jer. iv. 10. \u201cLord God, thou\n  hast greatly _deceived_ this people;\u201d that is, _permitted_ or not\n  hindered them to be deceived by the false Prophets.\u2014Ezek. xiv. 9. \u201cI\n  the Lord have _deceived_ that prophet.\u201d Can any thing else be meant\n  than suffering him to deceive himself?\u2014Matt. xi. 25. \u201cThou hast _hid_\n  these things\u201d _i. e._ _not revealed_.\u2014\u2014Thus also, Rom. ix. 18. \u201cWhom\n  he will he _hardeneth_,\u201d he suffereth to be hardened.\u2014Rom. xi. 8. \u201cGod\n  _gave them_ a spirit of slumber,\u201d _i. e._ permitted them to slumber. 2\n  Thes. ii. 11. \u201cGod shall _send_ them strong delusion, that they should\n  believe a lie;\u201d _i. e._ shall _permit_ them to be deluded so that they\n  shall believe a lie.\u2014Exod. vii. 3. &c. \u201cAnd I will _harden_ Pharaoh\u2019s\n  heart,\u201d i. e. I will _suffer_ it to be hardened. Matt. x. 34, 35. \u201cI\n  am not come to _send_ peace, but _a sword_; For I am come to _set_ a\n  man _at variance_ against his father,\u201d That is, my coming shall be the\n  _innocent occasion_ of wars and variance.\u2014Jude 4. \u201cWho were before of\n  old _ordained_ to this condemnation;\u201d _i. e._ _foretold_, or\n  _forewritten_, as the word signifies; _announced_ in the sacred pages,\n  and _proscribed_ by divine law.\n  But the passage above all others, which appears to countenance the\n  notion, that God is the _cause_ of sin, is 1 Pet. ii. 8. \u201cA stone of\n  stumbling, and a rock of offence, even in them which stumble at the\n  word, being disobedient, _whereunto also they were appointed_.\u201d _i.\n  e._ _unto which thing_, their stumbling, _they were appointed because\n  disobedient_. The Greek participle includes the cause of their\n  falling; as Heb. ii. 3. _Neglecting_ so great salvation, how shall we\n  escape? _To which_ not escaping, they _were appointed, for neglecting_\n  so great salvation. A striking _contrast_ to this we have, John vii.\n  17. \u201cIf any man will _do his will_, he shall _know_ of the doctrine;\u201d\n  but the _disobedient_ shall, according to an awful but equitable\n  _appointment_, \u201cstumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and\n  be taken.\u201d\u2014(Isa. viii. 15.) We have a further illustration of this\n  meaning in Heb. iii. 18. \u201cTo whom sware he that they should not enter\n  into his rest, but to them that _believe_ not?\u201d _i. e._ Who were\n  _appointed_ to destruction? The answer is, the _disobedient_; for the\n  original word is the same here as in Peter, under a different\n  inflection. And it is added, ver. 19. \u201cSo they could not enter in\n  _because_ of _unbelief_.\u201d\u2014Thus also Rom. xi. 7. \u201cThe rest _were\n  blinded_, or _hardened_;\u201d _i. e._ were _suffered_ to be blind or hard.\n  And that this is the meaning is decided by ver. 20. \u201c_Because of\n  unbelief_ they were broken off.\u201d\n  Upon the whole, Peter intimates, that none should be offended at such\n  characters, men of learning and eminence rejecting the Messiah and his\n  gospel. Their end is what might be expected, as _foretold_ by the\n  prophets, according to God\u2019s _righteous_ government, and his eternal\n  _appointment_, or _determination_, respecting all such offenders.\n  Their habitual unbelieving _disobedience_ was the _cause_, but their\n  actual stumbling at the word to their destruction was the natural, the\n  righteous, the appointed _effect_. To this they were appointed,\n  _placed_, or _set forth_ (as Pharaoh was _raised up_) by the righteous\n  judgment of God, who resisteth the proud and disobedient; in order to\n  shew forth the glory of his justice in them. They were personally\n  _appointed_ to exalted situations, being civil and ecclesiastical\n  _builders_; they were _suffered_ to reject Christ, in pure equity; and\n  thus were deservedly _constituted_ awful warnings to others.\nFootnote 241:\n  This notion, perhaps more than any other, has been termed\n  _Baxterianism_, and yet it is not easy to say that Mr. Baxter ever\n  maintained it. He says indeed \u201call have so much (grace) as bringeth\n  and leaveth the success to man\u2019s will;\u201d and this in a discourse\n  wherein he allows that God hath \u201cpositively elected certain persons by\n  an absolute decree to overcome all their resistances of his Spirit,\n  and to draw them to Christ, and by Christ to himself, by such a power\n  and way as shall _infallibly_ convert and save them.\u201d He moreover\n  says, \u201cWhat if men cannot here tell how to resolve the question,\n  whether _any_ or _how many_ are ever converted or saved by that _mere\n  grace_ which we call _sufficient_, or rather _necessary_, and common\n  to those that are not converted; and whether man\u2019s will ever make a\n  saving determining improvement of it?\u201d\u2014\u201cAnd yet,\u201d he adds, \u201cthis\n  question itself is formed on false suppositions and is capable of a\n  satisfactory solution.\u201d Baxter\u2019s Works, Vol. ii. p. 929.\u2014On the\n  subject of this Note the author begs leave to refer his readers to\n  Doddridge\u2019s Works, Vol. v. p. 238, 239, Notes.\nFootnote 242:\n  The nature of God, his holy will, and our peculiar relation to him,\n  form an adamantine chain of obligation to duty which cannot with\n  impunity be broken; from which predestination is so far from releasing\n  us, that it forms another chain of gold that shall finally prevail;\n  and divine grace personally experienced is a silken cord to draw the\n  soul along in the path of duty. But do these powerful ties render\n  useless God\u2019s _reasoning_ with sinners, his _exhortations_ to\n  repentance, to believing, to obedience, and to every particular branch\n  of duty? No: for these methods are the very means to attain the end,\n  and form a part of the decree itself.\nEND OF THE FIRST VOLUME.\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\nMissing or obscured punctuation was corrected. The author's archaic\npunctuation and spellings have been retained.\nEnd of Project Gutenberg's A Body of Divinity, Vol. 1 of 4, by Thomas Ridgley\n*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A BODY OF DIVINITY, VOL. 1 OF 4 ***\n***** This file should be named 59133-0.txt or 59133-0.zip *****\nThis and all associated files of various formats will be found in:\nProduced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive.)\nUpdated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions\nwill be renamed.\nCreating the works from public domain print editions means that no\none owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation\n(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without\npermission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,\nset forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to\ncopying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to\nprotect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project\nGutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you\ncharge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you\ndo not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the\nrules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose\nsuch as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and\nresearch.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do\npractically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is\nsubject to the trademark license, especially commercial\nredistribution.\n*** START: FULL LICENSE ***\nTHE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE\nPLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK\nTo protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free\ndistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work\n(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project\nGutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at\nSection 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic works\n1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to\nand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property\n(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all\nthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy\nall copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.\nIf you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the\nterms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or\nentity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.\n1.B.  \"Project Gutenberg\" is a registered trademark.  It may only be\nused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who\nagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few\nthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works\neven without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See\nparagraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement\nand help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks.  See paragraph 1.E below.\n1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (\"the Foundation\"\nor PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the\ncollection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an\nindividual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are\nlocated in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from\ncopying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative\nworks based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg\nare removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project\nGutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by\nfreely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of\nthis agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with\nthe work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by\nkeeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project\nGutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.\n1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern\nwhat you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in\na constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check\nthe laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement\nbefore downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or\ncreating derivative works based on this work or any other Project\nGutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning\nthe copyright status of any work in any country outside the United\nStates.\n1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:\n1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate\naccess to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently\nwhenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the\nphrase \"Project Gutenberg\" appears, or with which the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,\ncopied or distributed:\nThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with\nalmost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or\nre-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included\nwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license\n1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived\nfrom the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is\nposted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied\nand distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees\nor charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work\nwith the phrase \"Project Gutenberg\" associated with or appearing on the\nwork, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1\nthrough 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the\nProject Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or\n1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted\nwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution\nmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional\nterms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked\nto the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the\npermission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.\n1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm\nLicense terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this\nwork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.\n1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this\nelectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without\nprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with\nactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project\nGutenberg-tm License.\n1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,\ncompressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any\nword processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or\ndistribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than\n\"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other format used in the official version\nposted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),\nyou must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a\ncopy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon\nrequest, of the work in its original \"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other\nform.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm\nLicense as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.\n1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,\nperforming, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works\nunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.\n1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing\naccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided\nthat\n- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from\n     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method\n     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is\n     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he\n     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the\n     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments\n     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you\n     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax\n     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and\n     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the\n     address specified in Section 4, \"Information about donations to\n     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.\"\n- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies\n     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he\n     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm\n     License.  You must require such a user to return or\n     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium\n     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of\n     Project Gutenberg-tm works.\n- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any\n     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the\n     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days\n     of receipt of the work.\n- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free\n     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.\n1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic work or group of works on different terms than are set\nforth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from\nboth the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael\nHart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the\nFoundation as set forth in Section 3 below.\n1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable\neffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread\npublic domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm\ncollection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain\n\"Defects,\" such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or\ncorrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual\nproperty infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a\ncomputer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by\nyour equipment.\n1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the \"Right\nof Replacement or Refund\" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project\nGutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all\nliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal\nfees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT\nLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE\nPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE\nTRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE\nLIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR\nINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH\nDAMAGE.\n1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a\ndefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can\nreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a\nwritten explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you\nreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with\nyour written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with\nthe defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a\nrefund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity\nproviding it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to\nreceive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy\nis also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further\nopportunities to fix the problem.\n1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth\nin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER\nWARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.\n1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied\nwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.\nIf any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the\nlaw of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be\ninterpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by\nthe applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any\nprovision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.\n1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the\ntrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone\nproviding copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance\nwith this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,\npromotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,\nharmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,\nthat arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do\nor cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm\nwork, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any\nProject Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.\nSection  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm\nProject Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of\nelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers\nincluding obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists\nbecause of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from\npeople in all walks of life.\nVolunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the\nassistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's\ngoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will\nremain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure\nand permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.\nTo learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation\nand how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4\nSection 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive\nFoundation\nThe Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit\n501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the\nstate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal\nRevenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification\nnumber is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at\nLiterary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent\npermitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.\nThe Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.\nFairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered\nthroughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at\n809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email\nbusiness@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact\ninformation can be found at the Foundation's web site and official\nFor additional contact information:\n     Dr. Gregory B. Newby\n     Chief Executive and Director\n     gbnewby@pglaf.org\nSection 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg\nLiterary Archive Foundation\nProject Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide\nspread public support and donations to carry out its mission of\nincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be\nfreely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest\narray of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations\n($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt\nstatus with the IRS.\nThe Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating\ncharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United\nStates.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a\nconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up\nwith these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations\nwhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To\nSEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any\nWhile we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we\nhave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition\nagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who\napproach us with offers to donate.\nInternational donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make\nany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from\noutside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.\nPlease check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation\nmethods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other\nways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.\nSection 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks.\nProfessor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm\nconcept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared\nwith anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project\nGutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.\nProject Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed\neditions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.\nunless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily\nkeep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.\nMost people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:\nThis Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,\nincluding how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary\nArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to\nsubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  A Body of Divinity, Vol. 1 of 4\n"},
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1714, "culture": " English\n", "content": "Produced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive.)\n   WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n    BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n                   WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n            FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n  PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n                   THE CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.\nQUEST. XIV, XV. Of the work of Creation.\n_CREATION, the word explained_ _Page_ 5\n    _It was not from eternity_ 7\n    _This proved from the invention of things_ 13\n    _By the power and for the glory of God_ 14\n    _Performed in six days_ 16\n        _Each day\u2019s work_ 19\n    _Of instantaneous production_ 17\n_The condition and season of the year in which things were created_ 24\n_Antiquity of nations vainly boasted of_ 10\nQUEST. XVI. Of Angels.\n_Of their existence_ 26\n    _Nature and properties_ 28\n    _Work and employment_ 30\n    _Worship. Harmony therein, but no Hierarchy_ 31\n_How they impart their_ Ideas _to one another_ 33\nQUEST. XVII. Of the creation of Man.\n_Man was created male and female_ 34\n        _Excellency of his make_ 40\n        _Origin of the soul_, in a note 41\n        _Of God\u2019s image in man_ 44\n    _No men before_ Adam 37\nQUEST. XVIII. Of Providence.\n_Providence governs all creatures_ 47\n        _And all their actions_ _ibid_\n    _His concern for man_ 51\n    _How conversant about evil actions_ 52\n    _Sin over-ruled for God\u2019s glory, and his people\u2019s good_ 53\n    _Other things over-ruled by providence_ 59\n    _Objections against providence answered_ 60\n    _Unequal distributions of providence vindicated_ 61\nQUEST. XIX. Of God\u2019s providence towards the angels.\n_How it was conversant about the fall of apostate angels_ 63\n    _These fell all at once_ 64\n_Some angels confirmed in holiness and happiness_ 66\n    _Ministry of angels_ 68\nQUEST. XX. Of God\u2019s providence towards man in innocency.\n_Of Paradise_ 70\n    _Man\u2019s secular employment and food therein_ 72\n    _His dominion over the creatures_ 74\n    _His spiritual concerns were under the direction of providence_ 75\n    _Sabbath instituted and the covenant established_ 76\n    _Representation_, in a note 77\n_Difference between a law and a covenant_ 78\nAdam _was under a covenant_ 82\n        _Objections answered_ 83\n    _Conditions of that covenant_ 84\n        _Tree of life a seal of it_ 86\n    _Of the tree of knowledge_ 90\nQUEST. XXI. Of the fall of man.\n_Our first parents were endued with freedom of will_ 93\n        _Were left thereunto_ 94\n    _How they were tempted_ 96\n        _Satan\u2019s subtilty in the temptation_ 99\n    _Eve represented by Adam_, in a note 103\n    _Aggravations of their sin_ 105\n        _Its immediate consequences_ 104\nQUEST. XXII. All mankind fell in _Adam_.\nAdam _a federal head_ 109\n        _All fell in him, except Christ_ 112\n    _His sin imputed to his posterity_ 113\n    _Penal evils which followed_ 111\n_Appointment of his headship vindicated_ 114\nQUEST. XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI. Of Sin.\n_Original sin_ 118\n    _Actual transgressions proceed from it_ 120\n    _Conveyed by natural generation_ 132\n_Original righteousness lost_ 121\n    _Man\u2019s nature inclined to sin_ 123\n_Propensity to sin not put into our nature by God_ 124\n    _Not harmless even in childhood_ 125\n_Origin of moral evil_ 127\n    _The notion of two first causes exploded_ _ibid_\n_Pre-existence of souls a mere fancy_ 126\n_Corruption of nature not by the soul\u2019s traduction_ 128\n      _Not from imitation_ _ibid_\n      _Necessarily ensues on the privation of original righteousness_\nQUEST. XXVII. Of man\u2019s misery by the Fall.\n_Various opinions about the salvation of infants_ 138\n_Punishment of original sin increased by actual_ 141\n    _Sinners liable to God\u2019s wrath and curse_ 143\n        _Slaves to Satan_ 144\n    _Sin exists in the intentions_, in a note 145\nQUEST. XXVIII, XXIX. Of the punishment of sin in both worlds.\n_Of judicial blindness of mind_ 146\n        _Hardness of heart_ 149\n         _Sins that lead to it_ 150\n        _Difference between the hardness found in believers and\n_Of strong delusions_ 147\n    _A reprobate sense_ 152\n    _Vile affections_ 153\n    _Horror of conscience. When judicial_ 154\n_Punishment of sin in outward things_ 155\n    _In the world to come_ 158\n    _This will be perpetual_, in a note 159, 160\nQUEST. XXX. Of man\u2019s Recovery.\n_God\u2019s love the only moving cause of it_ 162\n    _Covenant of grace. Its various periods_ 166\n    _Opposed to that of innocency_ 165\nQUEST. XXXI. The covenant of grace made with Christ, and, in him, with\nthe elect.\nCovenant, _scriptural sense of the word_ 168\n    _Between the Father and Son, explained_ 171\n      _Of redemption distinguished by some from the covenant of grace_\n_God\u2019s covenant differs from human_ 170\n    _How he covenants with man_ 181\n    _How man covenants with him_ 183\nQUEST. XXXII. Of the grace manifested in the second covenant.\n_Conditions of a covenant, how understood_ 190\n    _Faith is a duty_, in a note 193\n    _Meritorious performed by Christ_ 192\n    _Conditional promises uncertain_ 191\n_Interest in Christ, what meant by it_ 189\n_Grace glorified, in ordaining, promising, and working faith_ 197\n      _Other graces promised and connected with salvation_ 195\nQUEST. XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. Of the various dispensations of the covenant\nof grace.\n_Christ revealed of old by promises and prophecies_ 199\n_Ceremonial law typified Christ and the gospel_ 201\n_Types. Cautions about them_ 203\n        _Rules how to judge of them_ 205\n    _How the_ Jews _knew their meaning_ 207\n_Cocceius\u2019s sentiments about the bondage and darkness of that\ndispensation_ 208\n_Gospel-dispensation, when it began_ 212\n        _How it excels the Legal_ 213\nQUEST. XXXVI, XXXVII. Of the Mediator of the covenant of Grace.\n_Saints and angels no Mediators_ 218\n_Christ the only Mediator_ 217\n    _Two distinct natures in Christ, but not two Persons_ 222\n    _His human nature was united to his Person_ 220\n        _It shall continue so for ever_ 234\n        _How formed like ours. How not_ 227\n        _It was formed of the Virgin_ 229\n    _His body was truly human_ 224\n    _His soul distinct from his deity_ 226\n    _He was expected by the_ Jews 231\n    _Born in the fulness of time_ 233\n        _What meant thereby_ 233\nQUEST. XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL. Of the necessity of the Mediator\u2019s having two\nnatures.\n_Why he should be God_ 235\n_Why man_ 238\n_Why both God and man_ 242\nQUEST. XLI, XLII. Of the Mediator\u2019s name and offices.\n_Why he was called Jesus_ 244\n_Why he was called Christ_ 245\n_His offices distinguished, but not divided_ 252\n    _He was set apart and authorized to execute them_ 248\n    _He was fitly qualified for them_ 249\nQUEST. XLIII. Of Christ\u2019s prophetical office.\n_He reveals the will of God_ 253\n    _He was qualified for it_ 254\n    _He does it in various ages_ 257\n    _To whom and how he does it_ 255\nQUEST. XLIV. Of Christ\u2019s priestly office.\n_Priesthood of Christ and_ Aaron _compared_ 280\n    _Typified by_ Melchisedek 264\n        _Various opinions who_ Melchisedek _was_ 265\n        _Proved that he was Christ_ (qu\u00e6re tamen) 267\n        _Objections answered_ 270\n_Satisfaction demanded for sin, of what value and kind_ 275\n    _Of Christ was necessary_ 273\n    _His active obedience a part of it_ 283\n    _Least degree of his sufferings not sufficient for it_ 281\n    _No redemption without price_ 286\n_Death of Christ a ransom_ 290\n    _Confirmation of his doctrine not its principal end_ 293\n_Christ died in our stead_ 290\n        _Objections answered_ _ibid_\n    _Modern opinions on the atonement_, in a note, 276 _to_ 280, _and_\n_He offered himself_\n        _by the Spirit_ 297\n        _without spot to God_ 297\n        _but for his sheep and friends_ 316\n        _and for his church_ 318 _Dr. Magee\u2019s Discourses_, in a note\n    _This evidenced_\n        _by his love to it_ 318\n        _his propriety in it_ 322\n        _and saving it_ _ibid_\n        _Objections answered_ 319\n_Christ purchased grace and glory_ 328\n_Universal redemption_,\n        _its consequences_ 326\n    _Arguments for it considered_ 327\n    _Texts urged for it explained_ 343\n    _How the word_ All, &c. _is to be explained_ 341\n_Special Redemption,_\n        _consistent with the covenant of grace_ 329\n        _and with preaching the gospel_ 331\n    _It advances grace more than general does_ 337\n    _It leads not to despair_ 331\n    _Whether it be contrary to scripture_ 338\n_Christ intercedes not for all_ 324\n_Divine expostulations explained_ 333\n_How all should repent and believe, though Christ died not for all_ 335\n    _Sacrifice of Christ sufficient for all_, in a note 349\nQUEST. XLV. Of Christ\u2019s Kingly office.\n_As respecting his subjects_\n    _What they were, before subdued_ 353\n    _How brought into subjection_ 354\n    _How their subjection expressed at first_ 357\n    _Their behaviour and conflicts_ 358\n    _How Christ deals with them_ 361\n_As respecting his enemies_ 362\n    _He governed the church before and since his incarnation_ 364\n_This office executed by him in glory_ 365\nOf the MILLENNIUM.\n_Various opinions about it_ 366\n    _Some have gross_ Ideas _of it_ 370\n    _What shall precede or attend it_ 368\n        _Gospel shall then be more spread_ 373\n_How this doctrine to be treated_ 367\n_In what respects it is to be allowed_ 368\n_Some prophecies of the call of the_ Jews _not yet fulfilled_ 376\n_Why Christ shall not reign visibly in his human nature_ 379\n_Temple-service not to be revived_ 381\n      _Gospel-ordinances shall be continued_ 382\n_First resurrection; how understood by some_ 383\n    _Its literal sense debated_ 384\n_General conflagration_ 387\n    _New heavens and new earth_ 388\n_Resurrection of the church sometimes taken mystically_ 389\n_1000 years how understood by some_ 391\n    _These not yet begun_ _ibid_\n_Mediatorial kingdom of Christ eternal_ 392\nQUEST. XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII. Of Christ\u2019s Humiliation.\n_This shewn in his birth and infancy_ 398\n    _In his parentage_ 399\n    _In the place of his birth and abode_ 400\n    _In the sinless infirmities of his life_ 422\n    _In his being made under the law_ 401\n    _In his being exposed to indignities_ 402\n_Temptations endured by him_ 404\n    _General remarks on them_ 406\n        _The time and place thereof_ 405\n    _His first temptation_ 410\n    _His second temptation_ 412\n        _Its matter explained_ 416\n    _His third temptation_ 417\n        _What to be observed therein_ 419\n    _Temptations were mental_, in a note 420\nQuest. XLIX, L. Of Christ\u2019s humiliation before and after his death.\n_Christ betrayed by_ Judas 424\n    _Forsaken by his disciples_ 425\n    _Denied by_ Peter 426\n    _Scorned by the world_ _ibid_\n    _Reviled by many_ 428\n        _Inferences_ _ibid_\n    _Prosecuted by the_ Jews 429\n    _Condemned by_ Pilate _ibid_\n    _Tormented by his persecutors_ 431\n    _Bore the wrath of God_ _ibid_\n_Death of the cross cruel and painful_ 433\n    _Shameful, servile, and cursed_ 434\n_Christ buried with respect by his friends_ 437\n    _Was under the power of death till the third day_ 438\n      _Of his descent into hell_ 440\n        _How the Papists understand it_ 441\n        1 Pet. iii. 18. _explained_, in a note 442\nQUEST. LI, LII. Of Christ\u2019s Resurrection and Exaltation.\n_Resurrection of Christ proved_ 444\n    _By credible witnesses_ 448\n          _They were men of integrity_ 449\n    _By the conduct of his enemies_ 450\n    _By miracles_ 451\n_Properties of his risen body_ 452\n_Christ raised the third day_ 453\n        _Reasons of it_ 454\n    _Was not three whole days and nights in the grave_ 455\nSocinians\u2019 _account of Christ\u2019s resurrection_ 457\n_Christ\u2019s own and his peoples\u2019 concern in his resurrection_ 458\nQUEST. LIII, LIV. Of Christ\u2019s Ascension.\n_It was real and visible_ 464\n    _Its necessity and design_ 468\n_Its distance from the time of his resurrection_ 461\n    _How this interval was employed_ 463\n    _Matter of his conversation with his disciples_ 464\n_Remarks on what preceded it_ 460\n    _He ascended from mount_ Olivet 467\n_Christ\u2019s sitting at the right hand of God_ 471\nQUEST. LV. Of Christ\u2019s Intercession.\n_Necessity of it_ 473\n    _His fitness for it_ 474\n_Manner of it_ 477\n    _How it differs from our prayers_ 476\n_What procured by it_ 479\n_How to be improved_ _ibid_\nQUEST. LVI. Of Christ\u2019s coming to judge the world.\n_The time of his appearance_ 481\n_The glory that shall attend it_ 482\nQUEST. LVII, LVIII, LIX. Of the benefits of redemption, and the\napplication thereof.\n_Benefits procured by Christ_ 486\n    _These applied by the Holy Ghost_ 487\n        _To all for whom they were purchased_ (_vide_ 349) 488\nQUEST. LX. Of the disadvantages of those who never hear the gospel.\n_State of the Heathen considered_ 491\n    _No salvation without the gospel_\u2014tamen qu\u00e6re 492\n        _Nor without faith in Christ_\u2014tamen qu\u00e6re _ibid_\n_Deists; falseness of their hope set forth_ 494\n    _False grounds of hope in others_ 496\n_Salvation in none but Christ_ 498\n        _This proved_ 499\n        _Objections answered_ 502\n_Christ the Saviour only of his Body the church_ 508\nQUEST. LXI, LXII, LXIII, LXIV. Of the Church, visible and invisible.\nChurch, _the word how used_, (515 in a note) 510\n    _Places of worship so termed_ 511\n        _Their first erection_ 512\n_Its distinction into visible and invisible_ 516\n_Invisible church described_ 519\n    _This farther explained and defended_ 520\n_Visible church described_ 521\n    _In what respects it is one_ 522\n    _In what respects it is not one_ _ibid_\n    _Its concern for the children of its members_ 526\nJewish _church, its establishment_ ibid\n      _Its government_ 527\n_How they promoted religion in their synagogues_ 529\n    _Their_ Proseuch\u00e6, _or places appointed for prayer_ 530\n_A particular_ gospel-church _described_ 536\n    _Its matter_ 539\n    _Its form or bond of union_ 540\n    _Its subjection to Christ to be professed_ 542\n        _How this to be made visible_ 543\n    _Its power of admission_ 541\n        _The reformed churches differ about this_ _ibid_\n        _Terms of communion fixed by Christ_ _ibid_\n    _Its power of exclusion_ 544\n        _Causes of exclusion_ 545\n        _The way of proceeding therein_ 547\n        _With what temper this should be done_ 549\n        _What meant by being delivered to Satan_ 550\n_The first preaching and success of the gospel_ 532\n_Conduct of the Apostles in planting gospel-churches_ 534\n_Church-communion proved_\n    _from the law of nature_ 538\n    _from scripture_ _ibid_\n_Government of churches by their officers_ 552\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_The office of a Pastor, Bishop, or Elder_ 555\n    _Bishops and Elders the same_ 556\n    _Jerom\u2019s account of the increase of the power of Bishops_, in a note\n    _Pastors chosen by the church_ 561\n\u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9, in a note 563\n        _How to be set apart_ _ibid_\n        _How their office to be discharged_ 565\n        _Whether a Teacher be a distinct officer_ 566\n_Synods, the abuse and advantage of them_ 566\n_Parishes, why churches were so called by ancient writers_ 567\n_The office of a Deacon_ 570\n_Officers of the church_, in a note 571\n_Privileges of the visible church_ 572\n    _It is under Christ\u2019s special care_ 574\n        _Wherein this consists_ 575\n    _It is under Christ\u2019s special government_ 576\n        _In what respects_ 577\n    _It enjoys communion of saints_ _ibid_\n    _It has the ordinary means of grace_ 578\n    QUEST. XIV. _How doth God execute his decrees?_\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    QUEST. XV. _What is the work of creation?_\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.\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,\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.\nII. That this work was not performed from eternity, but in the beginning\nof time.\nIII. How he is said to create all things by the word of his power.\nIV. The end for which he made them, namely, for himself, or for his own\nglory.\nV. The time in which he made them. And,\nVI. The quality or condition thereof, as all things are said to have\nbeen made very good.\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_.\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.\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.\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?\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.\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.\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?\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.\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.\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].\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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:\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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].\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.\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].\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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_.\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.\nFootnote 1:\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.\nFootnote 2:\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.\nFootnote 3:\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._\nFootnote 4:\n  _This was maintained by Aquinas, Durandus, Cajetan, and others; though\n  opposed by Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, &c._\nFootnote 5:\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._\nFootnote 6:\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._\nFootnote 7:\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._\nFootnote 8:\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._\nFootnote 9:\n  The reader will be highly gratified by a treatise of Dr. Hugh\n  Williamson on climate, wherein he examines this subject.\nFootnote 10:\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_.\nFootnote 11:\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      _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\nFootnote 12:\nFootnote 13:\n  _See Ray\u2019s Wisdom of God in the Creation, page 182._\nFootnote 14:\n  _Whitby on Election, page 92, 93._\nFootnote 15:\n  _See Turret. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 5. Quest. 5._\nFootnote 16:\n  _Vid. Witsii in Symbol. Exercit. 8. \u00a7 66._\nFootnote 17:\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._\nFootnote 18:\n  _This absurd opinion the Papists are very fond of, inasmuch as it\n  serves their purpose in defending the doctrine of Transubstantiation._\nFootnote 19:\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._\nFootnote 20:\n  _It is not_ \u05e2\u05dc \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2, _but_ \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2.\nFootnote 21:\n  _See Quest. CV._\nFootnote 22:\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._\nFootnote 23:\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.\nFootnote 24:\n  _See Quest. XVII._\nFootnote 25:\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._\nFootnote 26:\n                 _\u2014\u2014Ver illud erat, Ver magnus agebat\n                 Orbis, & Hybernis parcebant flatibus Euri._\n  Virg. Georg. 2.\n    QUEST. XVI. _How did God create angels?_\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nIV. Besides the excellency of their nature, as spirits, they have other\nsuper-added endowments; of which, _three_ are mentioned in this answer.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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].\nFootnote 27:\n  _Vid. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, Lib. XV. cap. 23. Tertull. de\n  Idololatria, & alibi passim._\nFootnote 28:\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._\nFootnote 29:\n  _See Quest. XIX._\nFootnote 30:\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._\nFootnote 31:\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.\nFootnote 32:\n  _See Quest. XIX._\n    QUEST. XVII. _How did God create man?_\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.\nIn this answer it is observed,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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,\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,\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.\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,\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,\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.\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\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nThis image of God in man, in this answer, is said to consist\nparticularly in three things.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 33:\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._\nFootnote 34:\n  _See Ray\u2019s wisdom of God, in the work of creation, Part. II. and\n  Derham\u2019s Physico. Theology, Book V._\nFootnote 35:\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  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  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.\nFootnote 36:\n  _See Quest._ lxxxvi.\n    QUEST. XVIII. _What are God\u2019s works of Providence?_\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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(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(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(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(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.\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_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.\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(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(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.\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.\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,\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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\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!\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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,\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 37:\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._\nFootnote 38:\n  Vide ante. Vol. I. p. 532, in note.\nFootnote 39:\n  _See Charnock, Flavell, Dr. Collings, on Providence._\n    QUEST. XIX. _What is God\u2019s providence towards the angels?_\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.\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,\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.\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._\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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!\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.\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.\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,\nII. To consider providence, as conversant about the rest of the angels,\nwho retained their integrity. Concerning these it is said,\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.\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.\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.\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?\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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,\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.\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.\nFootnote 40:\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_.\nFootnote 41:\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    QUEST. XX. _What was the providence of God toward man in the estate\n    wherein he was created?_\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.\nIn this answer, we have an account of the providence of God, as\nrespecting the _outward_, and the _spiritual_, concerns of man.\nI. As to what respects his outward estate, we have an account,\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(4.) It was situate in Mesopotamia, near Babylon, to the north-east end\nof the land of Canaan. This appears,\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_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]\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.\nHaving considered the place of man\u2019s abode, to wit, paradise, we have,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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].\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.\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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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?\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\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.\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,\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_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_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_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_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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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]\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,\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.\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(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.\n1. Concerning the tree of life, several things may be observed,\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_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_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?\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.\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?\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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 42:\n  Vide Dr. Wells\u2019 _Sacred Geography_, and the _excursions_ annexed to\n  it.\nFootnote 43:\n  _See Quest._ cxxxix.\nFootnote 44:\n  _See Quest._ cxvi.\nFootnote 45:\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  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  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\nFootnote 46:\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._\nFootnote 47:\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._\nFootnote 48:\n  Yet it is the better opinion, that he was vulnerable only on one\n  point.\nFootnote 49:\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._\nFootnote 50:\n  _Vid. Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. I. cap. 2._\nFootnote 51:\n  _Vid. Socin. de Stat. Prim. Hom. & Smalc. de ver. & Nat. Dei. Fil._\n    QUEST. XXI. _Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first\n    created him?_\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.\nIn this answer,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\nThat it was not only, or principally, the natural serpent that tempted\nour first parents, will appear, if we consider,\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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;\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_.\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.\nAnd here we may observe, that he proceeded, in a gradual way, from less\nto greater insinuations, brought against God.\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(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_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_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.\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_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.\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.\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.\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,\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:\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.\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.\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.\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(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(2.) Discontentment with their present condition; though without the\nleast shadow of reason leading to it.\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(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(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(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(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,\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(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(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(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(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.\nWe shall conclude with a few inferences from what has been said,\nconcerning the fall of our first parents.\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_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_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_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.\nFootnote 52:\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._\nFootnote 53:\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._\nFootnote 54:\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.\nFootnote 55:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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    QUEST. XXII. _Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?_\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.\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.\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]\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.\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.\nBut to proceed to consider the subject-matter of this answer,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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]\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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].\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_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_Answ._ There are various methods taken to answer this objection.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 56:\n  If Adam represented Eve (his rib) in the covenant, she did not fall\n  till he fell.\nFootnote 57:\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.\nFootnote 58:\n  \u03a4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, _the Type_.\nFootnote 59:\nFootnote 60:\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.\nFootnote 61:\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.\nFootnote 62:\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.\nFootnote 63:\n  The covenant of grace was from eternity, and implied his innocence.\nFootnote 64:\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.\nFootnote 65:\n  _See Quest._ xxvii.\nFootnote 66:\n  _See Quest._ xxvii.\n                   Quest. XXIII., XXIV., XXV., XXVI.\n    QUEST. XXIII. _Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?_\n    ANSW. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.\n    QUEST. XXIV. _What is sin?_\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    QUEST. XXV. _Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate\n    whereinto man fell?_\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    QUEST. XXVI. _How is original sin conveyed from our first parents\n    unto their posterity?_\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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]\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.\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(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(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.\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.\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,\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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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].\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.\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.\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]\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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\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.\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.\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,\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,\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.\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.\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?\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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]\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 67:\n  _See Quest._ cv.-cli.\nFootnote 68:\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  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.\nFootnote 69:\n  _The Marcionites in the second century, and the Manichees in the\n  third._\nFootnote 70:\n  _See Page 54-57, ante._\nFootnote 71:\n  _See a book, supposed to be written in defence hereof by Glanvil,\n  entitled, Lux Orientalis._\nFootnote 72:\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._\nFootnote 73:\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._\nFootnote 74:\n  _See Du Moulin\u2019s Anatomy of Armnianism, Chap. X. \u00a7 3, 15, 17._\nFootnote 75:\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._\nFootnote 76:\n  _See Perkins on the Creed._\nFootnote 77:\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  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  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  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.\nFootnote 78:\n  _See Quest._ cv.-cli.\n    QUEST. XXVII. _What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?_\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.\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.\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]\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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.\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]\nFootnote 79:\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._\nFootnote 80:\n  _See Quest._ cli. clii.\nFootnote 81:\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._\nFootnote 82:\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  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  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  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    QUEST. XXVIII. _What are the punishments of sin in this world?_\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    QUEST. XXIX. _What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?_\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.\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.\nHere we shall consider,\n_First_, Those punishments that are called inward, which respect either\nthe understanding, will, conscience, or affections. Accordingly,\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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(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.\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(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(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(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[1.] What are those sins which more especially lead to this judgment of\nhardness of heart. These are,\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_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_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_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.\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[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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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(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_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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\n5. Wicked men, whose sins are not forgiven in this world, are the\nsubjects of punishment in the other.\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.\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]\nFootnote 83:\n  \u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, means animal nature in man. The relief of the body is spoken\n  of.\nFootnote 84:\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\nFootnote 85:\n  _See Quest._ lxxxix.\nFootnote 86:\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  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  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  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  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  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    QUEST. XXX. _Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the state of\n    sin and misery?_\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.\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,\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,\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.\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,\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].\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nThis may, without much difficulty, be accounted for, consistently\ntherewith, if we consider the sense of those scriptures above mentioned.\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_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.\nFootnote 87:\n  _See_ Vol. I. _Page 462._\nFootnote 88:\n  _See Quest._ xx. _Page 70. Ante._\n    QUEST. XXXI. _With whom was the covenant of grace made?_\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.\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,\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.\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_.\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_.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 89:\n  \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea.\nFootnote 90:\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b7.\nFootnote 91:\n  Rather, \u201cratified over a dead body,\u201d an ancient mode of covenanting.\nFootnote 92:\n  _These style it, Testamento Foedus, or Foedus Testamentarium, or\n  Testamentum Foederale._\nFootnote 93:\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._\nFootnote 94:\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.\nFootnote 95:\n  _See Page 168. ante._\nFootnote 96:\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    QUEST. XXXII. _How is the grace of God manifested in the second\n    covenant?_\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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!\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.\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.\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,\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_.\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.\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(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.\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(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(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(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.\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_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_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.\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_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.\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_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,\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,\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.\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.\nFootnote 97:\n  _Such an one is more properly called Internuncius, than Mediator._\nFootnote 98:\n  _Vid. Bez. and Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 99:\n  _See Quest._ lxvii.\nFootnote 100:\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  \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  \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  \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  \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  \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  \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  \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.\nFootnote 101:\nFootnote 102:\n  _The former of these is generally styled_, Via ad regnum; _the\n  latter_, Causa regnandi.\n                     Quest. XXXIII., XXXIV., XXXV.\n    QUEST. XXXIII. _Was the covenant of grace always administered after\n    one and the same manner?_\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    QUEST. XXXIV. _How was the covenant of grace administered under the\n    Old Testament._\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    QUEST. XXXV. _How is the covenant of grace administered under the\n    New Testament?_\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.\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,\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,\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(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_.\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(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.\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\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_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.\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_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_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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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]\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\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(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(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_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_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_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.\nFrom what has been said, in comparing the former, and present\ndispensation of the covenant of grace, we may infer:\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[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[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[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.\nFootnote 103:\n  _See Quest._ xcii.\nFootnote 104:\n  _Vid. Spencer. de leg. Hebr. and ejusd. Dissert. de Urim & Thummim; &\n  Marshami Can. Chron._\nFootnote 105:\n  _Vid. Witsii Egyptiaca._\nFootnote 106:\n  _Pr\u00e6cepta observanti\u00e6._\nFootnote 107:\n  \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 108:\n  _See Psal._ lxii. _the title, compared with the subject-matter of the\n  Psalm, which speaks of Christ in the person of Solomon._\nFootnote 109:\n  _See Vol. I. pages 53-56._\nFootnote 110:\n  _The first, he and his followers call_, Oeconomia promissionis, _or_,\n  ante-legalis; _the second_, Oeconomia legalis; _the third_, Oeconomia\n  evangelica.\nFootnote 111:\n  Minus plena, _or_ minus vera.\nFootnote 112:\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    QUEST. XXXVI. _Who is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace?_\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    QUEST. XXXVII. _How did Christ, being God, become Man?_\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.\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,\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].\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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(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(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(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.\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(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(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.\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;\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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(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_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_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.\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(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(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.\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\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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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_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_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_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(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_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_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_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_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.\nFootnote 113:\n  _See Page 379._ Vol. I.\nFootnote 114:\n  _See Quest._ xliv.\nFootnote 115:\n  _See Vol. I. Page 243._\nFootnote 116:\n  _See Quest._ ix, x, xi.\nFootnote 117:\n  _Vide the note, Vol. I. Page 279._\nFootnote 118:\n  _For this reason, the Sabellians are often called, by ancient writers,\n  Patripassians._\nFootnote 119:\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,\nFootnote 120:\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._\nFootnote 121:\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._\nFootnote 122:\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._\nFootnote 123:\n  \u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\nFootnote 124:\n  _See Page 112 ante._\nFootnote 125:\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.\nFootnote 126:\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._\nFootnote 127:\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_.\nFootnote 128:\n  _So the word is properly rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast._\nFootnote 129:\n  _See Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVIII. cap. 1. & Lib. XX. cap. 2. & de Bell.\n  Jud. Lib. II. cap. 6._\nFootnote 130:\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.\nFootnote 131:\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._\nFootnote 132:\n  _See Lightfoot\u2019s works, Vol. I. Pag. 765, 766._\n    QUEST. XXXVIII. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be\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    QUEST. XXXIX. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be\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    QUEST. XL. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and\n    Man in one Person?_\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.\nOur Mediator having been considered as God and Man, in one person, we\nhave a farther account of the necessity of being so. And,\nI. It was necessary that he should be a divine Person, for several\nreasons here assigned, with others that may be added. As,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\nFootnote 133:\nFootnote 134:\n  _It is otherwise styled_, Necessitas consequenti\u00e6.\nFootnote 135:\n  And in presenting his glorious body with the marks of suffering.\nFootnote 136:\n  _See Vol. I. page 261._\nFootnote 137:\n  _This is generally styled, by divines_, Communicatio idiomatum in\n  concreto, non in abstracto.\nFootnote 138:\n    QUEST. XLI. _Why was our Mediator called Jesus?_\n    ANSW. Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people\n    from their sins.\n    QUEST. XLII. _Why was our Mediator called Christ?_\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 139:\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    QUEST. XLIII. _How doth Christ execute the office of a Prophet?_\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.\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.\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.\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,\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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].\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.\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]\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.\nFootnote 140:\n  See Vol. I. Page 347-350.\nFootnote 141:\nFootnote 142:\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    QUEST. XLIV. _How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest?_\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.\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,\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,\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.\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(1.) Wherein they agree.\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_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_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(2.) There were many things in which they differed; as,\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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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_First_, That he was a man: But when it is farther enquired, what man?\nthere are three different opinions relating hereunto.\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_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_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(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(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_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_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_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.\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_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_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_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_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.\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_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_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_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_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_.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\n1. That the necessity hereof appears from the holiness of God; and\naccordingly,\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(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(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.\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(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(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(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.\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.\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]\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.\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,\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.\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_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_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.\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_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_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.\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.\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_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(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(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(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_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_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.\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].\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,\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.\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_.\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_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.\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_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.\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.\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]\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.\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_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_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_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.\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_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.\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].\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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]\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.\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.\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.\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,\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,\nI. From those distinguishing characters that accompany salvation, which\nare given to those for whom he died.\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.\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_.\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_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_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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\nVII. The doctrine of universal redemption hath some absurd consequences\nattending it, not consistent with the divine perfections; as,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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(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(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.\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(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(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(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,\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_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_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?\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.\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(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.\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(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_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_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_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_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_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,\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,\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.\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(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(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(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.\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.\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_.\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?\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,\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(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_.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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?\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(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_.\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.\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_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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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._\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.\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]\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.\nFootnote 143:\n  _Vid. Ephiph. H\u00e6r. Page 67. \u00a7 7._\nFootnote 144:\n  _Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol.\n  I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327._\nFootnote 145:\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_.\nFootnote 146:\n  _See Jurieu\u2019s critical history_, vol. I. chap. 11.\nFootnote 147:\n  As yet there was no church.\nFootnote 148:\n  _See critical history_, vol. I. page 110.\nFootnote 149:\n  _This opinion is maintained by Cun\u00e6us, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib.\n  III. cap. 3.] and some others after him._\nFootnote 150:\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  \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  GRAY ON PRIESTHOOD.\nFootnote 151:\n  _He liveth_ for any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.\nFootnote 152:\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  \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  HUMAN REASON.\nFootnote 153:\n  All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments\n  fail in the Divine.\nFootnote 154:\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  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  _First_, explain the meaning of the word grace.\n  _Secondly_, the meaning of the word justice.\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  _First._ What are we to understand by the word grace?\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  _Secondly._ What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes\n  three denominations\u2014commutative, distributive, and public.\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  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  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  _Thirdly._ Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the\n  difficulty under consideration.\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  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  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  From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it\n  appears,\n  _First_, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no\n  respect to commutative justice.\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  _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  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  DR. MAXCY.\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  \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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  CHRISTIAN\u2019S MAGAZINE, VOL. III.\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  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  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.\nFootnote 155:\n  See Doddridge\u2019s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards\u2019 third sermon,\n  preached it New Haven, 1735.\nFootnote 156:\n  See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.\nFootnote 157:\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\nFootnote 158:\n  Shorter Catechism.\nFootnote 159:\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\nFootnote 160:\n  _See Quest. XXXVIII._\nFootnote 161:\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.\nFootnote 162:\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._\nFootnote 163:\n  \u039b\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\nFootnote 164:\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_.\nFootnote 165:\n  _See the note immediately preceeding._\nFootnote 166:\n  _See Page 201-203 ante._\nFootnote 167:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  DR. WYNPERSSE.\nFootnote 168:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  DR. MAGEE.\nFootnote 169:\n  England.\nFootnote 170:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s discourse_, &c. _page 110-112_.\nFootnote 171:\n  _See Quest. LV._\nFootnote 172:\nFootnote 173:\nFootnote 174:\n  _See Page 190, ante._\nFootnote 175:\nFootnote 176:\n  _Tabula post naufragium._\nFootnote 177:\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._\nFootnote 178:\n  _Passiones tribuuntur Deo quoad effectum._\nFootnote 179:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, page 145, 146._\nFootnote 180:\nFootnote 181:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, &c. page 113._\nFootnote 182:\n  _Vid. Eras. in loc._\nFootnote 183:\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.\nFootnote 184:\n  \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9.\nFootnote 185:\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.\nFootnote 186:\n  \u03a4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 187:\n  _See Page 501._ Vol. I.\nFootnote 188:\n  _See Quest. LXXIX._\nFootnote 189:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  CONNECTICUT EVANG. MAG.\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.\nFootnote 190:\n  _See Quest. LV._\n    QUEST. XLV. _How doth Christ execute the office of a King?_\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.\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.\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.\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,\nII. The manner in which Christ exercises his Kingly government; and\nthat,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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,\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(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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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(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(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(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(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_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,\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.\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_.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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(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(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_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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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].\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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_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.\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.\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_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_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_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_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_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.\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_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(2.) There are several things in their scheme, which we do not think\nsufficiently founded in scripture. As,\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_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_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]\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_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_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(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(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?\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_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.\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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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?\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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(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.\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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 191:\n  _See Quest. LXII, LXIII._\nFootnote 192:\n  _See Quest. LXXVIII._\nFootnote 193:\n  _See Page 257._\nFootnote 194:\n  _Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib._ iv.\nFootnote 195:\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._\nFootnote 196:\n  _Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7._\nFootnote 197:\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._\nFootnote 198:\n  _See Mede\u2019s Works, Book IV. Epist. 17. Page 938-940._\nFootnote 199:\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\nFootnote 200:\n  _Moriar ut videam._\nFootnote 201:\n  _Vid. Mede de Resurrec. prim. Lib. III. Page 710, 749, 750._\nFootnote 202:\n  _Vid. Aug. de civ. Dei, Lib._ xx. _cap. 7._\nFootnote 203:\n  _See_ Ezek. xxxvii. 21. _and_ Jer. xxxvii. 7-13. _& alibi passim_.\nFootnote 204:\n  _So Iren\u00e6us styles it, Adv. H\u00e6r. Lib. V. cap. 29._ Diluvium\n  superveniet Ignis.\nFootnote 205:\n  _Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7._\nFootnote 206:\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._\nFootnote 207:\n  _See Napier on the Revelation, prop. 33, 34. page 61, 62._\n                     Quest. XLVI., XLVII., XLVIII.\n    QUEST. XLVI. _What was the estate of Christ\u2019s humiliation?_\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    QUEST. XLVII. _How did Christ humble himself in his conception and\n    birth?_\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    QUEST. XLVIII. _How did Christ humble himself in his life?_\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.\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?\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.\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,\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]\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.\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.\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.\nI. Christ humbled himself in his birth; and that,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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].\nII. Christ\u2019s state of humiliation appeared throughout his whole life,\nand that in several instances.\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_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_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.\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(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(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(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(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(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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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_.\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,\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(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(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(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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\n3. We shall now consider the three temptations, mentioned in this\nscripture, which he was exposed to. And that,\n(1.) More generally; and accordingly we may observe,\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_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_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_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(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_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,\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?\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?\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.\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(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(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(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.\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_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_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_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,\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.\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.\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.\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(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.\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(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_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.\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_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_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_.\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.\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_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_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.\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_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_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.\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_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,\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(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(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.\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_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_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_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_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.\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.\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,\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(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(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]\nFrom what hath been said, concerning Christ\u2019s temptations, we infer,\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_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_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.\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.\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_Secondly_, To consider his humiliation immediately before, as well as\nin and after his death.\nFootnote 208:\n  \u0395\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5.\nFootnote 209:\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._\nFootnote 210:\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._\nFootnote 211:\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._\nFootnote 212:\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._\nFootnote 213:\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._\nFootnote 214:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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.\nFootnote 215:\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    QUEST. XLIX. _How did Christ humble himself in his death?_\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    QUEST. L. _Wherein consisted Christ\u2019s humiliation after his death?_\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_.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\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,\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFrom hence we may learn,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\n2. Some things may be observed concerning Pilate\u2019s conduct in his trial;\nas,\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(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(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(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]\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,\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,\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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_.\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(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(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(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.\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.\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_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_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_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.\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[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.\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[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(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_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_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?\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]\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(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.\nThis leads us to consider Christ\u2019s state of exaltation.\nFootnote 216:\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._\nFootnote 217:\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._\nFootnote 218:\n  _Vid. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 8_.\nFootnote 219:\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._\nFootnote 220:\n  _See Lowth in loc._\nFootnote 221:\n  _Vid. Wits. in Symbol. Exercitat. 18. and Pearson on the Creed,\n  Article 5. and Parker de descensu Christi ad inferos._\nFootnote 222:\n  _Vid. Institut. Lib. II. cap. 16. \u00a7 10._\nFootnote 223:\n  _Vid. Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 5._\nFootnote 224:\n  _Vid. History of the apostles Creed._\nFootnote 225:\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.\nFootnote 226:\n  _This they call Limbus Patrum._\nFootnote 227:\n  _See Vol. I. page 54, 55, and page 209, ante._\nFootnote 228:\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  _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  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.\nFootnote 229:\n  \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc _and_ \u0391\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n    QUEST. LI. _What was the estate of Christ\u2019s exaltation?_\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    QUEST. LII. _How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?_\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.\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,\nI. That he did not see corruption in death. Corruption according to our\ncommon acceptation of the words imports two things,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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_First_, As to the former sort of testimony. It was attested by\nsufficient, undeniable evidence; as,\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.\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.\nNow that it was morally impossible, that his disciples, in particular,\nshould be imposed on, will farther appear, if we consider,\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,\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.\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.\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(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.\n3. Those persons, who, after his resurrection, were witnesses to the\ntruth hereof to the world, were very worthy of credit; for,\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_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_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_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(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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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_Answ._ In answer to this objection, let it be considered,\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.\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.\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.\nVI. Christ raised himself from the dead by his own power. Here let it be\nconsidered,\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]\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.\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.\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.\nVII. We are next to consider the effects of Christ\u2019s resurrection,\neither as they respect himself or his people.\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.\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.\n2. The effects of Christ\u2019s resurrection, which respect his people,\nconsist more especially in four things.\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(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(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(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]\nFootnote 230:\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_.\nFootnote 231:\n  _This they call_ \u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\nFootnote 232:\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._\nFootnote 233:\n  _See Quest. IX, XI._\nFootnote 234:\n  _See the notes on Rom._ iv. _25._\nFootnote 235:\n  _See Quest. LXX, LXXII._\nFootnote 236:\n  _See Page 182, ante._\nFootnote 237:\n  _See Quest. LXXXVII._\n    QUEST. LIII. _How was Christ exalted in his ascension?_\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    QUEST. LIV. _How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand\n    of God?_\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.\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_First_, To consider Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven. Here we may\nobserve,\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,\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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(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.\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.\nBut, that we may more particularly consider what it was for Christ to\nascend into heaven,\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]\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,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\nFrom this account of Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven, we may make two or\nthree remarks.\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.\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_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_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.\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,\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.\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.\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_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_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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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_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,\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.\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_,\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.\nFootnote 238:\n  _See Vol. I. page 347._\nFootnote 239:\n  _See Page 393._\nFootnote 240:\n  _See Quest._ lxii, lxiii.\n    QUEST. LV. _How doth Christ make intercession?_\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.\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,\nI. We shall consider the necessity thereof; and that,\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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.\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,\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.\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].\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,\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?\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\nV. We shall now consider how Christ makes intercession; and it is\nobserved, that he does this,\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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\nVI. Christ, by his intercession, procures for his people many valuable\nprivileges, three of which are mentioned in this answer.\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(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(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.\nVII. Let us consider how Christ\u2019s intercession ought to be improved by\nus.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 241:\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._\nFootnote 242:\n  _See Page 235._\n    QUEST. LVI. _How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to\n    judge the world?_\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\n2. He is also said to appear in his Father\u2019s glory. For the\nunderstanding of which let us consider,\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(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(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(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.\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,\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 243:\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.)_\nFootnote 244:\n  \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.\nFootnote 245:\n  _See Quest. LXXXVIII.-XC._\n    QUEST. LVII. _What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?_\n    ANSW. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all\n    other benefits of the covenant of grace.\n    QUEST. LVIII. _How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits\n    which Christ hath procured?_\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    QUEST. LIX. _Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?_\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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]\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]\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.\nFootnote 246:\n  _Thus divines generally say_, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa.\nFootnote 247:\nFootnote 248:\nFootnote 249:\n  _See Quest._ lxxii.\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    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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\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.\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(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(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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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?\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.\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]\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.\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.\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_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_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_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.\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_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_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_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_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,\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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(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.\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(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?\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_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_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.\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.\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.\nFootnote 250:\n  _See Quest. LXXXIX._\nFootnote 251:\n  _It is a rule in logic_, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.\nFootnote 252:\n  \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd.\nFootnote 253:\n  \u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5.\nFootnote 254:\nFootnote 255:\nFootnote 256:\n  _Vid. Bez. in loc._\n                   Quest. LXI., LXII., LXIII., LXIV.\n    QUEST. LXI. _Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the\n    church?_\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    QUEST. LXII. _What is the visible church?_\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    QUEST. LXIII. _What are the special privileges of the visible\n    church?_\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    QUEST. LXIV. _What is the invisible church?_\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.\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,\nI. What we are to understand by the word _church_, as we find it applied\nin scripture.\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.\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_.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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,\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.\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.\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_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?\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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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(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(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(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(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,\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,\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.\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(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(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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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.\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?\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,\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.\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.\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,\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]\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.\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,\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.\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.\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.\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_.\nThere are several things observable in the exercise of his ministry:\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_.\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.\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.\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.\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,\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.\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(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(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(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(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(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(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.\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.\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,\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.\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.\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,\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(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.\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.\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_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.\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_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(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_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.\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_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_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_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.\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.\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_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(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.\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.\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(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.\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].\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.\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].\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.\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.\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_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_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,\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.\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.\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_.\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.\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_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_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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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].\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(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(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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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(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.\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.\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.\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.\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.\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]\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(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.\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_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_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_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(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_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_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(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.\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.\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.\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(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.\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.\nFootnote 257:\n  \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\nFootnote 258:\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.\nFootnote 259:\n  _See his works, Vol. I. Book II. Page 405_, & seq.\nFootnote 260:\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03c4 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\nFootnote 261:\n  _See page 432_, & seq.\nFootnote 262:\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._\nFootnote 263:\n  \u05e2\u05e8\u05d4.\nFootnote 264:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  5. The word is also applied to a representative assembly.\u2014\u2014\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  1. The church militant is an Ecclesia. Matt. xvi. 18. and Acts ii. 47.\n  \u201cThe Lord added to the church daily.\u201d\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  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  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  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  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  MC\u2019LEOD\u2019S CATECHISM.\nFootnote 265:\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._\nFootnote 266:\n  _Vid. Cypr. de Laps. cap. 1. \u00a7 13._\nFootnote 267:\n  _See his Works, Vol. I. page 924, 925._\nFootnote 268:\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._\nFootnote 269:\n  _See more of this in those pages of Lightfoot before referred to._\nFootnote 270:\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_.\nFootnote 271:\n  _See Mede\u2019s Works, Vol. I. Book I. Disc. 8._\nFootnote 272:\n  _See Vol. I. page 608._\nFootnote 273:\n  \u0395\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03b5\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5, _in proseucha Dei_.\nFootnote 274:\n  _See Lightfoot on Acts_ ii. _5. Vol. I. page 751, 752._\nFootnote 275:\n  _See Quest. CLXX. CLXXIV._\nFootnote 276:\n  _Imperium in imperio._\nFootnote 277:\n  \u0391\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 278:\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._\nFootnote 279:\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._\nFootnote 280:\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.\nFootnote 281:\n  _Vid. Tert. Apol. cap. 39._ Summum futuri judicii pr\u00e6judicium.\nFootnote 282:\n  _Vid. Cypr. de Orat. Dom._ Timendum est, & orandum, ne dum quis\n  abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute.\nFootnote 283:\n  _Vid. Cave\u2019s Prim. Christ. Part. III. cap. 5._\nFootnote 284:\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._\nFootnote 285:\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  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  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  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  \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  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  \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  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  M\u2019LEOD\u2019S ECCL. CAT.\nFootnote 286:\n  _See Quest._ clviii. clix.\nFootnote 287:\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\nFootnote 288:\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\nFootnote 289:\n  _Legatus._\nFootnote 290:\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._\nFootnote 291:\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._\nFootnote 292:\n  _See Primitive Episcopacy, Page 189-197._\nFootnote 293:\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._\nFootnote 294:\n  _See Stillingfleet Iren. Page 276._\nFootnote 295:\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  Thus he lays down both _doctrine_ and _fact_ relative to the\n  government of the church, in his commentary on Titus i. 5.\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  \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  \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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  CHRISTIAN\u2019S MAGAZINE.\nFootnote 296:\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.\nFootnote 297:\n  Prosper, who was nearly his cotemporary, calls him _magister mundi_:\n  i. e. the teacher of the world. _Ib._\nFootnote 298:\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._\nFootnote 299:\n  _Vid. Blondel. Apol. pro Sent. Hieron._\nFootnote 300:\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.\nFootnote 301:\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.\nFootnote 302:\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.\nFootnote 303:\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._\nFootnote 304:\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  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  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  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  Hence, imposition of hands is a communication of power. This\n  significant action was known to the patriarchs. Gen. xlviii. 14.\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  1. It is a mean of communicating bodily vigour. Mark vi. 5.\n  2. It is a communication of special blessing. Gen. xlviii. 14. Mark x.\n  3. It is a mean of imparting the power of miracles\u2014the gifts of the\n  Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 17.\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  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  M\u2019LEOD\u2019S ECCL. CAT.\nFootnote 305:\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._\nFootnote 306:\n  _Vid. Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. Lib. III. cap. 6. Quid est aliud\n  manus impositio quam oratio super hominem?_\nFootnote 307:\n  _Vid. Greg. Naz. Epist. 42. ad Procop._\nFootnote 308:\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._\nFootnote 309:\n  _So the vulgar Latin translation renders the word_ \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, Ei qui\n  se catechizat.\nFootnote 310:\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._\nFootnote 311:\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.\nFootnote 312:\n  _Vid. Tertull. de bapt. baptizandi habet jus episcopus, doctrin\u00e6\n  presbyteri & diaconi._\nFootnote 313:\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  (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  Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 4. Heb. xiii. 17. Acts xxvi. 17, 18. Matt. xxviii. 19,\n  Cor. ii. 6, 7. (6.) People\u2019s behaviour towards ministers is prescribed\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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  BROWN\u2019S SYSTEM.\nEND OF THE SECOND VOLUME.\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.\nEnd of Project Gutenberg's A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2 of 4, by Thomas Ridgley\n*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A BODY OF DIVINITY, VOL. 2 OF 4 ***\n***** This file should be named 62149-0.txt or 62149-0.zip *****\nThis and all associated files of various formats will be found in:\nProduced by Richard Hulse, David King, and the Online\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive.)\nUpdated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions\nwill be renamed.\nCreating the works from public domain print editions means that no\none owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation\n(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without\npermission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,\nset forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to\ncopying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to\nprotect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project\nGutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you\ncharge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you\ndo not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the\nrules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose\nsuch as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and\nresearch.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do\npractically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is\nsubject to the trademark license, especially commercial\nredistribution.\n*** START: FULL LICENSE ***\nTHE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE\nPLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK\nTo protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free\ndistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work\n(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project\nGutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at\nSection 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic works\n1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to\nand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property\n(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all\nthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy\nall copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.\nIf you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the\nterms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or\nentity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.\n1.B.  \"Project Gutenberg\" is a registered trademark.  It may only be\nused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who\nagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few\nthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works\neven without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See\nparagraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement\nand help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks.  See paragraph 1.E below.\n1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (\"the Foundation\"\nor PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the\ncollection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an\nindividual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are\nlocated in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from\ncopying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative\nworks based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg\nare removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project\nGutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by\nfreely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of\nthis agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with\nthe work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by\nkeeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project\nGutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.\n1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern\nwhat you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in\na constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check\nthe laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement\nbefore downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or\ncreating derivative works based on this work or any other Project\nGutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning\nthe copyright status of any work in any country outside the United\nStates.\n1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:\n1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate\naccess to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently\nwhenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the\nphrase \"Project Gutenberg\" appears, or with which the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,\ncopied or distributed:\nThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with\nalmost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or\nre-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included\nwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license\n1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived\nfrom the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is\nposted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied\nand distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees\nor charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work\nwith the phrase \"Project Gutenberg\" associated with or appearing on the\nwork, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1\nthrough 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the\nProject Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or\n1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted\nwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution\nmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional\nterms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked\nto the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the\npermission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.\n1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm\nLicense terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this\nwork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.\n1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this\nelectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without\nprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with\nactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project\nGutenberg-tm License.\n1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,\ncompressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any\nword processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or\ndistribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than\n\"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other format used in the official version\nposted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),\nyou must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a\ncopy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon\nrequest, of the work in its original \"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other\nform.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm\nLicense as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.\n1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,\nperforming, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works\nunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.\n1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing\naccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided\nthat\n- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from\n     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method\n     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is\n     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he\n     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the\n     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments\n     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you\n     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax\n     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and\n     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the\n     address specified in Section 4, \"Information about donations to\n     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.\"\n- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies\n     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he\n     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm\n     License.  You must require such a user to return or\n     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium\n     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of\n     Project Gutenberg-tm works.\n- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any\n     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the\n     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days\n     of receipt of the work.\n- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free\n     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.\n1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic work or group of works on different terms than are set\nforth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from\nboth the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael\nHart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the\nFoundation as set forth in Section 3 below.\n1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable\neffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread\npublic domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm\ncollection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain\n\"Defects,\" such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or\ncorrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual\nproperty infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a\ncomputer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by\nyour equipment.\n1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the \"Right\nof Replacement or Refund\" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project\nGutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all\nliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal\nfees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT\nLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE\nPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE\nTRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE\nLIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR\nINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH\nDAMAGE.\n1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a\ndefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can\nreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a\nwritten explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you\nreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with\nyour written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with\nthe defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a\nrefund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity\nproviding it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to\nreceive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy\nis also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further\nopportunities to fix the problem.\n1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth\nin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER\nWARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.\n1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied\nwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.\nIf any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the\nlaw of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be\ninterpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by\nthe applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any\nprovision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.\n1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the\ntrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone\nproviding copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance\nwith this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,\npromotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,\nharmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,\nthat arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do\nor cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm\nwork, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any\nProject Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.\nSection  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm\nProject Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of\nelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers\nincluding obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists\nbecause of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from\npeople in all walks of life.\nVolunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the\nassistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's\ngoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will\nremain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure\nand permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.\nTo learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation\nand how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4\nSection 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive\nFoundation\nThe Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit\n501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the\nstate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal\nRevenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification\nnumber is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at\nLiterary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent\npermitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.\nThe Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.\nFairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered\nthroughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at\n809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email\nbusiness@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact\ninformation can be found at the Foundation's web site and official\nFor additional contact information:\n     Dr. Gregory B. Newby\n     Chief Executive and Director\n     gbnewby@pglaf.org\nSection 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg\nLiterary Archive Foundation\nProject Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide\nspread public support and donations to carry out its mission of\nincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be\nfreely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest\narray of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations\n($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt\nstatus with the IRS.\nThe Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating\ncharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United\nStates.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a\nconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up\nwith these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations\nwhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To\nSEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any\nWhile we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we\nhave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition\nagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who\napproach us with offers to donate.\nInternational donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make\nany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from\noutside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.\nPlease check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation\nmethods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other\nways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.\nSection 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic\nworks.\nProfessor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm\nconcept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared\nwith anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project\nGutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.\nProject Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed\neditions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.\nunless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily\nkeep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.\nMost people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:\nThis Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,\nincluding how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary\nArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to\nsubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2 of 4\n"},
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1714, "culture": " English\n", "content": "   WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n    BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n                   WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n            FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n  PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n                   THE CONTENTS OF THE FOURTH VOLUME.\nQUEST. CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, CXXXIX. An Explication of the Seventh\nCommandment. _Page_ 9\n_THE government of the affections_ 10\n_All uncleanness forbidden_ ibid\n_Polygamy was ever unlawful_ 11\n_The aggravations of uncleanness_ 13\n    _The occasions of it_ 14\n_Of Theatres\u2014a note_ 15\nQUEST. CXL, CXLI. An Explication of the Eighth Commandment 16\n_Of frugality and diligence_ 17\n_Of justice in our dealings_ 19\n_Of charity to the poor_ 20\n    _To whom to be extended_ ibid\n    _And in what proportion_ 21\nQUEST. CXLII. The Sins forbidden in the Eighth Commandment 22\n_Of theft and breach of trust_ 23\n_Of borrowing and not paying_ ibid\n    _Whether_ Israel _was guilty of it_ 24\n_Of plunder in war and oppression_ 25\n_Of unjust law-suits_ 26\n_Of sinful usury_ 27\n_Restitution a duty. Objections answered_ ibid\nQUEST. CXLIII, CXLIV, CXLV. An Explication of the Ninth Commandment 28\n_The duties required_ 29\n    _Sins forbidden_ 31\n_Of bearing false witness_ 32\n_Of lying. The definition of a lie_ 33\n    _Its various kinds_ ibid\n_The midwives report, in_ Exod. i. 19. _no lie_ 34\n_Of_ Rahab\u2019s _lie_, Josh. ii. 4, 5. ibid\n_Of_ Jacob\u2019s _deceit, in_ Gen. xxvii. 19. 35\nElijah\u2019s _treatment of the_ Syrian _host_ 36\nPaul\u2019s _answer relating to the high priest_ 37\nDavid\u2019s _lie to_ Ahimelech, _in_ 1 Sam. xxi. 2. 38\n    _His feigned madness at_ Gath, _ver._ 13-15. ibid\n_Of hypocrisy_ 39\nPaul _and_ Daniel _vindicated_ 40\n_Of reproach. It differs from reproof_ 42\n_Things unjustly made the matter of it_ 43\n    _Aggravations thereof_ 44\n    Elisha _reproached at_ Bethel Ibid\n_Of backbiting. Instances of it_ 48\nQUEST. CXLVI, CXLVII, CXLVIII. An Explication of the Tenth Commandment\n_Contentment required in every state_ 50\n_Motives to it under various troubles_ 51\n_The corruption of Nature forbidden_ 56\n_Of covetousness and its aggravations_ 58\n    _Excuses for it answered_ 59\n_Remedies against discontent_ 61\nQUEST. CXLIX. Of man\u2019s inability to keep the Commandments of God 62\n_How man sins daily_ 63\n_Of sinful thoughts_ 64\n_The kinds, causes and cure of them_ ibid\n_Of sinful words and actions_ 66\nQUEST. CL. All sins not equally heinous 67\nQUEST. CLI. The aggravations of sin, and whence they arise 67\n_From the parties offending or offended_ 68\n_From the nature and quality of the offence_ 70\n_From the circumstances of it_ 72\nQUEST. CLII, CLIII. Of the Desert of Sin, and of the means of escaping\nGod\u2019s wrath 74\n_Wrath of God not passion_ 75\n_How faith and repentance are the means of salvation_ 76\n_Note on procrastination_ 78\nQUEST. CLIV. Of the Ordinances, or outward means of grace 79\n_Ordinances described_ ibid\n_By what ordinances Christ communicates his benefits_ 81\n_Singing God\u2019s praises of divine institution_ 82\n    _A gospel ordinance_ 83\n    _To be public and united_ 84\n_Of musical instruments, a note_ 85\n_It is necessary to sing with understanding_ ibid\nDavid\u2019s _Psalms still proper to be sung_ 89\n    _Imprecations therein how used_ 91\n_Of hymns of human composure_ 95\n_Scripture Psalms and hymns preferable_ 96\nQUEST. CLV. How the Word is made effectual to salvation 99\n_It enlightens and convinces of sin_ 101\n_It humbles and drives out of self_ 102\n_It draws to Christ_ 103\n_Other instances of its efficacy_ 104\nQUEST. CLVL, CLVII. The Word of God to be read by all 106\n_The Word is to be read publicly_ 107\n    _In families also, and in private_ 108\n    _How the Papists oppose this_ 109\n    _Their objections answered_ 110\n_Translation of scripture vindicated_ 112\n_How the scripture should be read_ 113\n    _Expositions to be consulted_ 117\n        _And various translations_ ibid\n    _Of marginal references_ 118\n    _Of supplemental additions_ 119\n_Texts to be compared with their contexts_ 121\n_One part of scripture illustrates another_ 122\n_Parallel scriptures to be compared_ 124\n_Rhetorical figures used in scripture_ 130\n_References there to different governments_ 135\n    _To the civil affairs of_ Jews _and others_ 136\n    _To civil and religious officers_ 139\n_Of_ Publicans, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans 140\n_General rules for explaining scripture_ 144\nQUEST. CLVIII, CLIX, CLX. Of preaching and hearing the Word 146\n_The qualifications of ministers_ 147\n    _How the word is to be preached_ 151\n    _Diligently, plainly, faithfully_ 152\n    _Wisely. Wherein this consists_ 154\n    _Zealously and sincerely_ 155\n_Duties to be performed_ 157\n    _Before hearing_ 158\n    _In hearing, and after it_ 159\nQUEST. CLXI, CLXII, CLXIII, CLXIV. Of the Sacraments 160\nSacrament. _Its meaning_ 161\n    _Its nature and matter_ ibid\n    _How a sign or seal_ 163\n    _To whom to be administered_ 166\n    _Benefits conveyed therein_ 167\n    _How effectual to salvation_ ibid\n    _By whom to be administered, in note_ 168\n_Various sacraments of old_ 171\n    _Now but two_ 172\nQUEST. CLXV. Of Baptism. 174\n_Baptism a gospel ordinance_ ibid\n    _Instituted by Christ_ 177\n    _Note_, \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 _a generic term_ 175\n    _In whose name to be performed_ 178\n    _What signified in it_ 179\n        _An expectation of privileges_ 181\n        _An acknowledgment of obligations_ ibid\n        _The right of children to it\u2014in a note_ 182\nQUEST. CLXVI. Of the subjects and mode of Baptism 183\n_To whom Baptism is not to be administered_ ibid\n_Infants of believers, their right to baptism_ 186\n    _By covenant\u2014a note_ 187-193\n    _May be dedicated in faith_ 187\n    _Are included in the covenant_ 194\n    _Are termed holy_ 196\n    _Were circumcised_ 198\n    _And ought to be baptized_ 199\n    _Objections answered, taken_\n        _From infants\u2019 want of grace_ 200\n        _From the want of precept or example_ 201\n        _From Christ\u2019s own Baptism_ 206\n_Infant baptism no novelty_ 207\n    _Practised by the ancient church_ ibid\n_Baptism an ordinance of dedication_ 186\n    _An objection answered_ ibid\n_How believers may dedicate their infants in faith_ 187\n    _An objection answered_ 194\n_Of the mode of Baptism_ 216\nBaptism, _the meaning of the word_ ibid\n    _To be performed by pouring or sprinkling_ 218\n    _Objections answered_ 219\n        _Persons going down into the water_ 220\n        John\u2019s _baptizing at_ \u00c6non 222\n        _Our being buried with Christ_ 225\n_Of the sign of the cross_ 228\n_Of sureties in Baptism_ ibid\nQUEST. CLXVII. How Baptism should be improved 229\nQUEST. CLXVIII, CLXIX, CLXX. Of the Lord\u2019s supper 234\n_The Lord\u2019s supper is a gospel ordinance_ 236\n        _It was instituted by Christ_ ibid\n        _By whom to be administered_ 237\n        _Of the elements, how consecrated_ ibid\n    _The actions to be performed_ 238\n    _The gesture to be used_ 239\n        _Of some Popish irregularities_ 240\n_Things signified in the Lord\u2019s supper_ 242\n_What faith should then fix on_ 244\n_Qualifications of communicants_ 245, 263\nQUEST. CLXXI. Of preparation for the Lord\u2019s supper 246\n_Of self examination_ ibid\n    _Things to be enquired into. Our state_ 247\n        _How this may be known_ ibid\n    _Our sense of sin_ 248\n    _Our wants_ 249\n    _Our knowledge of divine things_ 251\n    _The truth and degree of our graces_ 253\n    _Our love to the brethren_ 255\n        _How this may be discerned_ 256\nQUEST. CLXXII, CLXXIII. Who fit to be Communicants 258\n_Doubting Christians, their case_ 259\n    _Encouragement for them_ ibid\n    _Promises made to them_ 260\n    _Advice offered them_ 262\n_The wicked to be kept from the Lord\u2019s table_ 263\n    _Objections answered_ 264\nQUEST. CLXXIV, CLXXV. Of the duties required _in_ and _after_ receiving\nthe Lord\u2019s supper 268\n_What meditations proper at this ordinance_ 269\n    _Graces to be then exercised_ 270\n_We are to rejoice in Christ\u2019s love_ 273\n        _Properties of his love_ ibid\n    _To renew our covenant, and how_ 275\n    _To express a love to all saints_ 276\n_What behaviour unsuitable_ ibid\n_Vows, how to be made there_ 278\n    _How to be fulfilled_ ibid\n_A frequent attendance, how encouraged_ 280\nQUEST. CLXXVI, CLXXVII. Wherein Baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper agree, and\nwherein they differ 281-284\nQUEST. CLXXVIII. Of Prayer 285\n_Of the kinds and parts of prayer_ 287\n    _Confession of sin the duty of all_ 288\n        _An objection answered_ ibid\n    _How to be performed_ 290\n    _What sins to be confessed_ ibid\n        _The sin of our nature_ ibid\n        _And all actual transgressions_ 291\n_Thankfulness for mercies, a duty_ 293\n    _In every age and condition of life_ ibid\n        _For relative and personal mercies_ 294\nQUEST. CLXXIX, CLXXX, CLXXXI. To whom, and in whose name we must pray\n_We are to pray to God only_ 299\n    _What it is to pray in Christ\u2019s name_ 300\n    _Why we are to pray in his name_ 301\nQUEST. CLXXXII, CLXXXIII, CLXXXIV. Of the Spirit\u2019s help in prayer; for\nwhom and for what we are to pray 302\n_The Spirits assistance in prayer_ 303\n        _What this supposes_ ibid\n    _It respects the matter of prayer_ ibid\n        _The inward frame of heart_ 304\n        _And the success of the duty_ 306\n_Of raised affections in prayer_ 308\n_Persons to be prayed for, are_\n    _The whole church militant_ 309\n    _The ministers of Christ_ 311\n    _Our enemies, and all men living_ 312\n_Purgatory a fiction_ 315\n_The dead are not to be prayed for_ 314\n        _The opinion of the ancients about it_ 315\n    _Nor they who have sinned the sin unto death_ 318\n        _What that sin is_ ibid\n        _Whether now committed_ 319\n        _Doubts about it resolved_ 320\n_What things we are to pray for_ 322\nQUEST. CLXXXV. How we are to pray 323\n_With a suitable frame_ ibid\n    _In the exercise of grace_ 324\n    _What necessary thereunto_ 334\n_Of faith in prayer_ 329\n    _Promises of help in prayer_ 330\n    _Promises of God\u2019s hearing prayer_ 331\n_Objections against praying answered_ 332\n_Love to God to be exercised in prayer_ 333\n_Discouragements from praying removed_ 336\nQUEST. CLXXXVI, CLXXXVII. Of the Rule for our direction in prayer 338\n_How the word of God directs herein_ 339\n_What expressions equivalent to promises_ 342\n_Promises of outward blessings_ 344\n    _Of spiritual and temporal_ 345\n_Promises to the afflicted_ 346\n    _To the depressed in prayer_ 347\n    _Respecting ordinances_ 349\n    _Of grace and peace_ 350\n_How these are of use in prayer_ 351\n_Reproofs are of use in prayer_ 353\n_So are prayers recorded in Scripture_ 354\n_Inferences from these directions_ 355\n_The Lord\u2019s prayer a special direction_ 356\nQUEST. CLXXXVIII, CLXXXIX. The Preface of the Lord\u2019s Prayer explained\n_God, how a Father to men_ 360\n        _First known, then addressed as such_ 362\n    _How to be prayed to as being in heaven_ 365\n_Child-like dispositions required in us_ 364\nQUEST. CXC. The first Petition explained 368\n_God\u2019s name, what meant by it_ 369\n    _How he sanctifies it himself_ ibid\n    _How sanctified in redemption_ 370\n    _How under the legal dispensation_ 371\n    _How under the gospel_ 373\n_What intended by_, Hallowed be thy Name 375\n_What to be prayed for, that we may do it_ 376\n    _What to be deprecated to that end_ 379\n_When God\u2019s name is hallowed_ 381\n_How, when things are disposed to his glory_ 382\nQUEST. CXCI. The second Petition explained 384\n_Of God\u2019s providential kingdom_ 385\n    _Of his kingdom of grace_ 386\n_Satan\u2019s kingdom, how to be destroyed_ 387\n    _How we are to pray for its destruction_ 388\n_Christ\u2019s kingdom, how to be advanced_ 389\n    _How we are to pray for its advancement_ 390\n    _And that his kingdom of glory may come_ 394\nQUEST. CXCII, The third Petition explained 396\n_Of prayer to an unchangeable God\u2014in note_ 397-402\n_Our averseness to the will of God_ 402\n_Of praying that his will may be done_ 403\nQUEST. CXCIII. The fourth Petition explained 407\n_What supposed in praying for daily bread_ 407\n    _What intended in praying for bread_ 409\n        _Why we call it ours_ 410\n_What we are to understand by_ this day 411\n_This petition respects ourselves and others_ 412\nQUEST. CXCIV. The fifth Petition explained 414\n_The case of man when charged with guilt_ 415\n    _Pardon, none but God can give it_ 417\n    _All are to pray for it_ 418\n    _How God is to be considered when we pray thus_ 420\n_Of our forgiving others_ 425\n    _What meant thereby_ 424\n    _Arguments to induce thereunto_ 426\n    _Of doing it without satisfaction_ ibid\n        _An objection answered_ 428\n    _When a sign of God\u2019s forgiving us_ 429\nQUEST. CXCV. The sixth Petition explained 431\n_What this Petition supposes_ 432\n_How God tempts, and why_ 433\n_God not the cause of sin\u2014in note_ 433-435\nDeliver us from evil, _how understood_ 438\n_Temptations arise from prosperity_ 439\n    _From adversity_ 441\n    _From the flesh_ 442\n    _From Satan_ 443\n        _When from him, and when from ourselves_ 445\n_Remarks upon Satan\u2019s temptations_ 446\n    _They increase sin_ 448\n    _Are suited to every age_ 449\n    _And to the tempers of men_ 451\n    _He endeavours to prevent conviction_ 452\n    _To hinder preaching the gospel_ 453\n    _To prevent closing with Christ_ 454\n    _He injects blasphemous thoughts_ 457\n    _He tempts to despair_ 458\n_How we are to pray against temptation_ 461\nQUEST. CXCVI. What the conclusion of the Lord\u2019s Prayer teacheth 465\n_The Doxology explained_ 466\n    _The pleas contained in it_ 467\n_The meaning of the word_ Amen 468\n_Whether all should say aloud_, Amen 471\n   THE _DOCTRINES_ OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED.\n                  Quest. CXXXVII., CXXXVIII., CXXXIX.\n    QUEST. CXXXVII. _Which is the seventh Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The seventh Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not commit\n    adultery._]\n    QUEST. CXXXVIII. _What are the duties required in the seventh\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the seventh Commandment, are, chastity\n    in body, mind, affections, words, and behaviour; and the\n    preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the\n    eyes, and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company,\n    modesty in apparel, marriage by those that have not the gift of\n    continency; conjugal love, and cohabitation, diligent labour in our\n    callings, shunning all occasions of uncleanness, resisting\n    temptations thereunto.\n    QUEST. CXXXIX. _What are the sins forbidden in the seventh\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the seventh Commandment, besides the\n    neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape,\n    incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts, all unclean imaginations,\n    thoughts, purposes, and affections, all corrupt or filthy\n    communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent, or\n    light behaviour; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and\n    dispensing with unlawful marriages, allowing, tolerating, keeping of\n    stews, and resorting to them; intangling vows of single life; undue\n    delay of marriage, having more wives or husbands than one, at the\n    same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony,\n    drunkenness, unchaste company, lascivious songs, books, pictures,\n    dancings, stage plays, and all other provocations to, or acts of\n    uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.\nThis Commandment respects, more especially, the government of the\naffections, and the keeping our minds and bodies in such an holy frame,\nthat nothing impure, immodest, or contrary to the strictest chastity,\nmay defile, or be a reproach to us, or insinuate itself into our\nconversation with one another. And, in order thereunto, we are to set a\nstrict watch over our thoughts and actions, and avoid every thing that\nmay be an occasion of this sin, and use those proper methods that may\nprevent all temptations to it. Therefore we ought to associate ourselves\nwith none but those whose conversation is chaste, and such as becomes\nChristians, to abhor all words and actions that are not so much as to be\nnamed among persons professing godliness. As for those who cannot,\nwithout inconveniency, govern their affections, but are sometimes\ntempted to any thing that is inconsistent with that purity of heart and\nlife, which all ought religiously to maintain, it is their duty to enter\ninto a married state; which is an ordinance that God has appointed, to\nprevent the breach of this Commandment. And this leads us to consider\nthe sins forbidden therein, together with the occasions thereof.\nI. Concerning the sins forbidden in this Commandment. And,\n1. Some are not only contrary to nature, but inconsistent with the least\npretences to religion; which were abhorred by the very Heathen\nthemselves, and, by the law of God, punished with death; which\npunishment, when it has not been inflicted, God has, by his immediate\nhand, testified his vengeance against sinners, by raining down fire and\nbrimstone from heaven, as he did upon the inhabitants of Sodom and\n28. Gen. xix. 24. These sins are called in this answer, incest, sodomy,\nand unnatural lusts. To which we may add, offering violence to others,\nand thereby forcing them to do what they could not even think of, but\nwith abhorrence; this is called rape; and, by the law of God, the guilty\nperson was punished with death, Deut. xxii. 25.\n2. There are other sins, whereby this Commandment is violated; which,\nthough more common, are, nevertheless, such as are attended with a very\ngreat degree of guilt and impurity. These are either, such as are\ncommitted by those who are unmarried, _viz._ fornication, or by those\nwho are married, as adultery; the latter of which, by the law of God,\nwas punished with death, Lev. xx. 10. as contained in it several\naggravating circumstances; inasmuch as hereby the marriage contract is\nviolated; that mutual affection, which is the end of that relation\nbroken; and thereby the greatest injury is done to the innocent as well\nas ruin brought on the guilty. However, both these sins agree in this,\nthat they proceed from a corrupt heart; as our Saviour says, Mat. xv.\n19. and argue the person that is guilty of them, alienated from the life\nof God. And to this we may add,\n3. That, another sin forbidden in this Commandment is, polygamy, or a\nhaving more husbands, or wives, than one, at the same time; together\nwith that which often accompanies it, _viz._ concubinage. It is beyond\ndispute, that many good men have been guilty of this sin, as appears by\nwhat is recorded, in scripture, concerning Abraham, Jacob, David, _&c._\nand we do not find that they are expressly reproved for it, which has\ngiven occasion to some modern writers, to think that it was not unlawful\nin those ages, but was afterwards rendered so by being prohibited under\nthe gospel-dispensation[1]. This, indeed, cuts the knot of a very\nconsiderable difficulty; but it contains another that is equally great;\ninasmuch as hereby it does not appear to be contrary to the law of\nnature; and therefore I would rather chuse to take another method to\nsolve it, viz. that many bad actions of good men are recorded in\nscripture, but not approved of, nor proposed for our imitation. Of this\nkind I must conclude the polygamy and concubinage of several holy men,\nmentioned in scripture, to have been. And that it may appear that this\npractice was not justifiable, let it be observed,\n(1.) That, some sin or other is often expressly mentioned, as the\noccasion hereof. Thus Abraham\u2019s taking Hagar, was occasioned by Sarah\u2019s\nunbelief; because the promise of her having a son was not immediately\nfulfilled, Gen. xvi. 1, 2. And Jacob\u2019s taking Rachel to wife after Leah,\nand his own discontent arising from it, was occasioned by Laban\u2019s unjust\ndealing with him, and his going in unto Bilhah, was occasioned by\nRachel\u2019s unreasonable desire of children; and his taking Zilpah, by\nLeah\u2019s ambitious desire of having pre-eminence over Rachel, by the\nnumber of her children, chap. xxix, and xxx.\n(2.) This was generally attended with the breach of that peace, which is\nso desirable a blessing in families, and many disorders that ensued\nhereupon. Accordingly, we read of an irreconcilable quarrel that there\nwas between Sarah and Hagar; and Ishmael\u2019s hatred of Isaac, which the\napostle calls _persecution_, Gal. iv. 39. And to this we may add, the\ncontentions that were in Jacob\u2019s family, and the envy expressed by the\nchildren of one of his wives, against those of another; and the\nopposition which one wife often expressed to another as that of\nPeninnah, one of the wives of Elkanah, to Hannah, the other. Therefore\nwe must conclude, that Isaac\u2019s example is rather to be followed in this\nmatter, who had but one wife, and he loved her better than many of the\npatriarch\u2019s did theirs; whose love was divided among several.\n_Object._ 1. If polygamy was a sin against the light of nature, it is\nstrange, that it should be committed by good men; and, that they should\nlive and die without repenting of it, nor be, in the least, reproved for\nit; as we do not find that they were, in scripture.\n_Answ._ It was indeed, a sin, which they might have known to be so, had\nthey duly considered it, in all its circumstances and consequences; but\nthis they did not; and therefore it was not so great a sin in them, as\nit would be in us, who have clearer discoveries of the heinous nature of\nit. Therefore, if we suppose they repented of all sin agreeably to the\nlight they had, they might be saved; and this, though unrepented of, was\nno bar to their salvation, supposing they knew it not to be a sin; and\nGod\u2019s not having explicitly reproved them for it, argues only his\nforbearance, but not his approbation of it.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that God says, by Nathan, to David,\n_I gave thee thy master\u2019s wives into thy bosom_, 2 Sam. xii. 8.\ntherefore, that which God gives, it is not unlawful for man to receive.\n_Answ._ The meaning of that scripture in general, is, that God made him\nking; and then, according to the custom of the eastern kings, he took\npossession of what belonged to his predecessor, and consequently of his\nwives. Therefore God might be said to give David Saul\u2019s wives\nprovidentially, in giving him the kingdom; so that they were his\nproperty, that he might take them for his own, according to custom, if\nhe was inclined so to do. And this the kings of Judah generally did;\nthough it does not follow from hence that God approved of it; in like\nmanner as tyrants may be said to be raised up by God\u2019s providence and\npermission; nevertheless, he does not approve of their tyranny.\nAll that we shall add, under this head, to what has been suggested,\nconcerning the disorders that polygamy has occasioned in families, is,\nthat it is contrary to the first institution of marriage. God created\nbut one woman as an help-meet for Adam; though, if ever there were any\npretence for the necessity of one man\u2019s having more wives, it must have\nbeen in that instance, in which it seemed necessary for the increase of\nthe world; but he rather chose that mankind should be propagated by\nslower advances, than to give the least dispensation, or indulgence to\npolygamy, as being contrary to the law of nature, Gen. ii. 22,-24. And\nthe prophet, in Mal. ii. 15. takes notice of God\u2019s _making but one_;\nthough he had _the residue of the Spirit_; and therefore could have\ngiven Adam more wives than one. And the reason assigned for this was,\nthat _he might seek a godly seed_, i. e. that the children that should\nbe born of many wives, might not be the result of the ungodly practice\nof their father, as it would be, were this contrary to the law of\nnature; which we suppose it to be. This I rather understand by _a godly\nseed_, and not that the character of _godly_ refers to the children; for\nthese could not be said to be godly, or ungodly, as the consequence of\ntheir parents having one or more wives.\nThere is one scripture more that I cannot wholly pass over, which, to\nme, seems a plain prohibition of polygamy, in Levit. xviii. 18. _Thou\nshalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her\nnakedness, besides the other in her life-time._ This respects either\nincest or polygamy; one of which must be meant by _taking a wife to her\nsister_. Now it cannot be a prohibition of incest; because it is said,\n_Thou shalt not_ do it _in her life-time_; which plainly intimates, that\nit might be done after her death. Whereas it is certainly contrary to\nthe law of God and nature, for a person to take his wife\u2019s sister after\nher decease, as well as in her life-time. Therefore the meaning is, Thou\nshalt not take another wife to her whom thou hast married; by which\nmeans they will become sisters. And here is another reason assigned\nhereof, _viz._ the envy, jealousy, and vexation that would attend such a\npractice, as the taking another wife would be a means of vexing, or\nmaking her uneasy. And therefore the sense is, as is observed in the\nmarginal reading; _Thou shalt not take one wife to another_; or, Thou\nshalt not have more wives than one. This is a plain prohibition of this\nsin; but whether some holy men, in following ages, understood the\nmeaning of this law, may be questioned; and therefore they were not\nsensible of the guilt they hereby contracted. Thus we have considered\nsome of the sins forbidden in this Commandment. Every particular\ninstance of the breach hereof, would exceed our intended brevity, on the\nsubject we are treating of. Therefore,\nWe shall proceed to consider the aggravations, more especially, of the\nsins of fornication and adultery; which may also with just reason, be\napplied to all other unnatural lusts; which have been before considered\nas a breach of this Commandment. And,\n[1.] They are opposite to sanctification, even as darkness is to light,\nhell to heaven; thus the apostle opposes fornication and uncleanness, to\n[2.] These sins are inconsistent with that relation, we pretend to stand\nin, to Christ, as members of his body; inasmuch as we join ourselves in\na confederacy with his profligate enemies, 1 Cor. vi. 15, 16. And to\nthis we may add, that they are a dishonour to, and a defilement of our\nown bodies, which ought to be the temples of the Holy Ghost, and\ntherefore should be consecrated to him.\n[3.] They bring guilt and ruin on two persons at once, as well as a blot\nand stain on each of their families, and a wound to religion by those\nwho make any profession of it, as it _gives occasion to the enemies of\nthe Lord to blaspheme_, Prov. vi. 33. 2 Sam. xii. 14.\n[4.] They bring with them many other sins; as they tend to vitiate the\naffections, deprave the mind, defile the conscience, and provoke God to\ngive persons up to spiritual judgments, which will end in their running\ninto all excess of riot.\nAnd to this we may add, that many sad consequences will ensue on the\ncommission of these sins; as they tend to blast and ruin their substance\nin the world, Job xxxi. 9, 11, 12. debase and stupify the soul, and\ndeprive it of wisdom, Hos. iv. 11. Prov. vi. 32. chap. vii. 22. wound\nthe conscience, and expose the person who is guilty hereof, to the\nutmost hazard of perishing for ever, chap. vi. 33. chap. vii. 13, 19,\n26, 27. And if God is pleased to give him repentance, it will be\nattended with great bitterness, Eccl. vii. 26.\nII. We are now to consider the occasion of these sins to be avoided by\nthose who would not break this Commandment, and these are,\n1. Intemperance, or excess in eating or drinking; the former of which is\na making provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof; the\nlatter confounds and buries the little reason a person was master of,\nand makes him an easy prey to temptation. This was Lot\u2019s case, who kept\nhis integrity in Sodom; yet being made drunk by his daughters in Zoar,\nhe committed the abominable sin of incest with them, Gen. xix. 31.\n2. Idleness, consisting either in the neglect of business, or indulging\ntoo much sleep, which occasions many temptations. Thus David first gave\nway to sloth, and then was tempted to uncleanness; and it is observed,\nthat _at the time when kings go forth to battle_, 2 Sam. xi. 1, 2. and\nhe ought to have been with his army in the field, he tarried at\nJerusalem, and slept in the middle of the day; for _in the evening tide\nhe arose from off his bed_; And the heinous sin he was guilty of, which\nwas the greatest blemish in his life, ensued hereupon.\n3. Pride in apparel, or other ornaments, beyond the bounds of modesty,\nor for other ends than what God, when he clothed man at first, intended;\nwhen our attire is inconsistent with our circumstances in the world, or\nthe character of persons professing godliness: This God reproves the\nJews for, when grown very degenerate, and near to ruin, Isa. iii. 16,\n_&c._ _seq._ And Jezebel, when Jehu came in quest of her, _painted her\nface, and tired her head_; but this did not prevent his executing God\u2019s\nrighteous judgments upon her. All these things are mentioned as the sins\nfor which Sodom was infamous; and gave occasion to those other\nabominations, which provoked God to destroy them, Ezek. xvi. 49. And to\nthis we may add,\n4. Keeping evil company: Thus it is said of the lewd woman, _she hath\ncast down many wounded_, Prov. vii. 26. This will hasten our own ruin;\nespecially if we associate ourselves with such persons out of choice:\nfor it is a sign that our hearts are exceedingly depraved and alienated\nfrom God: Nevertheless, if Providence cast our lot amongst bad company,\nwe may escape that guilt and defilement, which would otherwise ensue, if\nwe bear our testimony against their sin, and are _grieved_ for it, as\nLot was for the filthy conversation of the Sodomites, among whom he\ndwelt, 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8. Moreover, the frequenting those places where\nthere are mixed dancing, masquerades, stage-plays, _&c._ which tend to\ncorrupt the principles and practices, and seldom fail of defiling the\nconsciences, and manners of those who attend on them: These are\nnurseries of vice, and give occasion to this sin, and many others, Prov.\nvi. 27, compared with 32.\nAs for the remedies against it, these are, an exercising a constant\nwatchfulness against all temptations thereunto, chap. viii. 9. avoiding\nall conversation with men or books which tend to corrupt the mind, and\nfill it with levity, under a pretence of improving it: But more\nespecially a retaining a constant sense of God\u2019s all-seeing eye, his\ninfinite purity and vindictive justice, which will induce us to say as\nJoseph did, in the like case, _How can I do this great wickedness and\nsin against God_, Gen. xxxix. 9.[2]\nFootnote 1:\n  _Vid. Grot. de jur. bell. & pacis, Lib. ii. cap. v. \u00a7 9._\nFootnote 2:\n  The Theatre is said to have commenced at Athens, but to have been so\n  much disapproved of, both in Greece and at Rome, that it was allowed\n  no permanency till the days of Pompey. Minutius Felix derided the\n  Christians for abstaining from this amusement. It is not probable\n  therefore that the first Christians required any reproof in any of the\n  Epistles for this vice. But every abuse of it may find its correction\n  in scripture. Morals and piety may be thrown into Dialogue without\n  reasonable objection. But to turn these things into play, and the\n  amusement of the reprobate, cannot be justified.\u2014There is no fairness\n  in arguing from what they might be, to prove the lawfulness of plays\n  in the state in which they are, always have been, and will probably\n  always be. That they are, and tend to evil is proved by the avidity\n  with which they are frequented by even the worst members of society.\n  They are calculated to excite the affections and passions in the\n  highest manner, and so to render private happiness, domestic\n  enjoyments, and religious observances insipid or disgusting. The\n  reiteration of scenes of impurity, illicit amours, extravagant\n  passions, jealousy, and revenge, will make a silent and secret\n  impression upon the mind, and if they do not promote the same\n  wickedness, they will at least render the mind less abhorrent of such\n  crimes. True religion requires the exclusion of such imaginations, the\n  immediate banishment of such thoughts, that we should mortify and deny\n  ourselves; \u201c_Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God._\u201d\n  The cruelty and bloodshed frequently threatened, or resorted to in\n  defence of false honour; the pomp, pride, and ambition not\n  unfrequently exhibited upon the stage, must necessarily prompt to like\n  feats in vindication of character, or at least lead to self-importance\n  and fastidiousness; but the gospel teaches humility, self-denial,\n  lowliness of mind; \u201c_Blessed are the poor in spirit._\u201d When such\n  representations please, they prove the mind corrupt, and become an\n  index of the morals of those who are entertained with such spectacles.\n  The Christian duties of meekness, silence, forbearance, humility,\n  bearing the cross, faith, and repentance, are either incapable of\n  being transferred to the stage, or if seen there are exposed to\n  contempt, and ridicule. The addresses to Deity, and prayers there\n  offered, are surely Heaven-provoking blasphemies. The Theatre\n  interrupts religious, domestic, and public duties; it dissipates and\n  fascinates the mind; weakens conscience, grieves the Holy Spirit,\n  wastes property, and time; and unqualifies both for this, and the\n  world to come.\n  Every one who attends is chargeable with the evil which obtains before\n  him, for he goes voluntarily, he submits himself as to the matter of\n  his amusement to others, and thus with the blessings of Providence,\n  bribes the enemies of God to blaspheme him.\n  Some men of character for morals have countenanced, and some have\n  written for the stage, perhaps they calculated upon what it might be,\n  and aimed to correct the evil by drawing to it the more respectable of\n  society. But the great majority of men are enemies to God, these will\n  only be pleased with evil, and their pleasure will always be sought,\n  because interest will compel to this. This is therefore doing evil\n  that good may come; if indeed it can under any circumstances be good,\n  to turn even correct performances, if such there were, into publick\n  amusement.\n  After all there can be no hope of a total removal of this evil, yet we\n  are on this account no more excused from bearing testimony against it,\n  than from opposing other crimes which cannot be wholly prevented.\n    QUEST. CXL. _Which is the eighth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The eighth Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not steal._]\n    QUEST. CXLI. _What are the duties required in the eighth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the eighth Commandment are, truth,\n    faithfulness, and justice in contracts, and commerce between man and\n    man; rendering to every one his due; restitution of goods unlawfully\n    detained from the right owners thereof; giving, and lending freely,\n    according to our abilities, and the necessities of others;\n    moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections, concerning\n    worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and\n    dispose those things which are necessary and convenient for the\n    sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful\n    calling, and diligence in it; frugality, avoiding unnecessary\n    law-suits, and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an\n    endeavour, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and\n    further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.\nThis Commandment supposes, that God has given to every one a certain\nportion of the good things of this world, that he may lay claim to as\nhis own; which no other has a right to. The general scope and design\nthereof, is to put us upon using endeavours to promote our own and our\nneighbour\u2019s wealth and outward estate. As to what concerns ourselves, it\nrespects the government of our affections, and setting due bounds to our\ndesires of worldly things, that they may not exceed what the good\nprovidence of God has allotted for us, in order to our comfortable\npassage through this world. Thus Agar prays, _Give me neither poverty\nnor riches; feed me with food convenient for me_, Prov. xxx. 8.\nAs to what respects our endeavours to gain the world; it requires a due\ncare and diligence, to get, and keep a competency thereof; that we may\nnot, through our own default, expose ourselves to those straits and\nnecessities which are the consequence of sloth and negligence, chap.\nxxiii. 21. chap. xxiv. 30, 31. God may, indeed, give estates to some\nwithout any pains, or care to get them, Deut. vi. 10, 11. yet, even in\nthis case, sloth is a sin which brings with it many hurtful lusts, that\nrender riches a snare, and hindrance to their spiritual welfare:\nTherefore they, who are in prosperous circumstances in the world, ought\nnot to lay aside all care and industry to improve, what they have to the\nglory of God. But, on the other hand, they who are in a low condition,\nought to use a provident care and diligence, in order to their having a\ncomfortable subsistence therein. Accordingly this Commandment obliges us\nto use all lawful endeavours to promote our own and our neighbour\u2019s\nwealth, and outward estate.\nI. To promote our own wealth and estate. This we are to do,\n1. By frugality in our expences, avoiding profuseness; and that, either\nin giving away our substance to unfit objects, to wit, those who are in\nbetter circumstances than ourselves, who ought to be givers rather than\nreceivers, Prov. xxii. 16. or else in making large contributions to\nsupport a bad cause, and in consuming our substance on our lusts.\nLikewise when we are unwarily profuse in those expences, which would be\notherwise lawful, did they not exceed our circumstances or income in the\nworld, which contains a disregard of the future estate of our families,\nand taking a method to reduce ourselves and them to poverty, 1 Tim. v.\n8. Or, if our circumstances will admit of large expenses; yet, to abound\ntherein, merely out of ostentation, and at the same time, to withhold\nour liberality from the poor is inconsistent with frugality.\n2. We ought also to be diligent, and industrious in our calling; and, in\norder thereunto,\n(1.) We are wisely to make choice of such a calling, in which we may\nglorify God, and expect his blessing, in order to the promoting our\nwealth and outward estate; therefore that business is to be chosen which\nwe are most capable of managing, and has in itself the fewest\ntemptations attending it; especially such wherein the conscience is not\nburdened by unlawful oaths, or prostituting solemn ordinances, not\ndesigned by Christ as a qualification for them. Moreover, we are not to\nchoose those callings wherein the gain is obtained by oppression or\nextortion, and which cannot be managed without danger of sinning; which\nwill bring the blast of providence on all our undertakings. Therefore we\nare earnestly to desire God\u2019s direction in this weighty concern, as well\nas depend on him for success therein, Eccl. ix. 11. Deut. viii. 18.\n(2.) When we have made choice of a lawful calling, we are to manage it\nin such a way, that we may expect the blessing of God, in order to the\npromoting our wealth and outward estate. Accordingly,\n[1.] Let us pursue and manage it with right and warrantable ends, to\nwit, the glory of God; and, in subordination thereunto, our providing\nfor ourselves and families, that we may be in a capacity of doing good\nto others, and serving the interest of Christ in our day and generation.\n[2.] Let us take heed that our secular employments do not rob God of\nthat time, which ought to be devoted to his worship; and that our hearts\nbe not alienated from him, so that while we are labouring for the world,\nwe should live without God therein.\n[3.] Let us take heed that we do not launch out too far, or run too\ngreat hazards in trade, resolving that we will be suddenly rich or poor,\nwhich may tend to the ruin of our own families, as well as others, 1\nTim. vi. 9.\n[4.] Let us bear disappointments in our callings, with patience and\nsubmission to the will of God, without murmuring or repining at his wise\nand sovereign dispensations of providence herein.\nII. This Commandment obliges us to promote the wealth and outward estate\nof our neighbour. This we are to do, by exercising strict justice in our\ncontracts and dealings with all men; and by relieving the wants and\nnecessities of those who stand in need of our charity.\n1. As to what respects the exercise of justice in our dealings.\n(1.) We must take heed, that we do not exact upon, or take unreasonable\nprofit of those whom we deal with, arising from the ignorance of some,\nand the necessities of others, Jer. iii. 15. Neither, must we use any\nmethods to supplant and ruin others, against the laws of trade, by\nselling goods at a cheaper rate than any one can afford them, thereby\ndoing damage to ourselves with a design to ruin them, who are less able\nto bear such a loss.\n(2.) Those goods, which we know to be faulty, are not, by false arts, or\ndeceitful words, to be sold, as though they were not so, Amos viii. 6.\nAnd, on the other hand, the buyer is not to take advantage of the\nignorance of the seller, as it sometimes happens; neither is he to\npretend that it is worth less than he really thinks it to be, Prov. xx.\n(3.) Nothing is to be diminished in weight or measure, from what was\nbought, worse goods to be delivered than what were purchased, Amos vii.\n5. nor the _balances to be falsified by deceit_, Deut. xxv. 13, 14, 15.\n2. We are to promote the good of our poor distressed neighbour, in works\nof charity; and that not only by inward sympathy, or bowels of\ncompassion towards him; but according to our ability, by relieving him.\nTo induce us hereunto, let us consider, that outward good things are\ntalents given us, with this view, that hereby we may be in a capacity of\nhelping others, as well as be needing help ourselves. And when we do\nthis, we may be said to improve what we have received from God, as those\nwho are accountable to him for it, and testify our gratitude to him for\noutward blessings. It may also be considered, that Christ takes such\nacts of kindness, when proceeding from an unfeigned love to him, as done\nto himself, Matt. xxv. 40. Prov. xix. 17. And, to this we may add, that\nthere are many special motives, taken from the objects of our charity,\nnamely, the pressing necessities of some, the excelling holiness of\nothers; and, in some instances, we may consider, that, by an act of\ncharity, whereby we relieve one, we do good to many; or the tendency\nthat this may have to promote the interest of Christ in general, when we\nrelieve those that suffer for the sake of the gospel. This leads us to\nconsider,\n(1.) Of whom works of charity are required. If this be duly weighed, we\nshall find, that scarce any are exempted from this duty, except it be\nthose of whom it may be said, there are none poorer than themselves, or\nwho have no more than what is absolutely necessary to support their\nfamilies, or such as are labouring hard, to spare out of their necessary\nexpenses, what will but just serve to pay their debts; or they who are\nreduced to such straits as to depend upon others, so that they can call\nnothing they have their own.\nNevertheless, this duty is incumbent;\n[1.] On the rich, out of their abundance.\n[2.] On those who are in middle circumstances in the world, who have a\nsufficiency to lay out in superfluous expenses: And,\n[3.] Even the poor ought to give a small testimony of their gratitude to\nGod, by sparing a little, if they can, out of what they get in the\nworld, for those who are poorer than themselves; which, if it be but a\nfew mites, it may be an acceptable sacrifice to God, Luke xxi. 2, 4.\nand, if persons have nothing before hand in the world, they ought to\nwork for this end, as well as to maintain themselves and families, Eph.\n(2.) We are now to consider, who are to be reckoned objects of our\ncharity. To which it may be answered; Not the rich, who stand in no need\nof it, from whom we may expect a sufficient requital, Luke xiv. 12, 13,\n14. nor those who are strong and healthy, but yet make a trade of\nbegging, because it is an idle and sometimes a profitable way of living,\n2 Thess. iii. 10-12. But such are to be relieved, who are not able to\nwork; especially if they were not reduced to poverty by their own sloth\nand negligence, but by the providence of God not succeeding their\nendeavours; and if, while they were able, they were ready to all works\nof charity themselves, 1 Tim. v. 10. and to these we may add, such who\nare related to us, either in the bonds of nature, or in a spiritual\nsense, Gal. vi. 10. This leads us to enquire,\n(3.) What part, or proportion of our substance, we are to apply to\ncharitable uses? In answer to this, let it be considered, that the\ncircumstances of persons in the world being so various, as well as their\nnecessary occasions for extraordinary expenses, it is impossible to give\na general rule, to be observed by all. However, it must be premised,\n[1.] That our present contributions, ought not to preclude all thoughts,\nabout laying up for ourselves or families, for time to come.\n[2.] Whatever proportion we give of our gain in the world, some\nabatements may reasonably be made for losses in trade; especially if\nwhat we give was not determined, or laid aside, for that use before the\nloss happened. As to what may farther be observed concerning this\nmatter, it ought to be left to the impartial determination of every one,\nwho is to act, as being sensible that he is accountable to God herein.\nThe apostle lays down one general rule; _Every man, according as he\npurposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of\nnecessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver_, 2 Cor. ix. 7. But though we\npretend not to determine the exact proportion which ought to be given,\n_viz._ whether it be a tenth part of their profits, or more, or less;\nyet it is highly reasonable, that every one should contribute as much in\nworks of charity, as he lays out in mere superfluities; or, at least,\nspare a part out of his superfluous expenses, for charitable uses. And\nthere are some occasions which may call for large contributions. Thus\n_the churches in Macedonia_ are commended, not only for their _giving\naccording to_, but _beyond their power_, chap. viii. 1, 2, 3. _Three_\nthings may be here considered,\n_1st_, The extreme necessities of those whom we are bound to take care\nof; and, sometimes, the distressed circumstances of the church of God,\nin general, require larger contributions than ordinary; which was the\noccasion of the Command mentioned by our Saviour, of selling all, and\ngiving to the poor, which was put in practice in the infancy of the\nchurch, or the first planting of the gospel, at Jerusalem.\n_2dly_, Extraordinary instances of the kindness of God, in prospering\nus, either in worldly or spiritual concerns, beyond our expectation,\ncall for extraordinary expressions of gratitude to God, in laying by for\nthe poor, 1 Cor. xvi. 2.\n_3dly_, When we have committed great sins, or are under very humbling\nprovidences, whether personal or national, as being exposed to, or\nfearing the judgments of God, which seem to be approaching; this calls\nfor deep humiliation, and, together therewith, proportionable acts of\ncharity.\n(4.) We are now to consider, with what frame of spirit works of charity\nare to be performed? To which, it may be answered, that they are to be\nperformed prudently, as our own circumstances will permit, and the\nnecessity of the object requires; also seasonably, not putting this duty\noff till another time, when the necessities of those, whom we are bound\nto relieve, call for present assistance, Prov. ii. 28. It is also to be\ndone secretly, as not desiring to be seen of men, or commended by them\nfor it, Matt. vi. 3, 4, and cheerfully, 2 Cor. ix. 7. also with\ntenderness and compassion to those whose necessities call for relief, as\nconsidering how soon God can reduce us to the same extremity which they\nare exposed to, who are the objects of our charity. It ought to be done\nlikewise with thankfulness to God, that has made us givers, rather than\nreceivers, Acts x. 35. and, as a testimony of our love to Christ,\nespecially when we contribute to the necessities of his members, Matt.\n    QUEST. CXLII. _What are the sins forbidden in the eighth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the eighth Commandment, besides the\n    neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing,\n    and receiving any thing that is stolen, fraudulent dealing, false\n    weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and\n    unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of\n    trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious law-suits,\n    unjust inclosures, and depopulations; ingrossing commodities to\n    enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust, or\n    sinful ways of taking, or withholding from our neighbour what\n    belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves. Covetousness, inordinate\n    prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting\n    cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them, envying at\n    the prosperity of others. As likewise idleness, prodigality,\n    wasteful gaming, and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice\n    our own outward estate; and defrauding ourselves of the due use and\n    comfort of that estate which God hath given us.\nThis Commandment forbids, in general all kind of theft; and may include\nin it that which is very seldom called by this name, to wit, the robbing\nof ourselves and families; which we may be said to do, by neglecting our\nworldly calling, or by the imprudent management thereof. Also, by\nlending larger sums of money than our circumstances will well bear, to\nthose who are never like to pay it again; or, which is in effect the\nsame, by being surety for such. Moreover we rob ourselves and families,\nby being profuse and excessive in our expenses; and by consuming what we\nhave, while pursuing our pleasures more than business; or by gaming,\nwhereby we run the risque of losing part of our substance, and thereby\nreducing ourselves, or others, to poverty. On the other hand, we rob\nourselves and families, when, out of a design to lay up a great deal for\nthe time to come, we deprive ourselves and them, of the common\nnecessaries of life, which is, in effect, to starve for the present, to\nprevent our starving for the future. But, passing this by, we shall\nconsider this Commandment more especially, as it respects our defrauding\nothers; and this is done,\nI. By taking away any part of their wealth, or worldly substance. This\nis generally known by the name of theft, and that, with the greatest\nseverity, in proportion to its aggravations; and they who are guilty of\nit, are, without repentance, excluded from the kingdom of God, 1 Cor.\nvi. 9, 10. However, let it be considered, that every kind of theft does\nnot deserve an equal degree of punishment from men; for sometimes hereby\nthe owner of what was stolen, receives but little damage; though in this\ncase, some punishment, short of death, ought to be inflicted, to reform\nthe wicked person, and deter him from going on in the breach of this\nCommandment, from less to greater sins.\nBy the law of God, a simple theft was punished with restitution of\ndouble, and sometimes, four times as much as the damage amounted to,\nwhich was sustained thereby, Exod. xxii. 1, 4, 7. Yet, in other cases,\nthe theft was punished with death, when it had in it some circumstances\nthat aggravated it in an uncommon degree; as if an house, which ought to\nbe reckoned a man\u2019s castle, be broke open, and that, in the night-time,\nwhen he is in no condition of defending himself, or his worldly\nsubstance. In this case the law is not unjust, that punishes the thief\nwith death; and this is supposed in that law which says, that he that\nkills such an one who _breaks up_ his neighbour\u2019s house by night, shall\nhave _no blood shed for him_, ver. 2. But, in other instances,\nconfinement, and hard labour, may be as effectual a way to put a stop to\nthis sin; and is rather to be chosen than punishment with death. Thus\nconcerning this Commandment, as broken by theft.\nII. It is farther broken, by unfaithfulness, or breach of trust; whether\nthe trust he devolved on us by nature, as that of parents towards their\nchildren; or by contract, as that of servants, who are entrusted with\nthe goods and secrets of their masters; or, that which is founded in the\ndesire and request of those who constitute persons executors to their\nwills, or guardians to orphans, under age, provided they accept of this\ntrust; I say, if these violate their trust, by embezzling or squandering\naway the substance of others, defrauding them, to enrich themselves.\nThis is not only theft, but perfidiousness, and highly provoking to God;\nand deserves a more severe punishment from men, than is usually\ninflicted.\nIII. This Commandment may be said to be broken, by borrowing, and not\npaying just debts; as the Psalmist says, _The wicked borroweth and\npayeth not again_, Psal. xxxvii. 21. Nevertheless, there are some cases\nin which a man is not guilty hereof, though he borrows and does not pay,\n_viz._ If, when he borrowed, there was a probability of his being able\nto repay it; or otherwise, if he discovered his circumstances fully to\nhim, of whom he borrowed, to whom it would hereby appear, whether there\nwas any likelihood of paying him or not; or if he gave full conviction,\nwhen he borrowed, that he was able to pay, but the providence of God,\nwithout his own default, has rendered him unable; in this case mercy is\nto be shewn him, and he is not to be reckoned a breaker of this\nCommandment. However, a person is guilty of the breach hereof, in\nborrowing, and not paying debts.\n1. If the borrower pretends his circumstances to be better than they\nare, and so makes the lender believe, that, in a limited time, he shall\nbe able to repay him; when, in his own conscience, he apprehends that\nthere is no probability hereof.\n2. When a person was in such circumstances at the time of his borrowing,\nthat by industry in his calling, he might be able to pay the creditor;\nbut, by neglect of business, or embezzling his substance, he renders\nhimself unable to pay, such an one is chargeable with the breach of this\nCommandment.\n3. If pity be shewn, by compounding for a part, instead of the whole\ndebt, in case of present insolvency; though the debtor, in form of law,\nbe discharged, with the creditor\u2019s consent; yet the law of God and\nnature, obliges him to pay the whole debt, if providence makes him able\nhereafter; or else he can hardly be excused from the breach of this\nCommandment.\nThis leads us to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the Israelites\n_borrowing of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold_; which\nwe read of in Exod. xii. 35. whether they were herein guilty of the\nbreach of this Commandment.\n_Answ._ The word[3] which we render _borrowed_, might as well be\nrendered _asked_, or _demanded_. And so we must suppose, that the\nEgyptians were so desirous that the Israelites should be gone,\napprehending, that if they continued, they were all dead men, that they\nmight have of them whatever they demanded, as necessary for this\nexpedition; and, if they came back again, as they supposed they should,\nthey would be obliged to return them. If this be the sense of the Hebrew\nword, there is no difficulty in the text, nor any appearance of the\nbreach of this Commandment.\nBut since the sense of the word is indeterminate, signifying to\n_demand_, as well as to _borrow_, as was before observed, God\u2019s order\nimports the former; though they might understand it in the latter, as\ndenoting a borrowing with a design to restore. Therefore, let it be\nconsidered,\n(1.) That they did this by God\u2019s command, who has a right to take away\nthe goods that one possesses, if he pleases, and give them to another;\nfor he takes away nothing but his own. Now, that they had his warrant\nfor borrowing or demanding these things of the Egyptians, appears from\nthe second verse.\n(2.) The reason why God ordered them to do this, if we look beyond his\nabsolute sovereignty, was, because the Israelites deserved them as\nwages, for their hard service; and this might be reckoned a reward of\nthe good offices that Joseph had done to that kingdom; which had been\nlong since forgotten.\n(3.) As to what concerns the Israelites, it is probable, they expected\nnothing else but to return again, and restore to the owners what they\nhad borrowed of them, after they had sacrificed to God in the\nwilderness; at least, they were wholly passive, and disposed to follow\nthe divine conduct, by the hand of Moses. And when they were in the\nwilderness, they could not restore what they had borrowed, since the\nowners thereof, as is more than probable, were drowned in the Red Sea,\nwhose revenge and covetousness, as well as Pharaoh\u2019s orders, prompted\nthem to follow them. Or if some of the owners might have been heard of,\nas yet surviving, their right to what was borrowed of them, was\nforfeited, by reason of the hostile pursuit of Pharaoh and his hosts,\nwhich put them into a state of war.\nThis may lead us farther to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the\nmany ravages and plunders that are generally made by armies engaged in\nwar; whether they may be reckoned a breach of this Commandment? And,\n[1.] It is beyond dispute, that, if the war be unjust, as all the blood\nthat is shed, is murder, or a breach of the sixth Commandment; so all\nthe damage that is done by burning of houses, or taking away the goods\nof those against whom it is carried on, is a breach of this Commandment.\nBut,\n[2.] If we suppose the war to be just, and the damage done only to those\nwho are immediately concerned in it, and that it is an expedient to\nprocure peace; it is unquestionably lawful, and no breach of this\nCommandment. Thus when the Israelites were commanded to destroy the\ninhabitants of the land of Canaan, as criminals, they were admitted to\nseize on the spoil of other nations, who were remote from them, Deut.\nxx. 14, 15. when conquered by them.\n[3.] As for those plunders and robberies which are committed on private\npersons, who are not concerned in the war any otherwise than as subjects\nof the government, against which it is undertaken; and especially, if\ntheir loss has no direct tendency to procure peace; this can hardly be\njustified from being a breach of this Commandment.\nIV. This Commandment is also broken by oppression; whereby the rich may\nbe said to rob, and even swallow up the poor, Psal. xiv. 4. Psal. x. 9.\nMicah iii. 2, 3. Now there are various ways by which persons may be said\nto oppress others.\n1. By engrossing those goods which are necessary for food or clothing,\nthereby to enhance the price thereof, whereby the poor are brought into\ngreat extremities.\n2. When persons enrich themselves out of the unmerciful labour exacted\nof their servants, whom they will hardly suffer to live, to eat the just\nreward of their service. Such a master was Laban to Jacob, Gen. xxxi.\n3. When landlords turn their tenants out of their houses or farms, when\nthey find that they get a comfortable subsistence by their industry,\ntaking occasion from thence, to raise their rent, in proportion to the\nsuccess God gives them therein.\n4. When the rich make the poor suffer by long delays, to pay their\ndebts, that they may gain advantage by the improvement of that money\nwhich they ought to have paid them.\nV. A person may be said to break this Commandment, by engaging in unjust\nand vexatious law-suits. However, it is to be owned, that going to law\nis not, at all times, unjust; for it is sometimes a relief against\noppression; and it is agreeable to the law of nature for every one to\ndefend his just rights; and for this reason God appointed judges, (to\ndetermine such-like causes) to whom the people were to have recourse,\nthat they might _shew them the sentence of judgment_, Deut. xvii. 8, 9.\nNevertheless, we must sometimes conclude law-suits to be oppressive; as,\n1. When the rich make use of the law, to prevent, or prolong the payment\nof their debts, or to take away the rights of the poor, who, as they\nsuppose, will rather suffer injuries than attempt to defend themselves.\n2. When bribes are either given or taken, with a design to pervert\njustice, 1 Sam. viii. 2. And to this we may add, that the person who\npleads an unrighteous cause, concealing the known truth, perverting the\nsense of the law, or alleging that for law or fact, which he knows not\nto be so; and the judge who passes sentence against his conscience,\nrespecting the person of the rich, and brow-beating the poor; these are\nall confederates in oppression; and such methods of proceeding, are\nbeyond dispute, a breach of this Commandment.\n_Obj._ Our Saviour forbids going to law, though it were to recover our\njust rights; when he says, _If any man will sue thee at the law, and\ntake away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also_, Matt. v. 40.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that some things may be omitted for\nprudential reasons, which would not otherwise be unlawful to be done.\nOur Saviour does not forbid using our endeavours, in a legal way, to\nrecover our right in all cases; but more especially at that time, when\nhis followers could hardly expect to meet with justice. And, it may be,\nthey were oppressed by fines, or distress, laid on them, for their\nembracing Christianity; in this case he advises them, patiently to bear\ninjuries, when they could hardly expect relief from their unjust judges.\nVI. This Commandment is broken by extortion, or oppressive usury. Thus\nit is said of the righteous man, _He putteth not out his money to\nusury_, Psal. xv. 5. The word[4] signifies _biting_ usury; which is,\nbeyond dispute, unlawful. We have elsewhere considered in what cases the\nIsraelites might take usury, and when not[5]. And, upon the whole, it is\ncertainly unlawful, to exact more than the legal rate or worth of the\nloan of money; or to exact any usury of the poor; especially for that\nwhich was borrowed to supply them with the necessaries of life.\nHaving considered in what instances this Commandment is broken, we\nproceed to shew, what a person ought to do, who has been guilty of the\nbreach thereof, in any of the forementioned instances, in order to his\nmaking restitution for the injuries he has done to his neighbour. This\nought always to attend the exercise of sincere repentance in those who\nhave been guilty of this sin, of which we have an instance in Zaccheus,\nLuke xix. 8. and the neglect hereof will be like a worm at the root of\nill gotten estates, and will be little better than a continual theft.\n_Obj._ 1. To this it is objected, that this may be a prejudice to our\nreputation, by making our crime public, which before was only known to\nourselves.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied;\n1. That, what we do in this matter, is not really a reproach, but an\nhonour; and it is hardly to be supposed, that he, to whom we perform so\njust and unexpected a duty, will be so barbarous as to divulge or\nimprove this against us, to our disadvantage.\n2. There are private ways of retaliation, whereby the injured party may\nreceive what is sent to him, in a way of restitution, and not know from\nwhom it comes; or, good turns may be done to him, in a way of\ncompensation for the damages he has received, and he not know, that they\nare done with this design; and, by this means, we disburden our\nconsciences, perform a necessary duty, and, at the same time, prevent\nthe supposed ill-consequences that might attend it.\n_Obj._ 2. It is farther objected, that sometimes the making restitution\nis impracticable; as when the person injured is dead, and we know of\nnone that has a right to receive it. And sometimes we may have been\nguilty of so many instances of fraud and oppression, and, that to such a\ngreat number of persons, that it is next to impossible, to make\nrestitution.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that when it is impossible for us to\nmake restitution to those whom we have injured; or, when we know of none\nthat survive them, who have a right to receive it, the best expedient, I\napprehend, we can make use of, is, to give it to the poor; for, since it\nis not, in justice, our own, we do, as it were, hereby give it to the\nLord, who is the original proprietor of all things.\nFootnote 3:\n  _The Hebrew word_ \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc _which is here used, does not only signify_\n  commodavit, _or_ usui dedit, _or_ accepit, _but_ petiit, _or_\n  postulavit; _in the last of which senses it is to be understood, in_\n  Deut. x. 12. What doth the Lord require or demand of thee, &c. _And\n  in_ Judges v. 25. _where the same word is used, it is said, that_\n  Sisera asked water of Jael; _not as one that was borrowing it of her,\n  but as a gratuity for former kindness which he had shewn to her_.\nFootnote 4:\n  _From \u05e0\u05e9\u05da, momordit._\nFootnote 5:\n                     Quest. CXLIII., CXLIV., CXLV.\n    QUEST. CXLIII. _What is the ninth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The ninth Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not bear false witness\n    against thy neighbour_.]\n    QUEST. CXLIV. _What are the duties required in the ninth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the ninth Commandment are, the\n    preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good\n    name of our neighbour as well as our own. Appearing, and standing\n    for, and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully,\n    speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and\n    justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of\n    our neighbours; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name,\n    sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely\n    acknowledging their gifts and graces; defending their innocency; a\n    ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit an evil\n    report concerning them, discouraging tale-bearers, flatterers, and\n    slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it\n    when need requireth, keeping of lawful promises, studying and\n    practising of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of\n    good report.\n    QUEST. CXLV. _What are the sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment, are, all\n    prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours as well\n    as our own, especially in public judicature, giving false evidence,\n    suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an\n    evil cause, out-facing and over-bearing the truth, passing unjust\n    sentence, calling evil good, and good evil, rewarding the wicked\n    according to the work of the righteous; and the righteous according\n    to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue\n    silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth\n    for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others;\n    speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or\n    perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal\n    expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice, speaking untruth,\n    lying, slandering, back-biting, detracting, tale-bearing,\n    whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial, censuring,\n    misconstruing intentions, words, and actions, flattering,\n    vain-glorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too\n    meanly of ourselves or others, denying the gifts and graces of God,\n    aggravating smaller faults, hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins\n    when called to a free confession, unnecessary discovering of\n    infirmities, raising false rumours, receiving and countenancing evil\n    reports, and stopping our ears against just defence, evil suspicion,\n    envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavouring or\n    desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy,\n    scornful contempt, fond admiration, breach of lawful promises,\n    neglecting such things as are of good report, and practising or not\n    avoiding ourselves or not hindering, what we can in others, such\n    things as procure an ill name.\nIn this Commandment we are to consider,\nI. What are the duties required? These are,\n1. Our endeavouring to promote truth in all we say or do; and that, as\nto what either concerns ourselves, or others. As to what concerns\nourselves, we are to fence against every thing that savours of deceit or\nhypocrisy; and, in our whole conversation, endeavour to be what we\npretend to be; or to speak nothing but what we know, or believe to be\ntrue, upon good evidence, the contrary whereunto is lying. As to what\nconcerns others, we must not neglect to reprove sin in them, how much\nsoever our worldly interest may lie at stake. Thus Azariah reproved\nUzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 18. and Elijah, Ahab; though this could not but\nbe an hazardous attempt in each of them. Moreover, we must endeavour to\nundeceive others, who are mistaken; especially if the error, they are\nliable to, be of such a nature, that it endangers the loss of their\nsalvation. We are also to vindicate those who are reproached by others,\nto the utmost of our power, according as the cause will admit of it.\n2. This Commandment obliges us, to endeavour to promote our own, and our\nneighbour\u2019s good name.\n(1.) Our own good name; which consists, not in our having the applause\nof the world, but in our deserving the just esteem thereof, and in our\nbeing loved and valued for our usefulness to mankind in general. And\nthis esteem is not to be gained by commending ourselves, or doing any\nthing, but what we engage in with a good conscience, and the fear of\nGod. And in order hereto, we must, take heed that we do not contract an\nintimacy with those, whose conversation is a reproach to the gospel,\nProv. xxviii. 7. Also we must render good for evil, and not give\noccasion to those, who watch for our halting, to insult us as to any\nthing, besides unavoidable infirmities, 1 Pet. ii. 12. Phil. iv. 8.\nThis degree of honour in the world, we ought first to endeavour to gain,\nespecially so far as it is necessary to our honouring God, and being\nuseful to others. And then we must be careful to maintain our good name;\nforasmuch as the loss thereof, especially, in those who have made a\npublic profession of religion, will reflect dishonour on the ways of\nGod, from whence his enemies will take occasion to blaspheme, 2 Sam.\nxii. 14. But if all our endeavours to maintain our character and\nreputation are to no purpose; being, nevertheless, followed with\nreproach as well as hatred and malice, from an unjust and censorious\nworld; let us look to it, that if we _suffer reproach_, it be\n_wrongfully; not as evil doers, but for keeping a good conscience in the\nsight of God_; which may be a means to make those that reproach us,\n_ashamed_, 1 Pet. iii. 16. Moreover, let us count the reproach of\nChrist, that is, for his sake, a glory, chap. iv. 14. Acts v. 41. Again,\nlet us always value their good opinion most, who are Christ\u2019s best\nfriends; and expect little else but ill treatment from his enemies; and\nthen we shall be less disappointed, when we are exposed to it. And let\nus not decline any thing that is our duty, in which the honour of God,\nand the welfare of his people, is concerned, for fear of reproach; but\nin this case, leave our good name in Christ\u2019s hand; whose providence is\nconcerned, for, and takes care of, the honour, as well as the wealth and\noutward estate of his people.\n(2.) We are to endeavour to maintain the good name of others; and in\norder thereto, we must render to them those marks of respect and honour,\nwhich their character, and advancement in gifts, or grace, calls for;\nyet without being guilty of servile flattery or dissimulation. And if\nthey are in danger of doing any thing that may forfeit their good name,\nwe are carefully to reprove them, while we have a due regard to any good\nthing that is in them, towards the Lord their God; and, in maintaining\ntheir good name, we are to conceal their faults, when we may do it\nwithout betraying the interest of Christ; and especially when the honour\nof God, and their good, is, by this means, better promoted, than by\ndivulging them, 1 Pet. iv. 8. Prov. xvii. 9.\nHowever, this is not without some exceptions; and therefore it may be\nobserved, that we are not to conceal the crimes committed by others.\n[1.] If private admonition for scandalous sins committed, prove\nineffectual, and the discovering them to others may make the offender\nashamed, and promote his reformation; then we are not to conceal his\ncrimes, though the divulging them may lessen the esteem which others\nhave of him, since it is better for him to be ashamed before men, than\nperish in his hypocrisy, Matt. xviii. 16, 17.\n[2.] If the crime committed be such, that shame, and the loss of his\ngood name, be a just punishment due to it, we are not to conceal it,\nthereby to stop the course of justice.\n[3.] When the honour and good name of an innocent person cannot be\nmaintained, unless by divulging the crimes of the guilty, he that, in\nthis case, has forfeited his good name, ought to lose it, rather than he\nthat has not.\nWe shall close this head by considering what reason we have to endeavour\nto maintain the good name of others. To take away our neighbour\u2019s good\nname, is to take away one of the most valuable privileges he is\npossessed of, the loss whereof may be inexpressibly detrimental to him.\nAnd sometimes it may affect his secular interest; so that hereby we may\nbe said to take away his wealth and outward estate, and prevent his\nusefulness in that station of life in which providence has fixed him.\nAccordingly we are to express a due concern for the honour and\nreputation of others as well as ourselves. Thus concerning the duties\nrequired in this Commandment.\nII. We proceed to consider the sins forbidden therein; which are\ncontained in that general expression bearing false witness: This may\neither respect ourselves or others. A person may be said to bear false\nwitness against himself; and that either in thinking too highly or\nmeanly of himself; in the former respect we value ourselves, or our\nsupposed attainments, either in gifts or graces, too much, in which we\nare, for the most part, mistaken, and pass a wrong judgment on them, and\nare ready to say, with the church at Laodicea, _I am rich and increased\nwith goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that we are wretched,\nand miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked_, Rev. iii. 17. These, on\nthe one hand, mistake the common gifts of the Spirit, for grace, and\nconclude themselves to be something, when they are nothing: And, on the\nother hand, many conclude, that they have no grace, and rank themselves\namong hypocrites and unbelievers, when their hearts are right with God,\nand they have had large experience of the powerful influences of his\nSpirit, but are not sensible thereof. Thus Christ says to the church in\nSmyrna, _I know thy poverty; but thou art rich_, chap. ii. 9. In these\nrespects persons may be said to bear false witness against themselves.\nBut that which is principally forbidden in this Commandment, is, a\nperson\u2019s bearing false witness against his neighbour; and that when he\neither endeavours to deceive, or do him prejudice, as to his reputation\nin the world; the one is called lying, the other back-biting or\nslandering. As to the former of these, when we speak that which is\ncontrary to what we know to be truth, with a design to deceive, this is\nwhat we call telling a lye; and when we act that which is contrary to\ntruth, it may be deemed a practical lye; both of which are very great\nsins.\n1. A person is guilty of lying, when he speaks that which is contrary to\ntruth, with a design to deceive: This the old prophet at Bethel did, to\nthe prophet of the Lord; upon which occasion it is said, that he _lyed\nunto him_, 1 Kings xiii. 18. That this may be farther considered, let it\nbe observed, that it is not barely a speaking what is contrary to truth;\nfor that a person may do, and be guiltless; as,\n[1.] When there is some circumstance that discovers him to speak\n_ironically_; and therefore he does not appear to have a design to\ndeceive those, to whom he addresses his discourse. Thus when the prophet\nMicaiah said to Ahab, _Go and prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it_,\nviz. _Ramoth-Gilead, into the hands of the kings_, chap. xxii. 15. it is\nplain that he spake the language of the false prophets, and that Ahab\nunderstood him in this sense, or suspected that he spake _ironically_;\nand therefore says, _How many times shall I adjure thee, that thou tell\nme nothing but that which is true?_ ver. 16. Upon which, the prophet\ntells him, without an _irony_, though in a metaphorical way, which Ahab\neasily understood; _I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep\nthat have not a shepherd: And the Lord said, These have no master, let\nthem return every man to his house in peace_, ver. 17. which was an\nintimation, that, if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead, he should fall in\nbattle: Upon which occasion Ahab says to Jehoshaphat, _Did I not tell\nthee, that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil_, ver. 18.\nby which it appears, that the prophet did not deceive him,\nnotwithstanding the mode of speaking, which he at first made use of,\nwithout considering it as an irony, seemed to intimate as much.\n[2.] A person may speak that which is contrary to truth, being imposed\non himself, without any design to deceive another. This cannot, indeed,\naccording to the description before given, be properly called a lie:\nHowever, he may sin by asserting too positively, that which he thinks to\nbe true from probable circumstances, or uncertain information;\nespecially if what he reports, carries in it that which is matter of\nscandal, or censure. This was the case of Job\u2019s friends, who did not\ntell a lie against their own consciences: Nevertheless, they were too\nperemptory in charging him with hypocrisy, without sufficient ground;\ntherefore God imputes _folly_ to them, in that _they had not spoken of\nhim the thing which was right_, Job xlii. 8.\nHere it may be enquired, whether a person, who designs not to deceive,\nnor speaks contrary to the dictates of his own conscience; yet if he\npromises to do a thing, and does it not, is guilty of lying? To which it\nmay be replied,\n_1st_, That if a person promises to do a thing, which, at the same time\nhe really designs, and afterwards uses all the endeavours he could, to\nfulfil his promise, and something unforeseen happens, in the course of\nprovidence, which prevents the execution thereof, he cannot, properly\nspeaking, be said to be guilty of a lie; though we ought not to promise\nany thing but upon this supposition, that God enables us to perform it.\n_2dly_, If a person intends to do a thing, and, accordingly, promises to\ndo it, but afterwards sees some justifiable reason to alter his mind, he\nis not guilty of a lie; since all creatures are supposed to be mutable.\nThus the angels told Lot, that they would _abide in the street all\nnight_; but afterwards, upon his intreaty, they _went into the house\nwith him_, Gen. xix. 2,\n3. And our Saviour, when he walked with his disciples to Emmaus, _made\nas though he would have gone farther: But they constrained him, saying,\nabide with us; and he went in to tarry with them_, Luke xxiv. 28, 29.\nBut, notwithstanding this if a person promises to do any thing that is\nof advantage to another, as the paying a just debt, _&c._ it is not a\nsufficient excuse, to clear him from the guilt of sin, if he pretends\nthat he has altered his mind, supposing that it is in his power to\nfulfil it: For this is, indeed, a breach of the eighth Commandment, and\nin some respects, it will appear to him, to be a violation of this.\nThat we may more particularly speak concerning the sin of lying which\nmultitudes are chargeable with, let it be observed, that there are three\nsorts of lies,\n_1st_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to truth, and the\ndictates of his own conscience, with a design to cover a fault or excuse\nhimself or others: This we generally call an officious lie[6].\n_2dly_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to the known truth,\nin a jesting way; and embellishes his discourse with his own fictions,\ndesigning hereby to impose on others: This they are guilty of, who\ninvent false news, or tell stories for truth, which they know to be\nfalse. This is to lie in a jesting, ludicrous manner[7].\n_3dly_, There is a pernicious lie, _viz._ when a person raises and\nspreads a false report with a design to do injury to another; which is a\ncomplicated crime, and the worst sort of lying[8].\nHere there are two or three enquiries which it may not be improper to\ntake notice of;\n(1.) Whether the midwives were guilty of an officious lie, when they\ntold Pharaoh, in Exod. i. 19. that _the Hebrew women were delivered of\ntheir children ere they came in unto them_; concerning whom it is said,\nin the following verse, _that God dealt well with the midwives_ for this\nreport, which carries in it the appearance of a lie.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied,\n[1.] That they seem not to have been guilty of a lie; for it is not\nimprobable, that God in mercy to the Hebrew women, and their children,\nmight give them uncommon strength; so that they might be delivered\nwithout the midwives assistance: Or,\n[2.] If this was not the case of all the Hebrew women, but only of some,\nor many of them, the midwives report contains only a concealing part of\nthe truth, while they related in other respects, that which was matter\nof fact. Now a person is not guilty of telling a lie, who does not\ndiscover all that he knows. There is a vast difference between\nconcealing a part of the truth, and telling that which is directly\nfalse. No one is obliged to tell all he knows, to one, who, he is sure,\nwill make a bad use of it. This seems to be the case of the midwives;\nand therefore their action was justifiable, and commended by God, they\nbeing not guilty, properly speaking, of an officious lye.\n(2.) Another enquiry is, what judgment we must pass concerning the\nactions of Rahab, the harlot, who invented an officious lye, to save the\nspies from those who pursued them, in Josh. ii. 4, 5. it is said, _she\ntook the two men and hid them_; and, at the same time, pretended, so\nthose who were sent to enquire of her concerning them, that _she wist\nnot whence they were_; but that they _went out of the city about the\ntime of the shutting of the gate; though whither they went she knew\nnot_. The main difficulty we have to account for, is what the apostle\nsays, in which he seems to commend this action, in Heb. xi. 31. _By\nfaith Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had\nreceived the spies with peace._\n_Answ._ To which it may be replied, that the apostle says, indeed, that\nshe _received the spies with peace_, that is, she protected, and did not\nbetray them into the hand of their enemies: But this act of faith does\nnot relate directly to the lie that she invented to conceal them; for,\ndoubtless, she would have been more clear from the guilt of sin, had she\nrefused to give the messengers any answer relating to them, and so had\ngiven them leave to search for them, and left the event hereof to\nprovidence. This, indeed, was a very difficult duty; for it might have\nendangered her life; and her choosing to secure them and herself, by\ninventing this lie, brought with it a degree of guilt, and was an\ninstance of the weakness of her faith in this respect.\nBut, on the other hand, that faith which the apostle commends in her,\nrespects some other circumstances attending this action; and,\naccordingly, it is not said, that _by faith_ she made the report to the\nmessengers concerning the spies; but _she received them with peace_: And\nthere are several things in which her faith was very remarkable, as,\n[1.] That she was confident that _the Lord would give them the land_,\nwhich they were contending for, Josh. ii. 9.\n[2.] In that she makes a just inference relating to this matter, from\nthe wonders that God had wrought for them in the red sea, ver. 10. And,\n[3.] In that noble confession which she makes, that _the Lord their God,\nis God in heaven above, and the earth beneath_, ver. 11.\n[4.] Her faith appears, in that she put herself under their protection,\nand desired to take her lot with them; which was done at the hazard of\nher own life; which she might have saved, and probably, have received a\nreward, had she betrayed them. This, I conceive to be a better\nvindication of Rahab\u2019s conduct, than that which is alleged, by some who\nsuppose, that by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put\nherself into a state of war with her own country-men, and so was not\nobliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho; since this would have many\nill consequences attending it, and give too much countenance to persons\ndeceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them.\nAnd, as to what the Papists say in her vindication, that a good design\nwill justify a bad action; that it is not true in fact; and therefore\nnot to be applied to her case.\n(3.) It might be farther enquired, what judgment ought we to pass on the\nmethod that Jacob took to obtain the blessing, when he told his father,\n_I am Esau, thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me_,\nGen. xxvii. 19. whether he was guilty of a lie herein?\n_Answ._ There is not the least doubt but that he was. Some, indeed,\nendeavour to excuse him, by alleging, that he had, before this, bought\nthe birth-right of Esau; and, upon this account he calls himself Isaac\u2019s\nfirst-born. But this will not clear him from the guilt of a lye; since\nit was an equivocation, and spoken with a design to deceive. Others own\nit to have been a lye; but extenuate it, from the consideration of God\u2019s\nhaving designed the blessing for him before he was born, chap. xxv. 31.\nBut these do not at all mend the matter: For, though God may permit, or\nover-rule the sinful actions of men to bring about his own purpose; yet\nthis does not, in the least, extenuate their sin.\nThat which may therefore be observed, with reference to this action of\nhis, and the consequence thereof, is, that good men are sometimes liable\nto sinful infirmities, as Jacob was; who, was followed with many sore\nrebukes of providence, which made the remaining part of his life very\nuneasy.\n_1st_, In his living in exile twenty years, with Laban, an hard master,\nand an unjust and unnatural father-in-law.\n_2dly_, In the great distress that befel him in his return; occasioned\nfirst by Laban\u2019s pursuit of him, and then by the tidings that he\nreceived of his brother Esau\u2019s _coming out to meet him_; (being prompted\nhereto by revenge which he had long harboured in his breast) _with four\nhundred men_, from whom he expected nothing less than the destruction of\nhimself, and his whole family.\n_3dly_, He did not obtain deliverance from the hand of God without\n_great wrestling_, chap. xxxii. 24-25. and this attended with _weeping_,\nas well as _making supplication_, Hos. xii. 4. and, though he prevailed,\nand so obtained the blessing, and therewith forgiveness of his sin; yet\nGod so ordered it, that he should carry the mark thereof upon him, as\nlong as he lived, by touching the hollow of his thigh, which occasioned\nan incurable lameness.\n(4.) Another enquiry is, whether the prophet Elijah did not tell a lie\nto the Syrian host, who were before Dothan, in quest of him, when he\nsaid, in 2 Kings vi. 19. _This is not the way, neither is this the city:\nFollow me, and I will bring you to the man you seek. But he led them to\nSamaria?_\n_Answ._ If what he says to them be duly considered, it will appear not\nto be a lie; for he told them nothing but what proved true, according to\nthe import of his words; for,\n_1st_, He does not say, I am not the man ye seek, which would have been\na lie; neither does he say, the man is not here: but he tells them, _I\nwill lead you to the place where ye shall find him_, or have him\ndiscovered and presented before you.\n_2dly_, When he says, _This is not the way; neither is this the city_;\nhe does not say, this is not the way to Dothan; neither is this the city\nso called; for then they would have been able to have convicted him of a\nlie; for they knew that they were at Dothan before they were struck with\nblindness: But the plain meaning of his words is, that this is not your\nway to find him; since the men of this city will not deliver him to you;\nbut _I will lead you to the place where you shall see him_; and _so he\nled them to Samaria_, upon which their eyes were opened, and they saw\nhim: So that this was not a lie. And the reason of his management was,\nthat the king of Israel, and the Syrian host, might be convinced, that\nthey were poor creatures in God\u2019s hand, and that he could easily turn\ntheir counsels into foolishness, and cause their attempts to miscarry\nwith shame, as well as disappointment.\n(5.) It may be farther enquired, whether the apostle Paul was guilty of\na lie; when, being charged, in Acts xxiii. 4, 5. with _reviling God\u2019s\nhigh priest_, he says, _I wist not that he was the high priest_? How was\nit possible that he should entertain any doubt concerning his being the\nhigh priest; which none, who were present, could, in the least,\nquestion?\n_Answ._ We may suppose, that the apostle, when he says, _I wist not that\nhe was the high priest_, intends nothing else, but I do not own him to\nbe the high priest, as you call him; for he is not an high priest of\nGod\u2019s appointing or approving; which, had he been, he would have acted\nmore becoming that character; and then I should have had no occasion to\nhave told him, _God shall smite thee, thou whited wall_; for that would\nhave been a _reviling him_; since I know that scripture very well, that\nsays, _Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people_; therefore\nhe intimates, that, though he was an high priest of man\u2019s making, he was\nnot one of God\u2019s approving; and accordingly he was to be treated with\ncontempt, instead of that regard which was formerly paid to the high\npriests, when they were better men, and acted more agreeable to their\ncharacter. No one, that deserves to be called God\u2019s high priest, would\nhave ordered a prisoner, who came to be tried for his life, instead of\nmaking his defence, to be smitten on the mouth.\nBut, suppose we render the words agreeably to our translation, I did not\nunderstand that he was the high priest, he may be vindicated from the\ncharge of telling a lie, if we consider,\n_1st_, That this was a confused assembly, and not a regular court of\njudicature, in which the judge, or chief magistrate, is known to all, by\nthe place in which he sits, or the part he acts in trying causes.\n_2dly_, The high priest, in courts of judicature, was not known by any\nrobe or distinct habit that he wore, as judges now are; for he never\nwore any other but his common garments, which were the same that other\npeople wore, except when he ministered in offering gifts and sacrifices\nin the temple. Therefore the apostle could not know him by any distinct\ngarment that he wore.\n_3dly_, Through the corruption of the times, the high priest was changed\nalmost every year, according to the will of the chief governor, who\nadvanced his own friends to that dignity, and oftentimes sold it for\nmoney; it is therefore probable, that Ananias had not been long\nhigh-priest; and Paul was now a stranger at Jerusalem, and so might not\nknow that he was high priest. Thus, if we take the words in this sense,\nin which they are commonly understood, the apostle may be sufficiently\nvindicated from the charge of telling a lie.\n(6.) It may be farther enquired, what judgment we may pass concerning\nDavid\u2019s pretence, when he came to Abimelech, in 1 Sam. xxi. 2. that _the\nking commanded him a business_, _which no one was to know any thing of_;\nand that he had _appointed his servants to such and such a place_; and\nalso of his _feigning himself mad_, before the king of Gath, ver. 13.\nwhich dissimulation can be reckoned no other than a practical lie.\n_Answ._ In both these instances he must be allowed to have sinned, and\ntherefore not proposed as a pattern to us; and all that can be inferred\nfrom it is, that there is a great deal of the corruption of nature\nremaining in the best of God\u2019s people. What he told Abimelech was\ncertainly a lye; and all that he expected to gain by it, was only a\nsupply of his present necessities; the consequence whereof was, the poor\nman\u2019s losing his life, together with all the priests\u2019, except Abiathar,\nby Saul\u2019s inhumanity. And David seems to be truly sensible of this sin,\nas appears from Psal. xxxiv. which, as is intimated in the title\nthereof, was penned on this occasion; in which he arms others against\nit, in ver. 13. _Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking\nguile_: And in ver. 18. he seems to relate his own experience, when he\nsays, _The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth\nsuch as be of a contrite spirit._\nAs to his behaviour before the king of Gath, which was a visible lie,\ndiscovered in his actions; it can, by no means, be excused from being a\nbreach of this Commandment. It is, indeed, alleged by some, to extenuate\nhis fault; that he was afraid that his having killed Goliah, would have\ninduced Achish to take away his life; as appears from what is said in\nver. 11, 12. Nevertheless, it may be considered as an aggravation of his\nsin,\n[1.] That his fear seems to have been altogether groundless; for, why\nshould he suppose that the king of Gath would break through all the laws\nof arms and honour, since Goliah had been killed in a fair duel, the\nchallenge having first been given by himself? why then should David fear\nthat he would kill him for that, more than any other hostilities\ncommitted in war? Besides, it is plain from what Achish says, in ver.\n15. _Have I need of mad-men, that ye have brought this fellow to play\nthe mad-man in my presence? should this fellow come into mine house?_\nthat the king of Gath was so far from designing to revenge Goliah\u2019s\ndeath on him, that he intended to employ him in his service, and take\nhim into his house; but this mean action of his made him despised by\nall; for it seems probable, by Achish\u2019s saying, _Have ye brought this\nfellow to play the mad-man?_ that he perceived it to be a feigned, and\nnot a real distraction. And this was overruled by the providence of God,\nto let the Philistines know, that the greatest hero is but a\nlow-spirited man, if his God be not with him.\n[2.] If we suppose that there had been just ground for his fear, the\nmethod taken to secure himself, contained a distrust of providence;\nwhich would, doubtless, have delivered him without his dissembling, or\nthus demeaning himself, or using such an indirect method in order\nthereunto. Thus concerning the violation of this Commandment, by\nspeaking that which is contrary to truth.\n2. This Commandment is farther broken, by acting that which is contrary\nto truth; which is what we call hypocrisy: And this may be considered,\n(1.) As that which is a reigning sin, inconsistent with a state of\ngrace; in which respect an hypocrite is opposed to a true believer. Such\nmake a fair shew of religion; but it is with a design to be seen of men,\nMatt. vi. 5. They are sometimes, indeed, represented as _seeking_ God,\nand _enquiring early_, or with a kind of earnestness after him, when\nunder his afflicting hand; but this is deemed no other than a\n_flattering him with their mouth, and a lying unto him with their\ntongues_; inasmuch as _their heart is not right with him_, Psal.\nlxxviii. 34,-37. And elsewhere, they are said to _love the praise of men\nmore than the praise of God_, John xii. 43.\n(2.) It may be farther considered, as that which believers are sometimes\nchargeable with, which is an argument that they are sanctified but in\npart; but this rather respects some particular actions, and not the\ntenor of their conversation: Thus the apostle Paul charges Peter with\ndissimulation, Gal. ii. 11,-13. though he was far from deserving the\ncharacter of an hypocrite, as to his general conversation. And our\nSaviour cautions his disciples against hypocrisy, as that which they\nwere in danger of being overtaken with, Luke xii. 1. though he does not\ncharge them with it as a reigning sin, as he did the Scribes and\nPharisees, whom he compares to _painted sepulchres_, Matt. xxiii. 27,\n28. nor were they such as the apostle speaks of, whom he calls\n_double-minded men, who are unstable in all their ways_, James i. 8.\nAs to that hypocrisy which we may call a reigning sin, this may be\nknown,\n[1.] By a person\u2019s accommodating himself to all those whom he converses\nwith, how much soever this may tend to the dishonour of Christ and the\ngospel: And this may give us occasion to enquire,\n_First_, Whether the apostle Paul was in any respects, chargeable with\nthis sin, when he says, in 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. _Unto the Jews, I became as\na Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as\nunder the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them\nthat are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but\nunder the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law. To\nthe weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all\nthings to all men, that I might by all means save some._ For the\nunderstanding of this scripture, and vindicating the apostle from the\ncharge of hypocrisy, let it be considered,\n_1st_, That this compliance he here speaks of, was not with a design to\ngain the applause of the world, but to serve the interest of Christ;\nneither did he connive at, or give countenance to, that false worship,\nor those sinful practices of any, that were contrary to the faith, or\npurity of the gospel. Therefore when he says, _Unto the Jews, I became\nas a Jew_; he does not intend that he gave them the least ground to\nconclude, that it was an indifferent matter, whether they adhered to, or\nlaid aside the observation of the ceremonial law: For, he expressly\ntells some of the church at Galatia, who were supposed to Judaize, that\nthis was contrary to the _liberty wherewith Christ_ had _made them free,\na being again entangled with the yoke of bondage_; and that _if they\ncircumcised, Christ should profit them nothing; and_, that they were\n_fallen from grace_; that is, turned aside from the faith of the gospel,\nGal. v. 1,-4. Therefore, in this sense he did not become as a Jew, to\nthe Jews. Neither did he so far comply with the Gentiles, as to give\nthem ground to conclude, that the superstition and idolatry, which they\nwere guilty of, was an harmless thing, and might still be practised by\nthem. Therefore,\n_2dly_, The meaning of his compliance with the Jews or Gentiles, is\nnothing else but this; that whatever he found praise-worthy in them, he\ncommended; and if, in any instances, they were addicted to their former\nrites, or modes of worship, he endeavoured to draw them off from them,\nnot by a severe, and rigid behaviour as censuring, refusing to converse\nwith, or reproaching them, for their weakness; but using kind and gentle\nmethods, designing rather to inform than discourage them; while at the\nsame time, he was far from approving of, or giving countenance to any\nthing that was sinful in them, or unbecoming the gospel.\n_Secondly_, From what has been before said concerning an hypocrite\u2019s\nbeing one who performs religious duties with a design to be seen of men,\nas our Saviour says of the Pharisees, that _they love to stand praying\nin the synagogues, or in the corners of the streets, that they may be\nseen of men_, Matth. vi. 6. We may enquire, what may be said in\nvindication of the prophet Daniel, from the charge of hypocrisy?\nconcerning whom it is said, in Dan. vi. 10. that when Darius had _signed\na decree_ prohibiting any one from asking _a petition of any god or man,\nsave of the king, he_ should _be cast into the den of lions: He went\ninto his house; and his windows being open in his chamber, towards\nJerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and\ngave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime_. In answer to this we\nmay observe,\n_1st_, That this was not done to gain the esteem or applause of men,\nwhich they are charged with, who are guilty of hypocrisy; but he did it\nin contempt of that vile decree of the Persian monarch.\n_2dly_, He did it at the peril of his life; and hereby discovered, that\nhe had rather be cast into the den of lions, than give occasion to any\nto think that he complied with the king in his idolatrous decree.\n_3dly_, Though it is said, that _he prayed, and gave thanks before his\nGod, as he did_ aforetime; yet this is not to be understood as though he\nset open his windows aforetime; so that his praying publicly at this\ntime, was to shew that he was neither ashamed, nor afraid to own his\nGod, whatever it cost him; therefore he was so far from being guilty of\nhypocrisy, that this is one of the most noble instances of zeal for the\nworship of the true God, that we find recorded in scripture.\n[2.] Hypocrisy is a reigning sin when we boast of the high attainments\nin gifts or grace, or set too great a value on ourselves, because of the\nperformance of some religious duties, while we neglect others, wherein\nthe principal part of true godliness consists. Thus the Pharisee _paid\ntithe of mint, annise, and cummin_, while he _omitted the weightier\nmatters of the law; judgment, mercy and faith_, chap. xxiii. 23, 24.\n[3.] It farther consists, in exclaiming against, and censuring others,\nfor lesser faults, while we allow of greater in ourselves; like those\nwhom our Saviour speaks of, who _behold the mote that is in their\nbrother\u2019s eye, but consider not the beam that is in their own_, Matt.\nvii. 3, 5. or, according to that proverbial way of speaking, _strain at\na gnat, and swallow a camel_. These are very fond of exposing the\nignorance of others; though they have no experimental, saving knowledge\nof divine truth in themselves; or they are very forward, to blame the\ncoldness and lukewarmness which they see in some, while at the same\ntime, that zeal which they express in their whole conduct, is rather to\nadvance themselves, than the glory of God.\n[4.] When persons make a gain of godliness, 1 Tim. vi. 5. or of their\npretensions to it. Thus Balaam prophesied for a reward; and accordingly\nit is said, that he _loved the wages of unrighteousness_, 2 Pet. i. 15.\n5. When persons make a profession of religion, because it is uppermost,\nand are ready to despise and cast it off, when it is reproached, or they\nare like to suffer for it. Thus the Pharisees, how much soever they\nseemed to embrace Christ, when attending on John\u2019s ministry; yet\nafterwards, when they saw that this was contrary to their secular\ninterest, they were _offended in him_, and prejudiced against him; and\ntherefore they say, _Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees,\nbelieved on him_, John vii. 48.\nThis sin of hypocrisy, which is a practical lie, has a tendency to\ncorrupt and vitiate all our pretensions to religion. It is like the\n_dead flie_, mentioned by Solomon, _that causeth the ointment of the\napothecary to send forth a stinking savour_, Eccl. x. 1. and it will, in\nthe end, bring on those who are guilty of it, many sore judgments; some\nof which are spiritual. Thus it is said of the Heathen, that _because,\nwhen they knew God, they glorified him not as God_, and _did not like to\nretain him in their knowledge; he gave them up to a reprobate mind, to\ndo those things that are not convenient_, &c. Rom. i. 21, 22, 28. And as\nfor the false hope, and vain confidence, which the hypocrite entertains,\nthis shall leave him in despair and confusion, Job viii. 13,-15. and be\nattended with unspeakable horror of conscience, chap. xxvii. 18. Isa.\nxxxiii. 14. Upon which account such are said to _heap up wrath_, and\nbring on themselves a greater degree of condemnation than others, Job\nxxxvi. 13. Matt. xxiii. 14. Thus we have considered this Commandment as\nbroken by speaking or acting that which is contrary, or prejudicial, to\ntruth; which leads us,\nII. To consider it as forbidding our doing that which is injurious to\nour neighbour\u2019s good name, either by words or actions; and this is done\ntwo ways, either before his face, or behind his back.\n1. Doing injury to another, by speaking against him, before his face. It\nis true, we give him hereby the liberty of vindicating himself.\nNevertheless, if the thing be false, which is alleged against him,\nproceeding from malice and envy, it is a crime of a very heinous nature;\nand this is done,\n(1.) By those, who, in courts of judicature, commence; and carry on\nmalicious prosecutions, in which the plaintiff, the witness, the\nadvocate that manages the cause, the jury that bring in a false verdict,\nand the judge that passes sentence contrary to law, or evidence, as well\nas the dictates of his own conscience, with a design to crush and ruin\nhim, who is maliciously prosecuted; these are all notoriously guilty of\nthe breach of this Commandment.\n(2.) They may be said to do that which is injurious to our neighbour\u2019s\ngood name, who reproach them in common conversation; which is a sin too\nmuch committed in this licentious age, as though men were not\naccountable to God for what they speak, as well as other parts of the\nconduct of life. There are several things which persons make the subject\nof their reproach, _viz._\n[1.] The defect and blemishes of nature; such as lameness, blindness,\ndeafness, impediment of speech, meanness of capacity, or actions, which\nproceed from a degree of distraction. Thus many suppose that the apostle\nPaul was reproached for some natural deformity in his body, or\nimpediment in his speech, which is inferred from what he says, when he\nrepresents some as speaking to this purpose; _His letters, say they, are\nweighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech\ncontemptible_, 2 Cor. x. 10. And elsewhere, he commends the Galatians\nfor not despising him on this account; _My temptation which was in my\nflesh, ye despised nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God,\neven as Christ Jesus_, Gal. iv. 14.\nHere we may take occasion to speak something of the childrens sin, who\nreproached Elisha for his baldness, and the punishment that ensued upon\nit; namely, his _cursing them in the name of the Lord_; and _two and\nforty_ of them being _torn in pieces by two she-bears out of the wood_,\nin 2 Kings ii. 23, 24. It may be enquired, by some, whether this was not\ntoo great an instance of passion in that holy man, and too severe a\npunishment inflicted; inasmuch as they who reproached him, are called\n_little children_. To this it may be answered,\n_1st_, That the children were not so little, as not to be able to know\ntheir right hand from their left, or to discern between good and evil;\nfor such are not usually trusted out of their parents sight; nor would\nthey have gathered themselves together in a body, or went some distance\nfrom the city, on purpose to insult the prophet, as it is plain they\ndid, understand that he was to come there at that time. This argues that\nthey were boys of sufficient age, to commit the most presumptuous sin;\nand therefore not too young to suffer such a punishment as ensued\nthereupon.\n_2dly_, Their sin was great, in that they mocked a grave old man, who\nought to have been honoured for his age, and a prophet, whom they should\nhave esteemed for his character; and in despising him, they despised\nGod, that called and sent him.\n_3dly_, Bethel, where they lived, was the chief seat of idolatry, in\nwhich these children had been trained up; and it was a prevailing\ninclination to it, together with an hatred of the true religion, that\noccasioned their reproaching and casting contempt on the prophet.\n_4thly_, The manner of expression argues a great deal of profaneness,\n_Go up thou bald head_; that is, either go up to Bethel, speaking in an\ninsulting way, as though they should say, You may go there, but you will\nnot be regarded by them; for they value no such men as you are; or\nrather, it is as though they should say, you pretend that your\npredecessor Elijah is gone up to heaven, do you go up after him, that\nyou may trouble us no longer with your prophecies; so that those\nchildren, though young in years, were hardened in sin; and this was not\nso much an occasional mocking of the prophet for his baldness, as a\npublic contrivance, and tumultuous opposition to his ministry; which is\na very great crime, and accordingly, was attended with a just resentment\nin the prophet, and that punishment which was inflicted as the\nconsequence thereof.\nThe aggravations of this sin of reproaching persons for their natural\ninfirmities, are very great. For, it is a finding fault with the\nworkmanship of the God of nature, the thinking meanly of a person for\nthat which is not chargeable on him as a crime, and which he can, by no\nmeans redress. It is a censuring those who are, in some respects,\nobjects of compassion; especially if the reproach be levelled against\nthe defects of the mind, or any degree of distraction; and it argues a\ngreat deal of pride and unthankfulness to God, for those natural\nendowments which we have received from him, though we do not improve\nthem to his glory.\n[2.] Some reproach persons for their sinful infirmities, and that in\nsuch a way, as that they are styled _fools_, who _make a mock of sin_,\nProv. xiv. 9. This is done,\n_1st_, When we reflect on persons for sins committed before their\nconversion, which they have repented of, and God has forgiven; and\naccordingly they should not be now charged against them, as a matter of\nreproach. Thus the Pharisee reproached the poor penitent woman, who\nstood weeping at our Saviour\u2019s feet, and said within himself; _If this\nman were a prophet, he would have known what manner of woman this is\nthat toucheth him, for she is a sinner_, Luke vii. 37-39. which\nrespected not her present, but her former condition.\n_2dly_, When they reproach them with levity of spirit, for the sins they\nare guilty of at present; as when the shameful actions of a drunken man\nare made the subject of laughter; which ought not to be thought of\nwithout regret or pity.\n_Object._ To this it may be objected, that sin renders a person vile,\nand is really a reproach to him; and therefore it may be charged upon\nhim as such; especially since it is said, concerning the righteous man;\n_in his eyes a vile person is contemned_, Psal. xv. 4.\n_Answ._ We are far from asserting, that it is a sin to reprove sin, and\nshew the person who commits it his vileness, and the reason he has to\nreproach and charge himself with it, and loath himself for it;\ntherefore,\n_1st_, The contempt that is to be cast on a vile person, does not\nconsist in making him the subject of laughter, as though it was a light\nmatter for him thus to dishonour God as he does; for this should\noccasion grief in all true believers, as the Psalmist says, _I beheld\nthe transgressors and was grieved; because they kept not thy word_,\nPsal. cxix. 158. But,\n_2dly_, When the Psalmist advises to _contemn_ such an one, the meaning\nis, that we should not make him our intimate, or bosom-friend; or if he\nbe in advanced circumstances, in the world, we are not to flatter him in\nhis sin; whereby, especially when it is public, he forfeits that respect\nwhich would otherwise be due to him. In this sense we are to understand\nMordecai\u2019s contempt of Haman, Esther iii. 2.\nHere we may take occasion to distinguish, between reproving sin, and\nreproaching persons for it; the former of these is to be done with\nsorrow of heart, and compassion expressed to the sinner; as our Saviour\nreproved Jerusalem, and, at the same time, _wept over it_, Luke xix. 41,\n42. But, on the other hand, reproach is attended with hatred of, and a\nsecret pleasure taken in his sin and ruin. Again, reproof for sin ought\nto be with a design to reclaim the offender; whereas reproach tends only\nto expose, exasperate, and harden him in his sin. Moreover, reproof for\nsin ought to be given with the greatest seriousness and conviction of\nthe evil and danger ensuing hereupon; whereas they who reproach persons,\ncharge sin on them, as being induced hereunto by their own passions,\nwithout any concern for the dishonour which they bring to God and\nreligion hereby, or desire of their repentance and reformation.\n[3.] Sometimes that which is the highest ornament, and greatest\nexcellency of a Christian, is turned to his reproach; more particularly,\n_1st_, Some have been reproached for extraordinary gifts, which God has\nbeen pleased to confer on them. Thus the spirit of prophecy was\nsometimes reckoned, by profane persons, the effect of distraction, 2\nKings ix. 11. And Joseph was reproached by his brethren, in a taunting\nway, with the character of a dreamer; because of the prophetic\nintimation which he had from God, in a dream, concerning the future\nestate of his family, Gen. xxxvii. 13. And when the apostles were\nfavoured with the extraordinary gift of tongues, and preached to men of\ndifferent nations, in their own language; _Some were amazed, and others\nmocked them, and said, These men are full of new wine_, Acts ii. 13.\n_2dly_, Raised affections, and extraordinary instances of zeal for the\nglory of God, have been derided as though they were matter of reproach.\nThus Michael reproached David, when he _danced before the ark_, 2 Sam.\nvi. 20. being induced hereunto by an holy zeal, and transport of joy on\nthis occasion; though he was so far from reckoning it a reproach, that\nhe counted that which she called vile, glorious.\n_3dly_, Spiritual experiences of the grace of God, have, sometimes, been\nturned by those who are strangers to them to their reproach and termed\nno other than madness. Thus when the apostle Paul related the gracious\ndealings of God with him in his first conversion, Festus charged him\nwith being _beside himself_, Acts xxvi. 24.\n_4thly_, A person\u2019s being made use of by God, to overthrow the kingdom\nof Satan, has been charged against him, as though it were rebellion.\nThus the Jews tell Pilate, when he sought to release Jesus, _If thou let\nthis man go, thou art not Cesar\u2019s friend_, John xix. 12. and that\nreformation which the apostles were instrumental in making in the world,\nby preaching the gospel, is styled, _turning the world upside down_,\nActs xvii. 6.\n_5thly_, Humility of mind in owning our weakness, as not being able to\ncomprehend some divine mysteries contained in the gospel, is reckoned\nmatter of reproach by many, who call it implicit faith, and admitting of\nthe greatest absurdities in matters of religion.\n_6thly_, Giving glory to the Spirit, as the author of all grace and\npeace, and desiring to draw nigh to God in prayer, or engage in other\nholy duties, by his assistance, is reproached by some, as though it were\nenthusiasm, and they who desire or are favoured with this privilege,\nwere pretenders to extraordinary revelation.\n_7thly_, A being conscientious in abstaining from those sins which\nabound in a licentious age, or reproving and bearing our testimony\nagainst those who are guilty of them, is reproached with the character\nof hypocrisy, preciseness, and being righteous overmuch.\n_8thly_, Separating from communion with a false church, and renouncing\nthose doctrines which tend to pervert the gospel of Christ, is called,\nby some, heresy. Thus the Papists brand the Protestants with the\nreproachful name of heretics; to whom we may answer, that this is rather\nour glory, and confess, that _after the way which they call heresy, so\nworship we the God of our fathers_, Acts xxiv. 14.\nThis sin is attended with many aggravations; for God reckons it as a\ncontempt cast on himself, Luke x. 16. and it is a plain intimation, that\nthey who are guilty of it, pretend not to be what they reproach and\nderide in others, who, if they be in the right way to heaven, these\ndiscover that they desire not to come hither. And, in their whole\nconduct, they act as though they were endeavouring to banish all\nreligion out of the world, by methods of scorn and ridicule; which, if\nit should take effect, this earth would be but a small degree better\nthan hell.\nHowever, when we are thus reproached for the sake of God and religion,\nlet us not render railing for railing; but look on those who revile us,\nas objects of pity, 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13. 1 Pet. ii. 23, who do more hurt\nto themselves than they can do to us, thereby. Moreover, let us reflect\non our own sins, which provoke God to suffer this; and beg of him that\nhe would turn this reproach to his own glory, and our good. Thus David\ndid, when he was unjustly and barbarously cursed and railed at by\nShimei, 2 Sam. xvi. 10-12. We ought also to esteem religion the more,\nbecause of the opposition and contempt that it meets with from the\nenemies of God; which may, indeed, afford us some evidence of the truth\nand excellency thereof; as our Saviour says concerning his disciples,\n_If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because you\nare not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore\nthe world hateth you_, John xv. 19.\nAgain, when we are reviled for the sake of Christ and religion, let us\ntake encouragement from hence, that herein we have the same treatment\nthat he, and all his saints, have met with, Heb. xii. 2, 3. chap. xi.\n36. And let us also consider that there are many promises annexed\nhereunto, Matt. v. 11, 12. 1 Pet. iv. 14. It is also an advantage to our\ncharacter as Christians; for hereby it appears, that we are not on their\nside, who are Christ\u2019s avowed enemies; and therefore we should reckon\ntheir reproach our glory, Heb. xi. 26, or, as the apostle says, _Take\npleasure in reproaches for Christ\u2019s sake_, 2 Cor. xii. 10. or, as it is\nsaid elsewhere, _Rejoice, that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for\nhis name_, Acts v. 41. Thus concerning our doing injury to our\nneighbour, by speaking against him before his face. We shall now\nconsider,\n2. The injury that is done to others by speaking against them behind\ntheir backs. This they are guilty of, who raise or invent false reports\nof their neighbours, or spread those which ought to be kept secret, with\na design to take away their good name; these are called tale-bearers,\nback-biters, slanderers, who offer injuries to others, that are not in a\ncapacity of defending themselves, Lev. xix. 16. These malicious reports\nare oftentimes, indeed, prefaced, with a pretence of great respect to\nthe person whom they speak against. They seem very much surprised at,\nand sorry for what they are going to relate; and sometimes signify their\nhope, that it may not be true; and desire, that what they report may be\nconcealed, while they make it their business themselves to divulge it.\nBut this method will not secure their own reputation, while they are\nendeavouring to ruin that of another. This is done various ways;\n(1.) By pretending that a person is guilty of a fault which he is\ninnocent of. Thus our Saviour, and John the Baptist were charged with\nimmoral practices, which there was not the least shadow or pretence for,\n(2.) By divulging a real fault which has been acknowleged and repented\nof, and therefore ought to be concealed, chap. xvii. 15. or when there\nis no pretence for making it public; but what arises from malice and\nhatred of the person.\n(3.) By aggravating, or presenting faults worse than they are. Thus\nAbsalom\u2019s sin in murdering Amnon, was very great; but he that brought\ntidings thereof to David, represented it worse than it was, when he\nsaid, that Absalom had _slain all the king\u2019s sons_, 2 Sam. xiii. 30.\n(4.) By reporting the bad actions of men, and, at the same time,\nover-looking and extenuating their good ones, and so not doing them the\njustice of setting one in the balance against the other.\n(5.) By putting the worst and most injurious construction on actions\nthat are really excellent. Thus, because our Saviour admitted Publicans\nand sinners into his presence, and did them good by his doctrine, the\nJews reproached him as though he were a _friend of publicans and\nsinners_, Matt. xi. 19. taking the word _friend_ in the worst sense, as\nsignifying an approver of them.\n(6.) By reporting things, to the prejudice of others, which are grounded\non such slender evidence, that they themselves hardly believe them, or,\nat least, would not, had they not a design to make use thereof, to\ndefame them. Thus Sanballat, in his letter to Nehemiah, tells him, that\n\u2018he and the Jews thought to rebel; and built the wall of Jerusalem, that\nhe might be their king,\u2019 Neh. vi. 6. which, it can hardly be supposed,\nthat the enemy himself gave any credit to. Thus concerning the instances\nin which persons back-bite, or raise false reports on others.\nAnd, to this we may add, that as they are guilty who raise them; so are\nthey who listen to, and endeavour to propagate them. It is not, indeed,\nthe bare hearing of a report, which, we cannot but think to be attended\nwith malice and slander, that will render us guilty; for that we may not\nbe able to avoid; but it is our encouraging him that raises or spreads\nit, which renders us guilty; and, particularly, we sin when we hear\nmalicious reports.\n[1.] If we conceal them from the party concerned therein, and so deny\nhim the justice of answering what is said against him, in his own\nvindication.\n[2.] When we do not reprove those who make a practice of slandering and\nback-biting others, in order to our bringing them to shame and\nrepentance; and, most of all, when we contract an intimacy with those\nwho are guilty of this sin, and are too easy in giving credit to what\nthey say, though not supported by sufficient evidence; but, on the other\nhand, carrying in it the appearance of envy and resentment. Thus\nconcerning the sins forbidden in this Commandment. We shall close this\nhead by proposing some remedies against it. As,\n_1st_, If the thing, reported to another\u2019s prejudice, be true, we ought\nto consider, that we are not without many faults ourselves; which we\nwould be unwilling, if others knew them, should be divulged. And if it\nbe doubtful, we, by reporting it, may give occasion to some, to believe\nit to be true, without sufficient evidence, whereby our neighbour will\nreceive real prejudice from that, which, to us, is only matter of\nsurmize and conjecture. But if, on the other hand, what is reported be\napparently false, the sin is still the greater; and the highest\ninjustice is hereby offered to the innocent, while we, at the same time,\nare guilty of a known and presumptuous sin, by inventing and propagating\nit.\n_2dly_, Such a way of exposing men answers no good end; nor is it a\nmeans of reclaiming them.\n_3dly_, Hereby we lay ourselves open to the censure of others, and by\nendeavouring to take away our neighbour\u2019s good name, endanger the loss\nof our own.\nFootnote 6:\n  _Mendacium officiosum._\nFootnote 7:\n  This is called _mendacium jocosum_.\nFootnote 8:\n  This is called _mendacium pernitiosum_.\n                    Quest. CXLVI., CXLVII., CXLVIII.\n    QUEST. CXLVI. _Which is the tenth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The tenth Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not covet thy\n    neighbour\u2019s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour\u2019s wife, nor\n    his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor\n    any thing that is thy neighbour\u2019s._]\n    QUEST. CXLVII. _What are the duties required in the tenth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the tenth Commandment are, such a full\n    contentment with our own condition, and such a charitable frame of\n    the whole soul toward our neighbour, as that all our inward motions\n    and affections touching him tend unto and further all that good\n    which is his.\n    QUEST. CXLVIII. _What are the sins forbidden in the tenth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the tenth Commandment, are, discontent\n    with our own estate; envying, and grieving at the good of our\n    neighbours, together with all inordinate motions and affections to\n    any thing that is his.\nThe general design of this commandment, is, to regulate and set bounds\nto our desires; and it contains a prohibition of coveting those things,\nthat belong not to us. It is not to be split into two Commandments, as\nthe Papists pretend; supposing that, _Thou shalt not covet thy\nneighbour\u2019s house_, is the ninth, and, _Thou shalt not covet thy\nneighbour\u2019s wife_, &c. is the tenth Commandment; since these are only\nparticular instances of the breach of the same Commandment, and the\nargument taken from the repetition of the words, _Thou shalt not covet_,\nis so very weak and inconclusive, that it would hardly have been made\nuse of by them, had they not thought it necessary, some way or other, to\nmake up the number ten; having as was observed, under a foregoing head,\ndetermined the second Commandment, not to be distinct from, but an\nappendix to the first[9]. But passing this by, we proceed to consider,\nI. The duties required therein, which may be reduced to two heads;\n1. Contentment with our own condition; by which we are not to understand\nthat we are to give way to indolence or stupidity, but to exercise a\ncomposure of mind, acquiescing in the divine dispensations in every\ncondition of life. Thus the apostle says, _I have learned in whatsoever\nstate I am, therewith to be content_, Phil. iv. 11. And this being\napplicable to all sorts of men, we may consider it,\n(1.) As a grace that is to be exercised by those who are in prosperous\ncircumstances in the world. Thus the apostle says, _I know how to\nabound_, ver. 12. and to be _full_, as well as to _suffer need_. We\noften find, that they who have the greatest share of the good things of\nthis world, are so far from being satisfied with it, that their\ncovetousness increaseth in proportion to their substance. But such ought\nto consider, that this is most unreasonable and ungrateful; and may\njustly provoke God to take away the blessing which he has given them, or\nadd some circumstances thereunto, that will tend to embitter them; and\nit is a giving way to such a temper of mind as renders them really\nmiserable in the midst of their abundance. But that which we shall\nprincipally consider, is,\n(2.) How this grace of contentment is to be exercised by those who are\nin an afflicted state, together with the motives and inducements leading\nthereunto. And,\n[1.] We will suppose persons under bodily weakness or pain, which tends\nmuch to embitter the comforts of life, by which means they are made\nuneasy; and, indeed, it is impossible, from the nature of the thing, for\nthem not to complain, or groan under the burdens that are laid on them,\nas the Psalmist did, who speaks of himself as _weary of his groaning_,\nPsal. vi. 6. nor is it unlawful, provided they do not repine at, or find\nfault with, the methods of God\u2019s providence, in his dealing with them.\nNevertheless there are some things that may induce them to be contented.\n_1st_, When they consider, that the body gave occasion to the first\nentrance of sin into the world, and bears a part with the soul in all\nthe sins committed, and guilt contracted thereby. It is therefore no\nwonder, when we find that it has its share in those miseries that attend\nit.\n_2dly_, Bodily diseases are our monitors, to put us in mind of the\nfrailty of our present state; and therefore, since they are the\nharbingers of death, we are hereby forwarned, to prepare for it, as\nmaking sensible advances towards it.\n_3dly_, The greatest pains that we are liable to, are far short of what\nChrist endured for us; in which respect our afflictions are\ncomparatively light, and a convincing proof, that they are not certain\nindications of our being rejected by God, Eccl. ix. 1.\n_4thly_, As God will not lay more on us than he will enable us to bear;\nso none of these afflictive dispensations shall have a tendency to\nseparate the soul from Christ. Though we sometimes complain that this is\na great interruption to the exercise of grace; yet this shall not be\ncharged upon us as our fault, any otherwise than as it is the effect of\nthat sin, which is the procuring cause of all affliction.\n_5thly_, The heavier our afflictions are at present, the more sweet and\ncomfortable the heavenly rest will be, to those who have a well-grounded\nhope that they shall be brought to it, Job iii. 17. 2 Thess. i. 7. 2\nCor. iv. 17.\n[2.] If our condition be low and poor in the world, we are not without\nsome inducements to be content. For,\n_1st_, Poverty is not, in itself, a curse, or inconsistent with the love\nof God, since Christ himself submitted to it, 2 Cor. viii. 9. Matt.\nviii. 20. and his best saints have been exposed to it, and glorified\nGod, more than others, under it, 2 Cor. vi. 10.\n_2dly_, How poor soever we are, we have more than we brought into the\nworld with us, or than the richest person can carry out of it, Job i.\n_3dly_, They who have least of the world, have more than they deserve,\nor than God was under any obligation to give them.\n[3.] Suppose we are afflicted in our good name, and do not meet with\nthat love and esteem from the world, which might be expected; but, on\nthe other hand, are censured, reproached, and hated by those with whom\nwe converse. This should not make us, beyond measure, uneasy. For,\n_1st_, We have reason to conclude, that the esteem of the world is\nprecarious and uncertain; and they who most deserve it, have oftentimes\nthe least of it. Thus our Saviour was one day followed with the caresses\nof the multitude, shouting forth their hosannah\u2019s to him; and the next\nday the common cry was, crucify him, crucify him. And when the apostle\nPaul and Barnabas, had healed the cripple at Lystra, they could, at\nfirst, hardly restrain the people from offering sacrifice to them; but\nafterwards they joined with the malicious Jews in stoning them, Acts\nxiv. 18, 19. And Paul tells the Galatians, that \u2018if it had been\npossible, they would have plucked out their eyes, and have given them to\nhim;\u2019 but a little after this, he complains that he was \u2018become their\nenemy, because he told them the truth,\u2019 Gal. iv. 15, 16.\n_2dly_, The esteem of men is no farther to be desired, than as it may\nrender us useful to them; and if God is pleased to deny this to us, we\nare not to prescribe to him, what measure of respect he shall allot to\nus from the world, or usefulness in it.\n_3dly_, Let us consider, that we know more evil abounding in our own\nhearts than others can charge us with. Therefore, how much soever they\nare guilty of injustice to us; yet this affords us a motive to\ncontentment. Besides we have not brought that honour to God that we\nought; therefore, how just is it for him to deny us that esteem from men\nwhich we desire?\n[4.] Suppose we are afflicted in our relations; there are some motives\nto contentment. Thus if servants have masters who make their lives\nuncomfortable, by their unreasonable demands, or unjust severity, such\nought to consider, that their faithfulness and industry will be approved\nof, by God, how much soever it may be disregarded, by men; and a\nconscientious discharge of the duties incumbent on them, in the relation\nin which they stand, will give them ground to expect a blessing from\nGod, to whom they are herein said to do service, which shall not go\nunrewarded, Eph. vi. 7, 8.\nOn the other hand, if masters are afflicted, by reason of the stubborn\nand unfaithful behaviour, or sloth and negligence, of their servants;\nlet them enquire, whether this be not the consequence of their not being\nso much concerned for their spiritual welfare as they ought, or keeping\nup strict religion in their families? or, whether they have not been\nmore concerned that their servants should obey them, than their great\nmaster, which is in heaven?\nAgain, if parents have undutiful children, which are a grief of heart to\nthem; let them consider, as a motive to contentment, whether they have\nnot formerly neglected their duty to their parents, slighted their\ncounsels, or disregarded their reproofs? so whether they have not reason\nto charge themselves with the iniquity of their youth? and enquire,\nwhether God be not, herein, writing bitter things against them for it?\nor, whether they have not neglected to bring up their children in the\nnurture and admonition of the Lord? These considerations will fence\nagainst all repining thoughts at the providence of God, that has brought\nthese troubles upon them. And, as a farther inducement to make them\neasy, let such consider, that if this does not altogether lie at their\ndoor, but, they have been faithful to their children, in praying for,\nand instructing them, God may hear their prayers, and set home their\ninstructions on their hearts, when they themselves are removed out of\nthe world.\nOn the other hand, if children have wicked parents, whose conversation\nfills them with great uneasiness; let such consider, that this has been\nthe case of many of God\u2019s faithful servants; such as Hezekiah, Josiah,\nand others; and they may be assured, that they shall have no occasion to\nuse that proverb, \u2018The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the\nchildren\u2019s teeth are set on edge,\u2019 Ezek. xviii. 2.\n[5.] If we are afflicted, by reason of the treachery and unfaithfulness\nof pretended friends, which wound us in the most tender part, Psal. lv.\n12, 13. we may be induced to be content. For,\n_1st_, We have no ground to expect perfection in the best of men, nor\nthat their love and favour is immutable; neither is our conduct always\nsuch, that we do not often forfeit the respect, which we once had from\nothers.\n_2dly_, If our friends deal deceitfully with us, or are unfaithful to\nus, without just ground; this is not without the permission of the wise\nand over-ruling providence of God, who, sometimes, orders it to take us\noff from a dependence upon men, or expecting too much happiness from\nthem; which is to be sought for only in himself, Isa. ii. 22.\n_3dly_, This is our encouragement, when we find a change in the\nbehaviour of friends towards us, that our chief happiness consists in\nthe unchangeable love of God, Mal. iii. 6.\n[6.] When we are afflicted in the loss of friends, or near relations;\nlet us consider, as a motive to contentment,\n_1st_, That there is no reversing or altering the decree of God, which\nfixes the bounds of men\u2019s continuance in this world, Job xiv. 9.\n_2dly_, All the comfort we have in friends and relations is a peculiar\nblessing from God; and he sometimes afflicts us in the loss of them,\nthat he may draw off our affections from the best creature-enjoyments,\nand we may take up our rest intirely in himself. Moreover, we had never\nany reason to look on our friends as immortal, any more than ourselves;\nand therefore ought to say as David did when he lost his child, _I shall\ngo to him, but he shall not return to me_, 2 Sam. xii. 23. and so far as\nself-love is concerned herein, we have reason to give a check to the\nexcess thereof, by the exercise of self-denial, and say with David, _I\nwas dumb, and opened not my mouth, because thou didst it_, Psal. xxxix.\n8. or follow the example of Aaron, concerning whom it is said, that,\nwhen he lost two of his sons at once, by a public and awful stroke of\ndivine justice, _he held his peace_, Lev. x. 3.\n[7.] If we are afflicted by the want of success, or the many\ndisappointments that attend us, in our lawful callings, in the world, we\nhave reason, notwithstanding, to be content, if we consider,\n_1st_, That it is the sovereign hand of God that orders our condition\ntherein, as to what respects the success or disappointments that attend\nit; therefore we are not to strive against our Maker, or find fault with\nhis will, who may do what he pleases with his own.\n_2dly_, A man\u2019s happiness does not really consist in the abundance of\nwhat he possesses, Luke xii. 15. but rather in his having a heart to use\nit aright; therefore we ought to say to ourselves, as God did to Baruch,\n_Seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not_, Jer. xlv. 5.\n_3dly_, The world is a scene of vanity; we have no reason to expect too\nmuch from it; and therefore ought not to be dejected at the loss of it;\nespecially considering that such disappointments are the common lot of\nall sorts of men.\n_4thly_, The providence of God sometimes denies us the good things of\nthis world, that we may think it our duty and interest to lay up\ntreasures in heaven.\n[8.] Suppose we meet with afflictions, as to what relates to our\nspiritual concerns, as being under divine desertion, or decays of grace,\nor want of a sense of the love of God, or those spiritual comforts,\nwhich we once enjoyed from him; in this condition no believer can or\nought to be easy, at least, stupid and unconcerned about it; but, on the\nother hand, he ought to be humbled for those sins which may give\noccasion to it, and press after the enjoyment of what he is, at present,\ndeprived of: Nevertheless, contentment, as it is opposed to repining or\nquarrelling with God, is his present duty; and there are some\ninducements tending thereunto; as,\n_1st_, A person may have the truth of grace, when he is destitute of the\ncomfortable sense thereof.\n_2dly_, There are some great and precious promises made to believers, in\nthis condition, Isa. liv. 7, 8. Psal. cxii. 4.\n_3dly_, God has wise ends in this dispensation; for hereby he brings sin\nto remembrance, humbles us for it, fences against presumption and\nconfidence in our own strength, Psal. xxx. 6, 7. He also puts us upon\nthe exercise of suitable graces, Psal. xlii. 6. and lxxvii. 6. and when\nhe is pleased to comfort us after such afflictions, we are better\nfurnished to comfort others in the like case.\n2. The next thing required in this Commandment, is, a charitable frame\nof spirit towards our neighbour; so that all our inward motions and\naffections should lead us to promote and rejoice in his good, 1 Cor.\nxiii. 4-7. This charitable frame of spirit ought to be exercised,\n(1.) Towards those who excel us in gifts or graces: These they receive\nfrom the hand of providence, as talents to be improved; and therefore,\nif they have a greater share thereof than ourselves, more is required of\nthem in proportion thereunto, Luke xii. 48. If they excel us in grace,\nwe ought rather to rejoice, that though we bring but little glory to\nGod, others bring more; and it will afford us an evidence of the truth\nof grace, if, while we are humbled under a sense of our own defects, we\nare thankful for the honour that is brought to God by others, Gal. i.\n(2.) We ought to exercise a charitable frame of spirit towards those who\nare in more prosperous circumstances in the world; not envying,\ngrieving, or repining at the providence of God, because their condition\ntherein is better than ours. We are therefore to consider, that the most\nflourishing and prosperous condition in the world, is not always the\nbest, Psal. xxxvii. 16. nor is it without many temptations that often\nattend it, 1 Tim. vi. 9. and if it be not improved to the glory of God,\nthis will bring a greater weight of guilt on their consciences: Whereas,\non the other hand, if we enjoy communion with him, and the blessings of\nthe upper springs, this is much more desirable than the most prosperous\ncondition in the world, without it, Psal. xvi. 5, 6. This leads us to\nconsider,\nII. The sins forbidden in this Commandment. And these include in them,\nthat corrupt fountain from whence the irregularity of our desires\nproceeds; or the streams that flow from it, which discover themselves in\nthe lusts of concupiscence in various instances, as well as in our being\ndiscontented with our own estate.\n1. As to the former of these, to wit, the corruption of nature; this\nmust be considered as contrary to the law of God, and consequently\nforbidden in this Commandment. The Pelagians and Papists, indeed,\npretend that the law of God only respects the corruption of our actions\nwhich is to be checked and restrained thereby; and not the internal\nhabits or principle from whence they proceed; accordingly they take an\nestimate hereof from human laws, which only respect the overt acts of\nsin, and not those internal inclinations and dispositions which persons\nhave to commit it: But when we speak of the divine laws, we must not\ntake our plan from thence; for though man can only judge of outward\nactions, God judgeth the heart; and therefore that sin which reigns\nthere, cannot but be, in the highest degree, offensive to him; and\nthough the corruption of our nature cannot be altogether prevented or\nextirpated, by any prescription in the divine law; yet, this is the\nmeans which God takes, to reprove and humble us for it, Rom. vii. 9.\n_Object._ It is objected that the apostle James, in chap. i. 15.\ndistinguishes between lust and sin; _when lust hath conceived it\nbringeth forth sin_; therefore the corruption of nature is not properly\nsin; and, consequently not forbidden by the law.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that lust may be distinguished from\nsin, as the habit or corrupt principle is from the act which it\nproduces; and therefore, the apostle\u2019s meaning in this scripture is,\nthat lust, or irregular desires, are first conceived in the heart; and\nthen actual sins proceed from them in the life; and both of them are\nabhorred by God, and contrary to his law: And they seem to be forbidden,\nin particular, in this tenth Commandment.\nHere we may observe the various methods that corrupt nature takes, in\norder to its producing and bringing forth sinful actions. First, the\ntemptation is offered, either by Satan, or the world, with a specious\npretence of some advantage which may arise from our compliance with it;\nand, at the same time we consider not whether it be lawful or unlawful;\nand regard not the threatnings that should deter us from it. And, we\nsometimes take occasion, from the pernicious examples of the falls and\nmiscarriages of others, to venture on the commission of the same sins;\npretending that they are, many of them, more acquainted with scripture,\nthan we are; and there seems to be no ill consequence attending their\ncommission of those sins: therefore, why may we not give way to them?\nAnd also, that many, who have had more fortitude and resolution than we\ncan pretend to, have been overcome by the same temptations; therefore it\nis in vain for us to strive against them.\nAgain, corrupt nature sometimes fills the soul with a secret dislike of\nthe strictness and purity of the law of God; and, at other times, it\nsuggests that there are some dispensations allowed, in compliance with\nthe frailty of nature; and therefore, we may venture on the commission\nof some sins; At length we take up a resolution that we will try the\nexperiment, whatever be the consequence thereof. Thus lust brings forth\nsin; which, after it has been, for some time indulged, is committed with\ngreediness, and persisted in with resolution; and, in the end, brings\nforth death. And this leads us to consider,\n2. The irregularity of those actions, which proceed from the corruption\nof our nature, which are sometimes, called the lusts of concupiscence;\nwhereby, without the least shew of justice, we endeavour to possess\nourselves of those things which belong to our neighbour. Thus Ahab was\nrestless in his own spirit, till he had got Naboth\u2019s vineyard into his\nhand; and, in order thereto, joined in a conspiracy, to take away his\nlife, 1 Kings xxi. 4. And David coveted his neighbour\u2019s wife; which was\none of the greatest blemishes in his life, and brought with it a long\ntrain of miseries, that attended him in the following part of his reign,\n2 Sam. xii. 9-12. And Achan coveted those goods which belonged not to\nhim, the _wedge of gold_, and the _Babylonish garment_, Josh. vii. 21.\nwhich sin proved his ruin.\nThis sin of covetousness arises from a being discontented with our\npresent condition, so that whatever measure of the blessings of\nprovidence we enjoy, we are notwithstanding, filled with disquietude of\nmind, because we are destitute of what we are lusting after. This must\nbe considered as a sin that is attended with very great aggravations.\nFor,\n(1.) It unfits us for the performance of holy duties; prevents the\nexercise of those graces, which are necessary in order thereunto; and,\non the other hand, exposes us to manifold temptations, whereby we are\nrendered an easy prey to our spiritual enemies.\n(2.) It is altogether unlike the temper of the blessed Jesus, who\nexpressed an entire resignation to the divine will, under the greatest\nsufferings, John xviii. 11. Luke xxi. 42. And, indeed, it is a very\ngreat reproach to religion, in general, and a discouragement to those\nwho are setting their faces towards it, who will be ready to conclude,\nfrom our example, that the consolations of God are small, or that there\nis not enough in the promises of the covenant of grace, to quiet our\nspirits under their present uneasiness.\n(3.) It is to act as though we expected, or desired our portion in this\nworld, or looked no farther than these present things; which is contrary\nto the practice of the best of God\u2019s saints, 2 Cor. iv. 18.\n(4.) It tends to cast the utmost contempt on the many mercies we have\nreceived or enjoy, at present, which are, as it were, forgotten in\nunthankfulness; and it is a setting aside those blessings which the\ngospel gives us to expect.\n(5.) It argues an unwillingness to be at God\u2019s disposal, and a leaning\nto our own understandings, as though we knew better than him, what was\nmost conducive to our present and future happiness; and therefore, it is\na tempting God, and grieving his Holy Spirit, which has a tendency to\nprovoke him to _turn to be our enemy_, and _fight against us_, Isa.\nlxiii. 10.\n(6.) It deprives us of the present sweetness of other mercies; renders\nevery providence, in our apprehension, afflictive; and those burdens\nwhich would otherwise be light, almost insupportable.\n(7.) If God is pleased to give us what we were discontented and uneasy\nfor the want of, he often sends some great affliction with it: Thus\nRachel, in a discontented frame, says, _Give me children, or else I\ndie_, Gen. xxx. 1. she had, indeed, in some respects, her desire of\nchildren; but died in travail with one of them, chap. xxxv. 19.\n(8.) It is a sin, which they, who are guilty of, will find it very\ndifficult to be brought to a thorough conviction of the guilt which they\ncontract hereby, or a true repentance for it: Thus Jonah, when under a\ndiscontented and uneasy frame of spirit, justified himself, and, as it\nwere, defied God to do his worst against him; so that when this matter\nwas charged upon his conscience; _Dost thou well to be angry?_ he\nreplied, in a very insolent manner, _I do well to be angry, even unto\ndeath_, Jonah iv. 9. The justifying ourselves under such a frame of\nspirit, cannot but be highly provoking to God; and whatever we may be\nprone to allege in our own behalf, will rather aggravate, than extenuate\nthe crime.\nThere are several things which a discontented person is apt to allege in\nhis own vindication, which have a tendency only to enhance his guilt.\nAs,\n[1.] When he pretends that his natural temper leads him to be uneasy, so\nthat he cannot, by any means, subdue his passions, or submit to the\ndisposing providence of God.\nTo which it may be replied; that the corruption of our nature, and its\nproneness to sin, is no just excuse for, but rather an aggravation of\nit; whereby it appears to be more deeply rooted in our hearts; and,\nindeed, our natural inclinations to any sin are increased, by indulging\nit. Therefore, in this case, we ought rather to be importunate with God,\nfor that grace which may have a tendency to restrain the inordinacy of\nour affections, and render us willing to acquiesce in the divine\ndispensations, than to paliate and excuse our sin; which only aggravates\nthe guilt thereof.\n[2.] Some, in excuse for their discontented and uneasy frame of spirit,\nallege; that the injuries which have been offered to them, ought to be\nresented, that they are such as they are not able to bear; and not to\nshow themselves uneasy under them, would be to encourage persons to\ninsult and trample on them.\nBut to this it may be replied; that while we complain of injuries done\nus by men, and are prone to meditate revenge against them, we do not\nconsider the great dishonour that we bring to God, and how much we\ndeserve to be made the monuments of his fury, so that we should not\nobtain forgiveness from him, who are so prone to resent lesser injuries\ndone to us by our fellow-creatures, Matt. xviii. 23. _& seq._\n[3.] Others excuse their discontent, by alleging the greatness of their\nafflictions; that their burden is almost insupportable, so that they are\npressed out of measure, above strength, and are ready to say with Job,\n_Even to day is my complaint bitter; my stroke is heavier than my\ngroaning_, Job xxiii. 2.\nBut to this it may be replied; that our afflictions are not so great as\nour sins, which are the procuring cause thereof; nor are they greater\nthan some that befal others, who are better than ourselves; and, indeed,\nby indulging a discontented frame of spirit, we render them heavier than\nthey would otherwise be.\n[4.] Some pretend, that they are discontented and uneasy because the\naffliction they are under, was altogether unexpected; and therefore they\nwere unprovided for, and so less able to bear it. To this it may be\nreplied;\n_1st_, That a Christian ought daily to expect afflictions in this\nmiserable and sinful world, at least, so far as not to be unprovided\nfor, or think it strange that he should be exercised with them, 1 Pet.\n_2dly_, We have received many unlooked for mercies; and therefore, why\nshould we be uneasy because we meet with unexpected afflictions, and not\nrather set the one against the other.\n_4thly_, Some of God\u2019s best children have oftentimes been surprized with\nafflictive providences, and yet have been enabled to exercise\ncontentment under them. Thus the messengers who brought Job heavy and\nunexpected tidings of one affliction immediately following another, Job\ni. 13, & _seq._ did not overthrow his faith, or make him discontented\nunder the hand of God; for, notwithstanding all this, he _worshipped_\nand _blessed the name of the Lord_, ver. 20, 21.\n[5.] Others allege, that the change which is made in their circumstances\nin the world, from a prosperous to an afflicted condition of life, is so\ngreat, and lies with such weight upon their spirits, that it is\nimpossible for them to be easy under it. But to this it may be answered,\n_1st_, That when God gave us the good things we are deprived of, he\nreserved to himself the liberty of taking them away when he pleased, as\ndesigning hereby, to shew his absolute sovereignty over us; and\ntherefore, before this affliction befel us, it was our duty, according\nto the apostle\u2019s advice, to _rejoice as though we rejoiced not_, and to\n_use the world as not abusing it_, 1 Cor. vii. 30. and not to think it\nstrange, that we should be deprived of it, inasmuch as _the fashion_\nthereof _passeth away_.\n_2dly_, The greater variety of conditions in which we have been, or are,\nin the world, afford more abundant experience of those dealings of God\nwith us, which are designed as an ordinance for our faith; and\ntherefore, instead of being discontented under them, we ought rather to\nbe put hereupon, on the exercise of those graces that are suitable to\nthe change of our condition, as the apostle says, _I know both how to be\nabased, and I know how to abound_, Phil. iv. 12.\n[6.] Some allege, that they have the greatest reason to be discontented,\nbecause of the influence which their afflictions have on their spiritual\nconcerns, as they tend to interrupt their communion with God; and they\nare often ready to fear, that these are indications of his wrath, and,\nas it were, the beginning of sorrows; which leads them to the very brink\nof despair.\nTo this it may be replied; that it is certain nothing more sharpens the\nedge of afflictions, or has a greater tendency to make us uneasy under\nthem, than such thoughts as these; and not to be sensible hereof, would\nbe an instance of the greatest stupidity; yet let us consider,\n_1st_, That if our fears are ill-grounded, as they sometimes are, the\nuneasiness that arises from them is unwarrantable.\n_2dly_, If we have too much ground for them, we are to make use of the\nremedy that God has provided; accordingly we are to have recourse by\nfaith, to the blood of Jesus, for forgiveness; and this ought to be\naccompanied with the exercise of true repentance, and godly sorrow for\nsin, without giving way to those despairing apprehensions, that\nsometimes arise from a sense of the greatness of the guilt thereof, as\nthough it set us out of the reach of mercy; which will add an\ninsupportable weight to our burden; and,\n_3dly_, If under the afflicting hand of God, we are rendered unfit for\nholy duties, and have no communion with him therein; this may be owing,\nnot to the affliction, but that discontented, uneasy frame of spirit\nwhich we too much indulge under it. Therefore we are not to allege this\nas an excuse for that murmuring, repining frame of spirit which we are\ntoo apt to discover while exercised therewith.\nThe last thing to be considered is, the remedies against this sin of\nbeing discontented with our present condition; and these are,\n_1st_, A due sense of that undoubted right which God has to dispose of\nus, and our condition in this world, as he pleases; inasmuch as we are\nhis own, Matt. xx. 15.\n_2dly_, Uneasiness under the hand of God, or repining at his dealings,\nwhen he thinks fit to deprive us of the blessings we once enjoyed, is\nnot the way to recover the possession of them; but the best expedient\nfor us to regain them, or some other blessings that are more than an\nequivalent for them, is our exercising an entire resignation to the will\nof God, and concluding that all his dispensations are holy, just, and\ngood.\n_3dly_, Let us consider, that God oftentimes designs to make us better\nby the sharpest trials, which are an ordinance to bring us nearer to\nhimself. Thus David says, _Before I was afflicted, I went astray; but\nnow have I kept thy word_, Psal. cxix. 67.\n_4thly_, We ought to consider that God\u2019s design in these dispensations\nis, to _try our faith_, and that it _may found afterwards unto praise,\nhonour, and glory_, as it will be, with respect to every true believer,\n_at the appearing of Jesus Christ_, 1 Pet. i. 7. And to this we may add,\n_5thly_, That there are many promises of the presence of God, which have\nnot only a tendency to afford relief against uneasiness or dejection of\nspirit; but to give us the greatest encouragement under the sorest\nafflictions; particularly, that comprehensive promise, _I will never\nleave thee, nor forsake thee_, Heb. xiii. 5.\nFootnote 9:\n  _See Page 509._\n    QUEST. CXLIX. _Is any man able perfectly to keep the Commandments of\n    ANSW. No man is able, either in himself, or by any grace received in\n    this life, perfectly to keep the Commandments of God, but doth daily\n    break them in thought, word, and deed.\nHaving considered man\u2019s duty and obligation to keep the Commandments of\nGod; we are now led to speak of him as unable to keep them; and, on the\nother hand, chargeable with the daily breach thereof, which is an\nargument of the imperfection of this present state. We have, under a\nforegoing answer[10], endeavoured to prove that the work of\nsanctification is imperfect in this life; so that all the boasts of the\nPelagians, and others, who defend the possibility of attaining\nperfection therein, are vain and unwarrantable. We have also considered\nthe reasons why God orders that it should be so. And therefore we shall,\nwithout enlarging so much on this subject, as otherwise we might have\ndone, principally take notice of what is to be observed in this answer,\nunder two general heads.\nI. In what respects, and with what limitations, man is said to be unable\nto keep the Commandments of God; and, accordingly it is said, that no\nman is able, perfectly, to keep them. By which we are to understand, as\nit is observed in the Shorter Catechism[11], no mere man, whereby our\nSaviour is excepted, who yielded perfect obedience in our nature. This\nis farther explained, with another limitation, namely, that no man is\nable to do this since the fall; to denote that man, in his state of\ninnocency, was able, perfectly to keep the Commandments of God. For he\nwas made upright, and had the image of God instamped on his soul; which\nconsisted in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, Eccl. vii. 29. Gen.\ni. 27. having the law of God written in his heart, and power to fulfil\nit[12]. And, indeed, to suppose the contrary, would be a reflection upon\nthe divine government, and would argue man to have been created under a\nnatural necessity of sinning, and perishing; which is contrary to the\ngoodness, holiness, and justice of God. It is farther observed, that no\nman is able, in this life, thus to keep God\u2019s Commandments, which\ncontains an intimation that the glorified saints, in heaven, will be\nenabled to yield perfect obedience; notwithstanding the many\nimperfections they are now liable to. Moreover, as man is not able, of\nhimself, or without the aids of divine grace, to obey God; so he is not\nto expect such assistance from him as shall enable him to obey him\nperfectly. There is no doubt but the grace of God could free us from all\nthe remainders of sin in this world, as well as in our passing from it\nto heaven; but we have no ground to conclude that it will. For,\n1. _The whole creation_ is liable to the curse,[13] (which was\nconsequent upon man\u2019s first apostasy from God,) under which it\n_groaneth_, unto this day, Rom. viii. 22, 23. and shall not be delivered\nfrom it, till the scene of time, and things shall be changed, and the\nsaints shall be fully possessed of what they are now waiting for, to\nwit, the _adoption_, or _the redemption of their bodies_.\n2. God is pleased to deny his people that perfection of holiness here,\nwhich they shall attain to hereafter, that he may give them daily\noccasion to exercise the duties of self-denial, mortification of sin,\nfaith, and repentance, which redound to his own glory, and their\nspiritual advantage. This leads us,\nII. To consider that we daily break the Commandments of God, in thought,\nword, and deed.\n1. In thought; to wit, when the mind is conversant about sinful objects,\nin such away, as that it contracts defilement. It is a sign that the\nwickedness of man is very great, when, _every imagination of the\nthoughts of his heart is only evil_, and that _continually_, Gen. vi. 5.\nNow the sinfulness of the thoughts of men, consists in four things;\n(1.) When they chuse, delight in, and are daily conversant about things\nthat are vain, empty of what is good, and have no tendency to the glory\nof God, or the spiritual advantage either of ourselves or others. The\nleast vain thought which contains an excursion from our duty to God,\nbrings some degree of guilt with it; but when the mind is wholly taken\nup with vanity, so that it is turned aside from, or takes no delight in\nthose things that are of the highest importance, this will have a\ntendency to vitiate the mind, and alienate it from the life of God.\n(2.) The thoughts of men may be said to be sinful, when they are not\nfixed, or intensely set, on God and divine things, when engaged in holy\nduties; and that either, when worldly cares or business, how lawful\nsoever they may be at other times, have a tendency to divert our\nthoughts from them, being altogether inconsistent therewith. Or when our\nminds are conversant about spiritual things unseasonably, so as to be\ndiverted from our present design; as, when we are joining with others in\nprayer, instead of bearing a part with them, in having the same exercise\nof faith, and other graces, which supposes that our thoughts are\nemployed about the same object with theirs, we are meditating on some\nother divine subject, foreign to the present occasion.\n(3.) Our thoughts may be said to be sinful, when they are conversant\nabout spiritual things, without suitable affections, and, consequently,\nmeditating on them as common things, in which we are not much concerned;\nas when we are destitute of those holy desires after, or delight in God,\nwhen drawing nigh to him in holy duties, which his law requires. And\nthis will more evidently appear, when, by comparing the frame of our\nspirit therein, with what we observe it to be in other instances, we\nfind, that our affections are easily raised, when engaged in matters of\nless importance, but stupid, and unconcerned about our eternal welfare,\nin holy duties; which is accompanied with hardness of heart and\nimpenitency, and sometimes with uneasiness and weariness, as though they\nwere a burden to us.\nOn the other hand, our affections may be raised in these duties, and yet\nwe be chargeable with a sinfulness of thought therein; as,\n[1.] When the affections are raised by things of less importance, while\nother things that are more affecting, are not regarded. As, supposing a\nperson is meditating on Christ\u2019s sufferings, and he is very much\naffected with, and enraged at the treachery of Judas, that betrayed him,\nor the barbarity of the Jews, that crucified him; but not in the least\nwith the sin of the world, that was the occasion of it, or the greatness\nof his love, that moved him to submit to it.\n[2.] When our affections are raised in holy duties, and this is all that\nwe depend upon, for justification and acceptance in the sight of God,\nvainly supposing that our tears will wash away our sins, being destitute\nof faith in the blood of Christ.\n[3.] When we are concerned about the misery consequent on our sins, but\nare not in the least inclined to hate them, nor grieved at the dishonour\nbrought to the name of God thereby.\nThis leads us to consider the causes hereof, and remedies against it. If\nwe do not find that our affections are raised in these religious\nexercises, as they have been in times past, we ought to enquire into the\nreason thereof; whether this be not attended with some great\nbackslidings from God, which might first occasion it. Sometimes it\nproceeds from a neglect of holy duties, either public or private; at\nother times, from presumptuous sins, committed, or continued in, with\nimpenitency. And we often find, that our being too much embarrassed\nwith, or immoderately engaged in our pursuit of the profits or pleasures\nof this world, stupifies and damps our affections, as to religious\nmatters, so that they are seldom or never raised therein.\nAs to the remedies against this stupid and unaffected frame of spirit;\nwe must not only repent of, but abstain from those sins, that have been\nthe occasion thereof; meditate on those subjects, that are most suitable\nto our case, which have a tendency to enflame our love to Christ, and\ndesire after him, and our zeal for his glory; and often confess and\nbewail our stupidity and unbecoming behaviour in holy duties; earnestly\nimploring the powerful influence of the Spirit of God, to bring us into,\nand keep us in a right frame of spirit for them.\n(4.) We have reason to charge ourselves with sin, when guilty of\nblasphemous thoughts; as,\n_1st_, When we have, by degrees, brought on ourselves a disregard of\nGod, either by living in the neglect of holy duties, or allowing\nourselves in the practice of known sins.\n_2dly_, When, before we were followed with these thoughts, we have found\nthat we gave way to some doubts about the divine perfections; or,\nthrough the ignorance, pride and vanity of our minds, have contracted an\nhabitual disregard to, or neglect of that holy reverence with which we\nought to meditate on them.\n_3dly_, When we can hear those execrable oaths or curses, by which some\nprofanely blaspheme the name of God, without expressing our resentment\nwith the utmost abhorrence and detestation.\n_4thly_, When we find, that being followed with blasphemous thoughts,\nour hearts are too prone to give in to them, as though they were the\nsentiments of our mind; whereby we do, as it were, consent to them,\ninstead of rejecting them with the utmost aversion.\nBut, on the other hand, blasphemous thoughts are not always to be\ncharged on us as a sin. Sometimes they are chargeable on Satan, who\nherein acts according to his character, as God\u2019s open enemy; and\nendeavours to instil into us the same ideas that he himself has. These\nthoughts may be charged on him; when they are hastily injected into our\nminds, not being the result of choice or deliberation; but are a kind of\nviolence offered to our imagination, and, we cannot but discover the\ngreatest detestation of them, as well as of that enemy of souls, from\nwhom they take their rise; and when, at the same time, we are enabled to\nexercise the contrary graces, and betake ourselves to God with faith and\nprayer, that he would rebuke the Devil, and preserve our consciences\nundefiled, under this sore temptation, which we cannot but reckon one of\nthe greatest afflictions that befal us in the world. Thus concerning the\nsinfulness of our thoughts.\n2. We are farther said, daily to break the Commandments of God in word.\nThus the apostle James speaks of the _tongue_ as _an unruly evil full of\ndeadly poison_, James iii. 8. Evil-speaking, as was before observed\nconcerning the sinfulness of our thoughts, is attended with a greater or\nless degree of guilt, as the vanity of the mind, and the wickedness of\nthe heart, more or less discovers itself therein. Our Saviour speaks of\nthe accountableness of man in the day of judgment, for every _idle\nword_, Matt. xii. 36. to denote, that there is no sin so small, but what\nis displeasing to an holy God, a violation of his law, and brings with\nit a degree of guilt, in proportion to the nature thereof. These indeed,\nare the lowest instances of the sinfulness of words. There are others\nthat are of so heinous a nature, that they can hardly be reckoned\nconsistent with true godliness. _viz._ defaming, and malicious words;\nwhich are sometimes compared to a _sword_, or _arrows_, Psal. lvii. 4.\nor to a _serpent\u2019s tongue_, that leaves a sting and poison behind it,\nPsal. cxl. 3. Again, the sinfulness of our words extends itself yet\nfarther, as they are directed against the blessed God; when persons _set\ntheir mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the\nearth_, Psal. lxxiii. 9. when they give themselves the liberty to talk\nprofanely about sacred things, and openly blaspheme the name and\nperfections of God. This degree of impiety, indeed, all are not\nchargeable with. Nevertheless, we may say, should God mark the iniquity\nof our words, as well as of our thoughts, who could stand?\n3. We are said to break the Commandments of God, by deeds, _i. e._ by\ncommitting those sins which are contrived in the heart, and uttered with\nour tongues. These have been considered under their respective heads, as\na violation of each of the ten Commandments, or doing those things that\nare forbidden therein; and therefore we pass them over in this place,\nand proceed to speak concerning the aggravations of sin.\nFootnote 10:\n  _See Quest. LXXVIII. Vol. III. 170._\nFootnote 11:\n  _See Quest. LXXXII._\nFootnote 12:\n  _See Vol. II. 44._\nFootnote 13:\n  \u039a\u03c4\u1f77\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 these mean the animal part of man.\n    QUEST. CL. _Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous\n    in themselves, and in the sight of God?_\n    ANSW. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous.\n    But some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations,\n    are more heinous in the sight of God than others.\nThough all sins be objectively infinite, and equally opposite to the\nholiness of God; yet there are some circumstances attending them, which\nare of that pernicious tendency, that they render one sin more heinous\nthan another; so that it is not to be thought of, without the greatest\nhorror and resentment; as well as expose the sinner to a sorer\ncondemnation, if it be not forgiven. These are such as strike at the\nvery essentials of religion, and tend, as much as in us lies, to sap the\nfoundation thereof; as when men deny the being and perfections of God,\nand practically disown their obligation, to yield obedience to him. And\nsome sins against the second table, which more immediately respect our\nneighbour, are more heinous than others, in proportion to the degree of\ninjury done him thereby. Thus the taking away the life of another, is\nmore injurious, and consequently more aggravated than barely the hating\nof him; which is, nevertheless, a very great crime. Moreover, the same\nsin, whether against the Commandments of the first or second table, may\nbe said to be more or less heinous, in proportion to the degree of\nobstinacy, deliberation, malice, or enmity against God, with which it is\ncommitted; but these things will more evidently appear under the\nfollowing answer; which we proceed to consider,\n    QUEST. CLI. _What are those aggravations which make some sins more\n    heinous than others?_\n    ANSW. Sins receive their aggravations,\n    I. From the persons offending, if they be of riper age, greater\n    experience, or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office;\n    guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by\n    others.\nSins are greater than otherwise they would be when committed by those\nwhose age and experience ought to have taught them better. Thus Elihu\nsays, _A multitude of years should teach wisdom_, Job xxxii. 7. Many\nthings would be a reproach to such persons, which are more agreeable to\nthe character of children, than those who are advanced in age. Again, if\nthey have had large experience of the grace of God, and been eminent for\ntheir profession, or gifts conferred on them. These circumstances will\nrender the same sin more aggravated; for where much is given, an\nimprovement is expected in proportion thereunto; and where great\npretensions are made to religion, the acting disagreeable thereunto,\nenhances the guilt, and renders the sin more heinous. Again, if the\nperson offending be in an eminent station, or office in the world, or\nthe church; so that he is either a guide to others, or the eyes of many\nare upon him, who will be apt to follow and receive prejudice by his\nexample. When such an one commits a public and open sin, it is more\naggravated than if it had been committed by another. Thus God bids the\nprophet Ezekiel _see what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the\ndark, every man in the chambers of his imagery_, Ezek. viii. 12. And the\nprophet Jeremiah speaks of those who ought to have been guides to the\npeople, _viz._ the priests and the prophets, Jer. xxiii. 11. 14. who\ntransgressed against the Lord; and charges this on them as an\nextraordinary instance of wickedness; which their character in the\nworld, and the church rendered more heinous, though it was exceeding\nheinous in itself.\n    II. Sins receive their aggravations, from the parties offended; if\n    immediately against God, his attributes, and worship, against\n    Christ, and his grace; the holy Spirit, his witness, and workings,\n    against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially\n    related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly\n    weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good\n    of all or many.\nThere is no sin but what may be said to be committed against God; yet,\n1. Some are more immediately against him, as they carry in them a\ncontempt of his attributes and worship; whereby his name and ordinances\nare profaned, and the glory that is instamped thereon, little set by,\nMal. i. 3, 4. Other sins reflect dishonour on our Lord Jesus Christ; and\nthat either on his person, when we conclude him to be, or, at least, act\nas if he were no other than a mere creature; or, on his offices; when we\nrefuse to receive instruction from him as a prophet, or depend on his\nrighteousness as a priest, in order to our justification and acceptance,\nin the sight of God; or to submit to him as a King, who is able to\nsubdue us to himself, and defend us from the assaults of our spiritual\nenemies; or when we despise his grace, and neglect that salvation which\nhe has purchased, and offers in the gospel, Heb. ii. 3.\nAgain, our sins are aggravated when they are committed against the\nperson of the Holy Ghost; when we deny him to be a divine Person, or the\nauthor of the work of regeneration, as supposing that grace takes its\nrise from ourselves, rather than him; or when we do not desire to be led\nby the Spirit, or seek his divine influence in order thereunto. But, on\nthe other hand, resist his holy motions and impressions, and act\ncontrary to those convictions which he is pleased to grant us; by which\nmeans we are said to _grieve_ and _quench the spirit_, Eph. iv. 7. 1\nThess. v. 19. Also, when we reject and set ourselves against the witness\nof the Spirit, and that, either by concluding, that assurance of our\ninterest in the love of God, may be attained without it, and reckon all\npretences to it no better than enthusiasm; or, when on the other hand,\nwe suppose that the Spirit witnesses with our spirits, that we are the\nchildren of God, without regard had to the work of sanctification, that\nalways accompanies, and is an evidence thereof; whereby we take that\ncomfort to ourselves which does not proceed from the Spirit of holiness.\n2. Sins are aggravated as committed more immediately or directly against\nmen, and particularly those, to whom we stand related in the bonds of\nnature, or, who have laid us under the strongest obligations, by acts of\nfriendship to us. This is applicable to inferiors, who ought to pay a\ndeference to their superiors; those sins that are committed by such,\ncontain the highest instance of ingratitude, and are contrary to the\nlaws or dictates of nature, and therefore aggravated in proportion\nthereunto.\nMoreover, if they are committed against the saints; this is reckoned, by\nGod, an instance of contempt cast on himself, (whose image they are said\nto bear;) much more, if we oppose them as saints, Luke xvi. 16. Matt.\nxii. 6. And though we do not proceed to this degree of wickedness, our\ncrime is said to be greatly aggravated, when we lay a stumbling-block\nbefore those who are weak in the faith, which may tend to discourage\nthem in the ways of God; and, by this means, we do what in us lies, to\n_destroy those for whom Christ died_, Rom. xiv. 15. 1 Cor. viii. 11.\nThis is an injury done, not so much to their bodies, as their souls;\nwhich are wounded, and brought into great perplexity thereby.\nHowever, we must distinguish between an offence given, and unjustly\ntaken; or, it is one thing for persons to be offended at that which is\nour indispensible duty, in which case we are not to regard the\nsentiments of those who attempt to discourage us from, or censure us for\nthe performance of it; and our giving offence in things that are in\nthemselves indifferent, and might, without any prejudice, be avoided; in\nwhich case a compliance with the party offended, seems to be our duty;\nespecially if the offence takes its rise from conscience, rather, than\nhumour and corruption; and our not complying with him herein, would tend\nvery much to discourage and weaken his hands in the ways of God; and\ntherefore may be reckoned an aggravation of this sin.\nMoreover, it is a farther aggravation of sin committed, when it appears\nto be contrary to the common good of all men. This guilt may be said to\nbe contracted by them who endeavour to hinder the success of preaching\nof the gospel, 1 Thess. ii. 15. or otherwise, when the sin of one man\nbrings down the judgments of God on a whole church or body of people; of\nthis kind was Achan\u2019s sin, Josh. vii. 20, 21, 25.\n    III. Sins are aggravated from the nature and quality of the offence;\n    if it be against the express letter of the law, break many\n    commandments, contain in it many sins; if not only conceived in the\n    heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and\n    admit of no reparation; if against means, mercies, judgments, light\n    of nature, conviction of conscience; public or private admonition,\n    censures of the church, civil punishments, and our prayers,\n    purposes, promises; vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men;\n    if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently,\n    boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight,\n    continuance, or relapsing after repentance.\n1. Sin is aggravated when it is committed against the express letter of\nthe law, so that there remains no manner of doubt, whether it be a sin\nor duty. To venture on the commission of what plainly appears to be\nunlawful, is to sin with great boldness and presumption, whereby the\ncrime is very much aggravated, Rom. i. 32.\n2. When it contains a breach of several of the Commandments; and\ntherefore it may be reckoned a complicated crime. Of this kind was the\nsin of David, in the matter of Uriah; in which he was guilty of murder,\nadultery, dissimulation, injustice, _&c._ Also Ahab\u2019s sin against\nNaboth; which included in it not only covetousness, but perjury, murder,\noppression, and injustice.\n3. Sins are more aggravated, when they break forth in words, or outward\nactions, than if they were only conceived in the heart. It is true, sin\nin the heart has some peculiar aggravations, as it takes deeper root,\nbecomes habitual, and is entertained with a secret delight and pleasure,\nand as it is the source and fountain, from whence actual sins proceed.\nNevertheless, when that, which was before conceived in the heart, is\ndiscovered by words or actions, this adds a farther aggravation to it,\nas it brings a more public dishonour to God, and often-times a greater\ninjury to men.\n4. Sins are farther aggravated, when they are of such a nature, that it\nis impossible for us to repair the injuries done thereby, or make\nrestitution for them. Thus nothing can compensate for our taking away\nthe life of another, or for our casting a reproach on the holy ways of\nGod; and thereby endeavouring to bring his gospel into contempt; or,\nwhen we entice others to sin, by which means we turn them aside from\nGod, and endeavour to ruin their souls; which is an injury that we\ncannot, by any means, repair; and therefore the crime is exceedingly\naggravated.\n5. If the sin committed be contrary to the very light of nature, such as\nwould be offensive, even to the Heathen, 1 Cor. v. 1.\n6. Sins receive their aggravations, when committed against means,\nmercies, and judgments; as when we break through all the fences which\nare set to prevent them; and the grace of God, revealed in the gospel,\nis not only ineffectual, to preserve from sin, though designed for that\nend, Tit. ii. 11, 12. but turned into lasciviousness, Jude, ver. 4. When\nmercies are misimproved, undervalued, and, as it were, trampled on, Rom.\nii. 4. Isa. i. 3, Deut. xxii. 6. and judgments, whether threatened or\ninflicted are not regarded, nor were claimed thereby.\n7. Sins are farther aggravated, when they are committed against the\nchecks and convictions of conscience; which is a judge and a reprover\nwithin our own breasts. This is an offering violence to ourselves, and\nmaking many bold advances towards judicial blindness, hardness of heart,\nand a total apostacy.\n8. When the sins committed are against public or private admonitions,\ncensures of the church or civil punishments, which are God\u2019s ordinance\nto bring men to repentance; and if they prove ineffectual, to answer\nthat end, they will be left more stupid than they were before.\n9. Sins are farther aggravated, when they are contrary to our own\nprayers, vows, covenants, and promises made either to God or men. When\nwe confess sin, or pretend to humble ourselves before God in prayer, and\nyet, at other times, indulge the same sins, and are proud,\nself-conceited, and exalt ourselves against him; or when we pray for\nstrength against corruption, or grace to perform holy duties, when, in\nreality, we have no love to, nor desire after them; or when we praise\nhim for mercies received, while we are habitually unthankful, and\nforgetful of his benefits. Moreover, when we are very forward to make\nvows, covenants, or engagements, to be the Lord\u2019s; whereby we often lay\na snare for ourselves, from some circumstances that attend this action;\nand more especially from our disregarding it afterwards.\n10. Sins are aggravated from the manner of our committing them, _viz._\nIf they are done deliberately, with fore-thought or contrivance: As when\npersons are said to devise mischief upon their beds; and then as to\ntheir conversation, to set themselves against that which is good, Psal.\nxxxiv. 5. Again, if it be done wilfully, that is, with the full bent of\nthe will, making it the matter of our choice, and resolving to commit\nit, whatever it cost us. When we do it presumptuously, either when we\ntake encouragement hereunto from the grace of God, Rom. vi. 1. or when\nhis hand is lifted up against us, or when we see his judgments falling\nvery heavy upon others, and are not disposed to take warning thereby;\nbut grow more hardened and stupid than before.\nAgain, when sin is committed maliciously impudently, and obstinately;\nthis argues a rooted hatred against God. Or, when it is committed with\ndelight arising either from the thoughts we entertain thereof, before we\ncommit it; or the pleasure we take in what we have done, afterwards.\nAgain, when we boast of what we have done, which is to glory in our\nshame, Psal. x. 3. and lii. 1. when we do, as it were, value ourselves\nfor having got rid of the prejudices of education, and all former\nconvictions of sin, that so we may go on therein with less disturbance.\nAnd when persons boast of their over-reaching others in their way of\ndealing in the world, Prov. xx. 14. which they very often do in their\nsecret thoughts, when they are ashamed to let the world know how remote\nthey are from the practice of that justice, that ought to be between man\nand man. Again sins are aggravated when they are frequently committed,\nor when we relapse into the same sin, after having pretended to repent\n    IV. Sins are aggravated from circumstances of time, and place; if on\n    the Lord\u2019s-day, or other times of divine worship, or immediately\n    before, or after these, or other helps, to prevent or remedy such\n    miscarriages, if in public, or in the presence of others who are\n    thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.\nWhen sins are committed by us on the Lord\u2019s-day, it is a profaning that\ntime which he has sanctified for his service, and so renders us guilty\nof a double crime; or, when they are committed at any other time, which\nwe occasionally set apart for divine worship; or, in those seasons, when\nGod calls for fasting and mourning for our own sins, or those that are\npublicly committed in the world, Isa. xxii. 12,-14. or, at other times,\nwhen we have lately received signal deliverances, either personal or\nnational, Psal. cvi. 7. or, when they are committed immediately before\nor after we have engaged in holy duties; the former renders us very\nunfit for them; the latter will effectually take away all those\nimpressions, which have been made on our spirits therein.\nAgain, sins receive aggravation from the place in which they are\ncommitted: As for instance, if they are committed in those places, in\nwhich the name of God is more immediately called on, which if visible,\nwill afford great matter of scandal to some, and an ill example to\nothers; and if secretly committed, will tend to defile our souls, and\nargue us guilty of great hypocrisy. Moreover, when we commit those sins,\nwhich are generally abhorred in the place where providence has cast our\nlot: This is to render ourselves a stain and dishonour to those with\nwhom we converse. Thus the prophet speaks of some, who, _in the land of\nuprightness_, will _deal unjustly_, Isa. xxvi. 10. and especially when\nthey are committed in the presence of others, who are likely to be\nprovoked or defiled thereby; by which means we contract the guilt of\nother men\u2019s sins, as well as our own; and are doubly guilty, in that we\nare, in many respects, the cause of their transgressing.\nThere are several instances in which we may be said to contract the\nguilt of other men\u2019s sins, which I shall only mention briefly, _viz._\nwhen superiors lay their commands on inferiors, or oblige them to do\nthat which is in itself sinful; or, when we advise those who stand upon\na level with us, to commit sin, or give our consent to the commission of\nit, Acts vii. 58. chap. vii. 1. Again, when inferiors flatter superiors,\nor commend them for their sin: Thus when Herod had courted the applause\nof the people, by the oration which he made to them; they, on the other\nhand, flattered him, when they _gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of\na god, and not of a man_, chap. xii. 22. Again, when we have recourse to\nthose places, where sin is usually committed, and desire to associate\nourselves with them, whose conversation is a reproach to religion, Prov.\nxiii. 20. or, when we are sharers, or partakers, with others, in their\nunlawful gains; first encouraging, abetting, and helping them therein;\nand then dividing the spoil with them, chap. i. 23,-25. Again, when we\nconnive at sin committed; or, if it be in our power, do not restrain or\nhinder the commission of it; or, when we conceal it, when the farther\nprogress thereof might be prevented by our divulging it. Again, when we\nprovoke persons to sin. And hereby draw forth their corruptions; and\nwhen we extenuate sin, whether committed by ourselves or others; which\nis a degree of vindicating, or pleading for it. And lastly, when we do\nnot mourn for, or pray against those sins which are publicly committed\nin the world, that are like to bring down national judgments[14].\nFootnote 14:\n  These several heads, concerning the aggravations of sin, are contained\n  in three or four lines, which are helpful to our memories. Most of the\n  heads of this answer, are contained in that verse, _Quis?_ _Quid?_\n  _Ubi?_ _Quibus auxiliis?_ _Cur?_ _Quomodo?_ _Quando?_ And those that\n  relate to our contracting the guilt of other men\u2019s sins, in the\n  following lines; _Jussu._ _Consilio._ _Consensu._ _Palpo._ _Recursu._\n  _Participans._ _Nutans._ _Non obstans._ _Non manifestans._\n  _Incessans._ _Minuens._ _Non m\u00e6rens._ _Solicitansve._\n    QUEST. CLII. _What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?_\n    ANSW. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty,\n    goodness, and holiness of God, and, against his righteous law,\n    deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is\n    to come, and cannot be expiated, but by the blood of Christ.\n    QUEST. CLIII. _What doth God require of us, that may escape his\n    wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the\n    ANSW. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by\n    reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us\n    repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and\n    the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to\n    us the benefits of his mediation.\nIn the former of these answers, we have an account of then demerit of\nsin; in the latter, we have the character and disposition of those who\nhave ground to conclude that they shall be delivered from the wrath and\ncurse of God due to it. We have already considered one sin as greater\nthan another, by reason of several circumstances that tend to enhance\nthe guilt of those who commit them: Nevertheless, there is no sin so\nsmall but it has this aggravation in it, that it is a violation of the\nlaw of God, and is opposite to his holiness; and therefore it cannot but\nrender the sinner guilty in his sight; and guilt is that whereby a\nperson is liable to suffer punishment in proportion to the offence\ncommitted: Therefore it follows, that there is no ground for that\ndistinction which the Papists make between _mortal_ and _venial_ sins;\nwhereof the former, they suppose, deserves the wrath and curse of God\nboth in this and another world; but as for the latter, namely, _venial_\nsins, they conclude that they may be atoned for by human satisfactions,\nor penances; and that they are, in their own nature, so small, that they\ndo not deserve eternal punishment. This is an opinion highly derogatory\nto the glory of God, and opens a door to licentiousness, in a variety of\ninstances; the contrary to which, is contained in the answer we are now\nexplaining.\nFor the understanding whereof, let it be considered; that it is one\nthing for a sin to deserve the wrath and curse of God, and another thing\nfor the sinner to be liable and exposed to it. The former of these\narises from the heinous nature of sin, and is inseparable from it; the\nlatter is inconsistent with a justified state. Nothing can take away the\nguilt of sin, but the atonement made by Christ; and that forgiveness or\nfreedom from condemnation, which God is pleased to bestow as the\nconsequence thereof, Rom. viii. 1, 33. It is this that discharges a\nbeliever from a liableness to the wrath and curse of God. Though one sin\nbe greater than another, by reason of various circumstances that attend,\nor are contained in it, as was observed under the last answer: yet the\nleast sin must be concluded to be objectively infinite, as it is\ncommitted against a God of infinite perfection, since all offences are\ngreat in proportion to the dignity of the person against whom they are\ncommitted. Thus the same sin that is committed against an inferior, or\nan equal, which deserves a less degree of punishment, if it be committed\nagainst a king, may be so circumstanced, as that it will be deemed a\ncapital offence, and render the criminal guilty of high treason; though,\nat the same time, no real injury is done to, but only attempted against\nhim. In like manner we must conclude, that though it be out of our own\npower to injure or detract from the essential glory of the great God;\nyet every offence committed against him is great, in proportion to his\ninfinite excellency; and is therefore said to deserve his wrath and\ncurse. Wrath or anger, when applied to God, is not to be considered as a\npassion in him, as it is in men; but denotes his will to punish sin\ncommitted, which takes its first rise from the holiness of his nature,\nwhich is infinitely opposite to it. And the degree of punishment that he\ndesigns to inflict, is contained in his law; which, as it denounces\nthreatnings against those who violate it, the sinner is hereby said to\nbe exposed to the curse or condemning sentence thereof, agreeably to the\nrules of justice, and the nature of the offence. This is what we are to\nunderstand, in this answer, by sin\u2019s deserving the wrath and curse of\nGod.\nAnd this is farther considered, as what extends itself to this life, and\nthat which is to come. Punishments inflicted in this life, are but the\nbeginning of miseries; but they are sometimes inexpressibly great, as\nthe Psalmist says, _Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according\nto thy fear, so is thy wrath_, Psal. xc. 11. Sometimes there is but a\nvery short interval between sin and the punishment; as in the case of\nNadab and Abihu, Korah, and his company, Achan, and many others;\nwhereas, at other times, it is long deferred; nevertheless, it will fall\nwith great weight, at last, on the offender. Thus God sometimes punishes\nthe sin of youth in old age; and when a greater degree of guilt has been\ncontracted, writes bitter things against them, Job xiii. 26. But the\ngreatest degree of punishment is reserved for sinners in another world;\nwhich is styled _the wrath to come_, 1 Thess. i. 10. But these things\nhaving been insisted on in some foregoing answers[15], we shall add no\nmore on that head; but proceed to what is farther observed, viz. that\nthis punishment cannot be expiated any otherwise than by the blood of\nChrist. This is fitly inserted after the account we have had of man\u2019s\nliableness to the wrath of God, by reason of sin: for when we have an\nafflicting sense of the guilt we have exposed ourselves to, nothing else\nwill afford us relief.\nThe next thing to be considered is, how it may be removed, or by what\nmeans the justice of God may be satisfied, and an atonement made for\nsin. This is said to be done no other way but by the blood of Christ, as\nhas been considered elsewhere, under a foregoing answer; in which we\nendeavoured to prove the necessity of Christ\u2019s making satisfaction, and\nthe price that he paid in order thereto[16]. We have also considered the\nfruits and effects thereof, as it has a tendency to remove the guilt of\nsin, and procure for us a right to eternal life:[17] Therefore, we shall\npass over the consideration thereof in this place; only we may observe,\nthat, since this can be brought about by no other means but Christ\u2019s\nsatisfaction; it is not inconsistent with what is contained in the\nfollowing words, if rightly understood by us, to assert that God\nrequires of us, repentance, faith, and a diligent attendance on the\noutward means of grace; though we must not conclude them to be the\nprocuring cause of our justification, or a means to expiate sin. They\nare certainly very much unacquainted with the way of salvation by\nChrist, as well as the great defects of their repentance and faith, who\nsuppose, that God is hereby induced to pardon our sins, or deliver us\nfrom the wrath we have deserved thereby; nevertheless, we are not to\nthink, that impenitent unbelieving sinners have a right to determine\nthat they are in a justified state, or have ground to claim an interest\nin the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption. Therefore, these graces are\nnecessary to evince our interest in what he has done and suffered for\nus, and they are inseparably connected with salvation; though they do\nnot give us a right and title to eternal life, as Christ\u2019s righteousness\ndoth. We have, in two foregoing answers, given a particular account of\nrepentance and faith. Concerning repentance, we have observed, that it\nis a special saving grace, wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, and have\nshewn in what way he works it; and also the difference between legal and\nevangelical repentance, as the former is often found in those who are\ndestitute of the latter. We have considered the various acts of\nrepentance unto life[18]; what the objects and acts of saving faith are;\nand how it differs from that which is not so; and the use of this grace,\nin the whole conduct of our lives, and how it gives life and vigour to\nall other graces, and enables us to perform duties in a right\nmanner[19]. Therefore we shall not insist on this subject at present,\nbut only speak of repentance and faith as means appointed by God, in\norder to our attaining compleat salvation.\nThe means conducive hereunto, are either internal or external; the\nformer of these are inseparably connected with salvation; so that\n_none_, who repent and _believe, shall perish_, John iii. 16. These\ngraces, together with all others, that accompany or flow from them, are\nthe fruits and effects of Christ\u2019s mediation; and therefore they are\nsometimes called saving graces. As they are wrought in the hearts of\nbelievers, and have a reference to salvation; they may be truly styled\ninternal means of salvation; and, as such, they are distinguished from\nthose outward and ordinary means of grace, by which God is pleased to\nwork them. And these are the ordinances which we are diligently to\nattend on, in hopes of attaining those graces under them, till God is\npleased to give success to our endeavours, and work grace under these\nmeans; the efficacy whereof, is wholly owing to his power, and is to be\nresolved into his sovereign will.\nThis may be fitly illustrated by what is said concerning the poor,\n_impotent_, _blind_, _halt_, and _withered_ persons, _waiting_ at the\n_pool of Bethesda_, for the _angels troubling the water_; after which,\nhe that _first stepped in, was made whole_, John v. 2-4. Nevertheless,\nwe do not find that every one who waited there embraced the first\nopportunity, and received a cure; for some were obliged to wait many\nyears; and if they were made whole at last, they had no reason to think\ntheir labour lost. This may be applied to those who have the means of\ngrace. Many sit under them who receive no saving advantage thereby, till\nGod is pleased, in his accepted time, to work those graces which render\nthese ordinances effectual to salvation. This blessed success attending\nthem, is from God; he could, indeed, save his people without them, as he\nconverted Paul, when going to Damascus, with a design to persecute the\nchurch there; being not only unacquainted with, but prejudiced against\nthe means of grace. But this is not God\u2019s ordinary method. He has put an\nhonour on his own institutions, so as to render it necessary for us to\npray, wait and hope for saving blessings, in attending on them. Thus\nwhen he promises to _put his Spirit_ within his people, and _cause them\nwalk in his statutes_, he adds; yet _for this will I be enquired of by\nthe house of Israel, to do it for them_, Ezek. xxxvi. 27, 37.\naccordingly we are commanded to _seek the Lord while he may be found,\nand to call upon him while he is near_, Isa. lv. 6. Hereby we testify\nour approbation of that method which he has ordained for the application\nof redemption; and by our perseverance therein, as determining not to\nleave off waiting till we have obtained the blessing expected, we\nproclaim the valuableness thereof, and subscribe to the sovereignty of\nGod, in dispensing those blessings to his people, which they stand in\nneed of, as well as pray and hope for them in his own time and way. Thus\nwe are to wait on the means of grace.\nAnd it is farther observed, that this is to be done with diligence; not\nin a careless and indifferent manner, as though we neither expected nor\ndesired much advantage from them. This implies in it an embracing every\nopportunity, and observing those special seasons, in which God is\npleased, in his gospel, to hold forth the golden sceptre of grace; as\nalso our having earnest desires and raised expectations of obtaining\nthat grace from him which he encourages us to wait and hope for[20].\nWhich leads us to speak particularly concerning those outward means, as\ncontained in the following answer.\nFootnote 15:\n  _See Vol. II. Quest. XXVIII, XXIX, and Vol. III. Quest. LXXXIX._\nFootnote 16:\n  _See Vol. II. Quest. XLIV. Page 273-290._\nFootnote 17:\n  _See Quest. LXX, LXXI. Vol. III. p. 66-96. and what was said under\n  those answers, to explain the doctrine of justification._\nFootnote 18:\n  _See Quest. LXXVI. Vol. III. p. 166._\nFootnote 19:\n  _See Quest. LXXII., LXXIII. Vol. III. p. 98._\nFootnote 20:\n  To affect to honour the mercy of God, by supposing this is sufficient\n  for all our sins, however persevered in, is to disparage his truth\n  which has proposed terms of mercy, connected our salvation with them,\n  and pronounced them exclusive. It is to imagine that Deity shall\n  change his purposes; it is an affront to his wisdom to suppose that\n  after he has placed us in a state of probation and made us\n  accountable, no retribution should be made. It indicates insincerity,\n  and not a real regard for the divine glory, to set up such a\n  substitute for the gospel scheme of salvation.\n  To excuse sin by alleging our impotency to good, is disingenuous;\n  because the party can be conscious of no obstacle, unless his own\n  inclinations to evil can be so denominated. This excuse casts the\n  blame on God. To persist in sin under such pretences, is _to do evil\n  that good may come_, which, the Apostle of the Gentiles declares\n  renders condemnation just; it is to sin _that grace may abound_.\n  To defer the acceptation of offered mercy, and put off the work of\n  repentance, is unwise, as it is heaping sorrows against the day of\n  bitterness; it is imprudent, because it is to remain at enmity with\n  Him upon whom we depend, and to be liable at every moment of this\n  uncertain life to be involved in everlasting despair. It is evidence\n  of a very sordid mind to prefer the base gratifications of the senses,\n  to the refined pleasures of virtue, and the beauty, peace, and\n  comforts of holiness.\n  If the procrastination proceed from a dread of the labour of acquiring\n  the knowledge of the truth, this will be increased by every hour\u2019s\n  delay, as the mind becomes thereby the less susceptible of religious\n  impressions. The time in which the work should be accomplished also\n  becomes the shorter; like a traveler, who has mistaken his course, the\n  impenitent has every step to tread back again, and his time is\n  proportionally curtailed. The truths of natural science flatter our\n  pride and ambition, but those of religion humble and crucify them; the\n  latter, being opposed to the carnal mind, disgust; if such disgust\n  produce a delay of conversion, the truths which have once excited such\n  aversion will be more likely afterwards to do it, because the mind by\n  once having rejected them has become more sensual, and opposed to\n  moral good.\n  The cares and business of life not merely pre-occupy the mind, and\n  exclude the thoughts of religion, but augment our addictedness to\n  earthly objects, and render progressively the mind more insensible to\n  lessons of piety. In old age avarice or sensuality are often at the\n  highest pitch; the man has become more impatient and irritable,\n  tenacious even of his errours, and averse to changes, no change can be\n  looked for but the great one, when the messenger arrives, who brings a\n  scythe in his hand.\n  To defer conversion till death, that its terrors may dissolve the\n  charms of the world, besides the hazard of surprise, is unreasonable,\n  as it supposes mercy when we have persisted in rebellion as long as we\n  can; it is to expect that God\u2019s Spirit shrill always strive with man;\n  it is highly presumptuous; and it exposes also to self-deception, as\n  religion in that late hour must be the effect of necessity, and\n  destitute of the fruits and proofs of holiness.\n    QUEST. CLIV. _What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates\n    to us the benefits of his mediation?_\n    ANSW. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to\n    his church the benefits of his mediation, are, all his ordinances;\n    especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made\n    effectual to the elect for salvation.\nIn explaining this answer, we shall consider,\nI. What we are to understand by the ordinances, which are here styled\noutward and ordinary means of grace. The first idea contained in them\nis, that they are religious duties, prescribed by God, as an instituted\nmethod, in which he will be worshipped by his creatures; but that which\nmore especially denominates them to be ordinances, is, the promise which\nhe has annexed to them of his special presence, and the encouragement\nthat he has given to his people in attending on them, to hope for those\nblessings that accompany salvation. As God works grace by, and under\nthem, they are called means of grace; and because he seldom works grace\nwithout first inclining persons to attend on him therein, and wait for\nhis salvation; therefore they are called the ordinary means of grace;\nand because they have not in themselves a tendency to work grace,\nwithout the inward and powerful influences of the Holy Spirit,\naccompanying them, they are distinguished from it, and accordingly\nstyled the outward means of grace.\nThat which may be observed concerning the ordinances as thus described,\nis,\n1. That they may be engaged in, pursuant to a divine appointment;\ntherefore no creature hath a warrant to enjoin any modes of worship,\npretending that this will be acceptable, or well-pleasing to God; since\nhe alone, who is the object of worship, has a right to prescribe the way\nin which he will be worshipped. To do this would be an instance of\nprofaneness and bold presumption; and the worship performed pursuant\nthereunto would be _in vain_; as our Saviour says concerning that which\nhas no higher a sanction than _the commandments of men_, Matt. xv. 9.\nand whatever pretence of religion there may be therein, God looks upon\nsuch worshippers as well as those whose prescriptions they follow\nherein, with the utmost contempt, and will punish them for, rather than\nencourage them in it. Thus the prophet reproves Israel, as being guilty\nof defection from God, who engaged in that worship which he had not\nordained, when he says, _The statutes of Omri are kept, and all the\nworks of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels, that I should\nmake thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing.\nTherefore shall ye bear the reproach of my people_, Mic. vi. 16. And\nJeroboam is often branded with this character, that _he made Israel to\nsin_, for instituting ordinances of divine worship, and _setting up\ncalves in Dan and Bethel, making an house of high places, and priests of\nthe lowest of the people_, and appointing sacred times, in which they\nshould perform this worship; all which were of his own devising, and\nbecame a snare to the people, Exod. xx. 24. It is certain, that such\nappointments cannot be reckoned means of grace, or pledges of God\u2019s\npresence; and it would redound to his dishonour, should he be obliged to\ncommunicate the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption hereby, to any who,\n(under a pretence of worshipping him in a way of their own devising,)\noffer the highest affront to him.\n2. If God is pleased to reveal his will concerning the way in which we\nare to worship him, and hope for his presence, it is our indispensable\nduty to comply with it, and implore his acceptance of us herein; and be\nimportunate with him, that he would put a glory on his own institutions,\nand grant us his special presence and grace, that we may be enabled to\nperform whatever duty he enjoins, in such a manner, that the most\nvaluable ends may be answered, and our spiritual edification and\nsalvation promoted thereby.\n3. Though we consider the ordinances as instituted means of grace; yet,\na bare attendance on them will not, of itself, confer grace, as is very\nevident from the declining state of religion, in those who engage in the\nexternal part of it, and attend upon all the ordinances of God\u2019s\nappointment, and yet remain destitute of saving grace; who are stupid\nunder the awakening calls of the gospel, and regard not the invitations\ngiven therein, to adhere stedfastly to Jesus Christ, whom in words they\nprofess to own, though in works they deny him. This is a convincing\nevidence, that it is God alone, who appointed those ordinances, that can\nmake them effectual to salvation. Thus concerning the nature of an\nordinance, and in what respect it may be called an outward and ordinary\nmeans of grace. We are now,\nII. To consider what are those ordinances by which Christ communicates\nto us the benefits of his mediation. These may be considered,\n1. As engaged in by particular persons, as subservient to their\nspiritual welfare, in order to the beginning or carrying on the work of\ngrace in their souls; such as meditation about divine subjects,\nself-examination, and all other duties, which are performed by them in\ntheir private retirement, in hope of having communion with God therein.\nOr,\n2. There are other ordinances which God has given to worshipping\nassemblies, which are founded in that general promise, _In all places\nwhere I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee_,\nExod. xx. 24. Those mentioned in this answer, are the words, sacraments\nand prayer; of which the sacraments are particularly given to the\nchurches; the word and prayer, to all who are favoured with the\ngospel-dispensation. And to these we may add, singing the praises of\nGod; which, though it be not particularly mentioned in this answer, is,\nnevertheless, a duty wherein we may expect to meet with his presence and\nblessing; and accordingly is an ordinance which God makes effectual to\npromote our salvation. Therefore, before we enter on the subject-matter\nof the following answers, we shall speak something concerning this duty,\nas an ordinance which he has instituted; together with the way and\nmanner in which it is to be performed. And,\n(1.) We may enquire what ground we have to reckon it among the\nordinances of God. This must not be taken for granted, but proved;\nbecause there are many who deny it to be so. That it was an ordinance\nenjoined to, and practised by the church, under the Old\nTestament-dispensation, appears from the many songs and psalms given, by\ndivine inspiration, to be used by the church, in their solemn acts of\nworship; some of which were not only sung by particular persons; but the\nwhole church is represented as joining therein with united voices. Thus\nwhen Pharaoh\u2019s host was drowned in the red sea, it is said, _Moses and\nthe children of Israel sang_ the song that was given by divine\ninspiration for that purpose, contained in Exod. xv. And when he was\ninspired with that song, in Deut. xxxii. he was commanded, in chap.\nxxxi. _to write it for them, and teach it to them, and put it in their\nmouths_; that they might sing it in their public worship; which he did\naccordingly, ver. 22. And from the days of David, when public worship\nwas more settled than it had been before; and many things relating to\nthe order, beauty and harmony thereof, brought into the church by divine\ndirection, then there was an order of men called _Singers_, who were to\npreside over, and set forward the work. And there was also a book of\npsalms, given by divine inspiration, for the use of the church therein,\nthat they might not be at a loss as to the subject-matter of praise in\nthis ordinance; as may be inferred from the style thereof, the words\nbeing often put in the plural number; which argues, that they were to be\nsung, not by one person in the church, but by the whole congregation, in\ntheir solemn and public acts of worship; and accordingly we often find\nthe whole multitude of them exhorted to sing the praises of God. Thus it\nis said in Psal. xxx. 4. _Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his, and\ngive thanks at the remembrance of his holiness._ And elsewhere, _Sing\naloud unto God our strength. Make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob.\nTake a psalm_, &c. _For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the\nGod of Jacob_, Psal. lxxxi. 1, 2, 3, 4. And sometimes the church are\nrepresented as exciting one another to this duty. Thus it is said, _O\ncome let us sing unto the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock\nof our salvation. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and\nmake a joyful noise unto him with psalms_, Psal. xcv. 1, 2.\nAnd it may be observed, that how much soever the use of musical\ninstruments, which were in this worship may be concluded to be\nparticularly adapted to that dispensation, as they were typical of that\nspiritual joy, which the gospel church should obtain by Christ; yet the\nordinance of singing remains a duty, as founded on the moral law; and\naccordingly we find, that the practice hereof was recommended, not only\nto the Jews, but to all nations. Thus it is said, _Make a joyful noise\nunto the Lord all the earth_, Psal. xcviii. 4. And he speaks to this\npurpose, when he presses this duty upon _all lands_, whom he exhorts to\n_serve him with gladness; and to come before the Lord with singing_,\nPsal. c. 1, 2. And besides, it seems to be preferred before some other\nparts of worship, which were merely ceremonial. Thus the Psalmist says,\n_I will praise the name of God with a song. This also shall please the\nLord better than an ox or bullock_, Psal. lxix. 30, 31. that is, God is\nmore glorified hereby than he is by the external rites of ceremonial\nworship; especially when abstracted from those acts of faith, which add\nan excellency and glory to them.\nAnd this leads us to consider it as an ordinance practised by the New\nTestament-church. Some had songs given in to them by inspiration; as the\nvirgin Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, Luke i. 46, 47, & _seq._ chap. ii.\n28, & _seq._ and sometimes the members of particular churches had a\npsalm given in by extraordinary revelation, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. and we can\nhardly suppose this to have been without a design that it should be sung\nin the church for their edification; especially considering it as an\nextraordinary dispensation of the Spirit: And, as the singing of a psalm\nin the church, is an act of public worship, it is reasonable to suppose,\nthat the whole assembly joined together therein; and therefore this\nordinance was not only practised by them, but had also a divine\nsanction, in that the Spirit was the author of the psalm that was sung:\nAnd we sometimes read of the church\u2019s singing an hymn, which was no\nother than a psalm or spiritual song, at the Lord\u2019s-supper: Thus our\nSaviour, in the close of that ordinance, sung an hymn with his\ndisciples, that small church with whom he then communicated, Mark xiv.\n26. And at another time, when he was _come nigh to the descent of the\nmount of olives_, it is said, that _the multitude of the disciples began\nto rejoice, and to praise God with a loud voice_, Luke xxix. 37. where,\nby _the multitude of the disciples_, we must understand all that\nfollowed him, who had, at that time, a conviction in their consciences,\nthat he was the Messiah, from the miracles which they had seen him work;\nand we have an account of the short hymn which they sang; _Blessed be\nthe king that cometh in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory\nin the highest_, Luke xix. 38. This was not, indeed, sung in a\nchurch-assembly; however, it was with a _loud voice_, and herein they\ngave glory to God: And though some of the Pharisees were offended at it,\nver. 39. yet our Saviour, in the following words, vindicates their\npractice herein; which argues, that it was a branch of religious\nworship, performed by them at that time; and a duty approved of by him.\nAll that I would infer from hence, is, that our Saviour gave countenance\nto the singing the praises of God, with united voices. Therefore it\nfollows, that we ought, on all occasions, to do the same thing; and\nconsequently, singing is an ordinance, whereby the church ought to\nglorify God, and shew forth his praise. Thus we have considered singing\nto be an ordinance, or a branch of instituted worship.\n(2.) There are several things in which this ordinance agrees with some\nothers; particularly with prayer in all the parts thereof; and with\nreading and preaching of the word. That it has something in common with\nprayer, appears from the subject-matter of several of the psalms of\nDavid; some of which are called prayers, and accordingly they contain in\nthem several petitions, for blessings that the church stood in need of,\ntogether with various instances of confession of sin, as well as\nthanksgiving for mercies received. As to the agreement of this\nordinance, with preaching or reading the word; that, I think, may be\ninferred in general, from one of the ends thereof, mentioned by the\napostle, namely, in that we are herein to _teach and admonish one\nanother_, Col. iii. 16. This is what the Psalmist styles _talking of all\nhis wondrous works_, Psal. cv. 1, 2. And elsewhere, the church are said\nto _speak to_ themselves, or to _one another_ in this duty, Eph. v. 19.\nThis may be observed in the subject-matter of some of the psalms, in\nwhich the Psalmist is represented as speaking to the church, and they as\nmaking their reply to him: Thus he advises them to _lift up their hands\nin the sanctuary, and bless the Lord_, Psal. cxxxiv. 2. and answer him,\n_The Lord that made heaven and earth bless thee out of Zion_, ver. 3.\nThe name may be observed in many other psalms, in which there is a\nfrequent change of the person speaking; and the subject-matter of the\nwhole book contains many admonitions or cautions necessary to be\nobserved by others, which they who sing, direct and apply to each other.\nAgain, this ordinance agrees with preaching and reading the word, in\nthat we are, in singing the praises of God, to take notice of, or\ncelebrate the dispensations of his providence, either in a way of\njudgment or mercy; of this we have many instances in the book of Psalms,\nas is very evident in all those that are properly historical.\n(3.) We must, notwithstanding, suppose singing to be a distinct\nordinance from preaching, prayer, or reading the word; for it is\nmentioned in scripture, as such; and that wherein it principally\ndiffers, is, that it is designed to raise the affections: and it is\ncertain, that the modulation, or tone of the voice, has oftentimes a\ntendency so to do. And because the performing religious worship, with\nraised affections, is a great duty and privilege; therefore God has\nappointed this as an ordinance, in some degree conducive to answer that\nend.\n_Obj._ 1. If the tone of the voice be to be reckoned an ordinance, to\nraise the affections; then vocal or instrumental music may be deemed\nsufficient to answer this end, without making use of those words in\nsinging, which God has ordained, whereby it may be denominated a\nreligious duty.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that to have the affections raised,\nis no branch of religion, unless they are excited by those ideas of\ndivine things, in which it principally consists: Therefore, that which\nis a means of raising the affections, may not have a tendency to excite\nreligious affections; and, consequently, it is not barely singing, but\ncelebrating the praises of God therein, with raised affections, that is\nthe duty and ordinance which we ought to engage in: These two,\ntherefore, must be connected together; and if God is pleased, not only\nto instruct us as to the matter about which our faith is to be\nconversant, but to give us an ordinance conducive to the exciting our\naffections therein, it must be reckoned an additional advantage, and an\nhelp to our praising him in a becoming manner.\n_Obj._ 2. Those arguments that have been taken from the practice of the\nOld Testament-church, to prove singing an ordinance, may, with equal\njustice, be alleged to prove the use of instrumental music therein;\nsince we very often read of their _praising_ God with the _sound of the\ntrumpet, psaltery, harp, organ_, and other musical instruments, Psal.\ncl. 3, 4, 5. which is the principal argument brought for the use of them\nby those who defend this practice, and conclude it an help for\ndevotion.[21]\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that though we often read of music\nbeing used in singing the praises of God under the Old Testament; yet if\nwhat has been said concerning its being a type of that spiritual joy\nwhich attends our praising God for the privilege of that redemption\nwhich Christ has purchased be true; then this objection will appear to\nhave no weight, since this type is abolished, together with the\nceremonial law. And it may be farther observed, that though we read of\nthe use of music, in the temple-service, yet it does not sufficiently\nappear, that it was ever used, in the Jewish synagogues; wherein the\nmode of worship more resembled that which is, at present, performed by\nus in our public assemblies. But that which may sufficiently determine\nthis matter, is, that, we have no precept or precedent for it in the New\nTestament, either from the practice of Christ, or his apostles. And\ninasmuch as this is alleged, by some, to overthrow the ordinance of\nsinging, who pretend, that it ought to be no more used by us than the\nharp, organ, or other musical instruments: It might as well be objected,\nthat, because incense, which was used under the ceremonial law, together\nwith prayer in the temple, Luke i. 9, 10. is not now offered by us;\ntherefore prayer ought to be laid aside; which is, as all own, a duty\nfounded on the moral law.\n(4.) In singing those psalms or songs, which are given by divine\ninspiration, we are not to consider the subject-matter thereof, as\nalways expressive of the frame of our own spirits, or denoting the\ndispensations of providence, which we, or the church of God are, at\npresent exercised with. This is necessary in order to our singing with\nunderstanding; and it may be inferred from what is observed under the\nsecond of those heads, before laid down, relating to the agreement which\nthere is between singing and reading any of David\u2019s psalms.\nIt must be allowed by all, that we ought to have the same acts of faith\nin one, as we have in the other. This is evident from all composures in\nprose or verse, whether divine or human. If the subject-matter be\nhistorical, whatever the form be in which it is laid down, the principal\nthings to be considered are, those matters of fact which are therein\nrelated. If an history be written in prose, and the same should be\nturned into verse; its being laid down in the form of a poem, though it\nadds something of beauty to the mode of expression, yet the ideas, that\nare conveyed thereby, or the historical representation of things, are\nthe same as though they had not been written in verse. It may be, the\nreading the same history in verse, may add something of pleasure and\ndelight to those ideas which we have of it, in like manner as singing,\naccording to the third head before mentioned, is a distinct ordinance\nfrom reading (though the matter be the same, as it respects the exciting\nthe affections;) yet this does not give us different ideas of it; much\nless are we to take occasion from thence, to apply those things to\nourselves that are spoken of others; unless parallel circumstances\nrequire it. If this rule be not observed, I do not see how we can sing\nmany of the psalms of David. Sometimes the subject-matter thereof is not\nagreeable to every age of life, or the universal experience of\nparticular persons. It would be very preposterous for a child, in\nsinging those words, _I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not\nseen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread_, Psal. xxxvii.\n25. or what is elsewhere said; _Now also, when I am old and gray-headed,\nO God, forsake me not_, Psal. lxxi. 18. to apply them, in particular to\nhimself. And when some other psalms are sung in a public assembly, in\nwhich God\u2019s people are represented as dejected, disconsolate, and, as it\nwere, sinking in the depths of despair; as when the Psalmist says, _My\nsoul refused to be comforted. I remembered God, and was troubled; I\ncomplained, and my spirit was overwhelmed_, Psal. lxxvii. 2, 3. and\nelsewhere, _I am counted with them that go down into the pit. Thy wrath\nlieth hard upon me. While I suffer thy terrors, I am distracted_, Psal.\nlxxxviii. 4, 7, 15. This cannot be applied to every particular person in\na worshipping assembly; as denoting that frame of spirit in which he is,\nat present, any more than those expressions which we meet with\nelsewhere, which speak of a believer, as having full assurance of God\u2019s\nlove to him, and his right and title to eternal life; as when it is\nsaid, _Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to\nglory_, Psal. lxxiii. 24. can be applied to those who are in a dejected,\ndespairing, or unbelieving frame of spirit.\nAnd those psalms which contain an historical account of some particular\ndispensations of providence towards the church of old, cannot be applied\nto it in every age, or to the circumstances of every believer; as when\nit is said, _By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down; yea, we wept\nwhen we remembered Zion_, Psal. cxxxvii. 1. This is not to be considered\nas what is expressive of our own case, when we are, in the present day,\nsinging that psalm, Or, when, on the other hand, the church is\nrepresented as praising God for particular deliverances, as in Psal.\ncvii. or expressing its triumphs in the victories obtained over its\nenemies, as in Psal. cxlix. these are not to be applied, by particular\npersons, to themselves; especially at all times. And when the Psalmist\nmakes use of those phrases which are adapted to the ceremonial law, as\nwhen he speaks of _binding the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns\nof the altar_, Psal. cxviii. 27. or elsewhere, of their _offering\nbullocks upon it_, Psal. li. 19. this cannot be taken in a literal\nsense, when applied to the gospel-state. And when we are exhorted to\n_praise God with the psaltery_, &c. Psal. cl. we are to express those\nacts of faith which are agreeable to the present gospel-dispensation,\nwhich we are under; and the general rule, which is applicable to all\npsalms of the like nature, is, that with the same frame of spirit with\nwhich we read them, we ought to sing them. Sometimes we are to consider\nthe subject-matter of them, as containing an account of those\nprovidences which we are liable to, rather than those which we are, at\npresent, under; or what we desire, or fear, rather than experience; and\nimprove them so as to excite those graces which ought to be exercised in\nlike circumstances, when it shall please God to bring us under them.\nWith this frame of spirit the psalms of David are to be sung, as well as\nread; otherwise we shall be obliged to exclude several of them as not\nfit to be used in gospel-worship, which I would assert nothing that\nshould give the least countenance to,[22] any more than I would affirm\nthat such-like psalms are not to be read in public assemblies.\n_Obj._ 1. To what has been said concerning our using David\u2019s psalms in\nsinging the praises of God, it is objected, that some of them contain\nsuch imprecation, or desires, that God would destroy his enemies, Psal.\nlv. 15. and lix. 13-15. and lxix. 22-25, 27, 28. as are inconsistent\nwith the spirit of the gospel, or that love which we are, therein,\nobliged to express towards our enemies, agreeably to the command and\npractice of the holy Jesus, Matt. v. 44, 46. Luke xxiii. 34.\nBefore I proceed to a direct answer to this objection, it may be\nobserved, that this is generally alleged, by the Deists, with a design\nto cast a reproach on divine revelation; and from hence they take\noccasion, outrageously to inveigh against David, as though he was of a\nmalicious and implacable spirit; upon which account they will hardly\nallow him to have been a good man, since these, and such-like\nimprecations of the wrath of God on the church\u2019s enemies, are reckoned\nby them no other than the effects of his passion and hatred of them; and\ntherefore it is a preposterous thing to suppose, that his psalms were\ngiven by divine inspiration.\nAnd there are others, to wit, some among the Socinians, who give a\ndifferent turn to such-like expressions; and pretend, that under the Old\nTestament dispensation, it was not unlawful for persons to hate their\nenemies, or curse, or imprecate the wrath of God upon them, whereas, our\nSaviour thought fit, under the New Testament-dispensation, to command\nwhat was directly contrary thereunto. That it was formerly lawful, they\nargue from what is said in Matt. v. 43. _Ye have heard that it hath been\nsaid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy._ And the new\nCommandment which he substituted in the room thereof, is contained in\nthe following words, in which he obliges them, to _love their enemies_,\n&c. But this is a gross mistake of the sense of that scripture, which\nspeaks of _hating_ their _enemies_; since our Saviour does not, in\nmentioning it, design to refer to any thing said in the Old Testament,\nbut only to expose the corrupt gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees, given\non some passages contained therein. Therefore, we must conclude, that it\nwas equally unlawful to hate our enemies before, as it is now, under the\ngospel-dispensation. These things I could not but premise, before we\ncome to a direct answer to this objection; and, if what is contained\ntherein were true, it would certainly be unlawful to sing David\u2019s\npsalms; yet, at the same time, it would be a very difficult matter, to\nsubstitute any hymns and songs in their room, which would be altogether\nunexceptionable; and then the ordinance of singing would be effectually\noverthrown.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied; that the words being spoken by\nDavid, under divine inspiration, some of those scriptures referred to,\nmay, agreeably to the rules of grammar, be understood as a prediction of\nthose judgments which God would execute on his implacable enemies;\nespecially when the word, that is supposed in the objection, to contain\nthe form of an imprecation, is put in the _future tense_, as it often\nis. And if it be put in the _imperative mood_, as in other places, in\nwhich it is said, _Let death seize on them; let them go down quick into\nhell; let them be blotted out of the book of the living_; this mode of\nspeaking, especially when applied to God, contains an intimation of what\nhe would do, or the wrath which he would pour forth, as a punishment of\nsin, committed, persisted in, and not repented of. And, indeed, in one\nof these psalms, _viz._ Psal. lxix. in which the righteous judgments of\nGod are denounced against sinners, the Psalmist plainly speaks in the\nperson of our Saviour, to whom the 9th and 21st verses are expressly\napplied in the New Testament, John ii. 17. Matt. xxvii. 34. Therefore,\nwhen he says, ver. 22. _Let their table become a snare_, the meaning is,\nthat God would deny some of his furious and implacable enemies, that\ngrace, which alone could prevent their waxing worse and worse under\noutward prosperity. And when he says, ver. 23. _Let their eyes be\ndarkened_; the meaning is, they shall be given up to judicial blindness,\nas the Jews were; the providence of God permitting, though not effecting\nit. And when it is said, ver. 23. _Pour out thine indignation upon\nthem_, it is an intimation that this should come to pass. And, in ver.\n25. _Let their habitation be desolate_; the meaning is, that the land,\nin which they dwelt, should be destitute of its former inhabitants, and\nso contains a prediction of the desolate state of the Jewish nation,\nafter they were destroyed, and driven out of their country by the\nRomans. And when he farther says, _Add iniquity to their iniquity_; this\nmay be accounted for consistently with the divine perfections, and the\nsense thereof is not liable to any just exception; as has been observed\nelsewhere. This I only mention, to shew that it is not necessary to\nsuppose that these imprecations are always to be understood as what will\nwarrant, or give countenance to private persons to wish, or pray for the\ndestruction of their enemies.\nMoreover, if the evil denounced be of a temporal nature; as when the\nPsalmist is represented as desiring that his enemies may be _consumed as\nthe stubble before the wind_, or as _the wood that fire burneth_, Psal.\nlxxxiii. 13, 14. these are not the desires of one who meditates private\nrevenge, or wishes to see the ruin of those whom he hates. But they\ncontain the language of the church of God in general, as acquiescing in\nhis righteous judgments, which should be poured forth on those that hate\nhim, and persecute his people; and, if either the church must be ruined,\nor those that set themselves against it, removed out of the way, they\ncannot but desire the latter, rather than the former. If such\nexpressions be thus understood, there would be no sufficient reason for\nthat exception that is taken against the book of the psalms; nor will\nany one have just occasion to lay aside a part of them, as what cannot\nbe sung by a Christian congregation.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that if singing could be proved to\nbe an ordinance, to be used by particular persons; it will not follow\nfrom thence, that the whole congregation ought to join with their voices\ntogether. It is sufficient if one person sings, and others make melody\nin their hearts; whereas, united voices in singing, will occasion\nconfusion in the worship of God; and, when a mixed multitude join in\nthis ordinance, it can hardly be supposed that they, all of them, sing\nwith the spirit, and with the understanding also. Therefore, if one\nshould sing, it is sufficient for them who are qualified to join in this\nordinance, to say, Amen; or, to have their hearts engaged therein; as\nthey have who join in public prayer, in which, one is the mouth of the\nwhole assembly.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied;\n[1.] That to insinuate that singing with united voices, is confusion, is\nto cast a great reproach on that worship which we often read of in\nscripture, which was performed in this manner. Thus Moses and the\nchildren of Israel sang the praises of God upon the occasion of their\ndeliverance from the Egyptians, in Exod. xvi. 1. which was certainly an\nact of public worship, not performed by Moses alone, but by the whole\ncongregation.\nAnd, in the New Testament, there is a very remarkable example of singing\nwith united voices, our Saviour himself being present, Mark xiv. 26.\nthus it is said, that he and his disciples _sang an hymn_. The word is\nin the plural number[23]; therefore they all joined with their voices in\nsinging; and some observe, that it is not without design that it is\nsaid, _He_, that is, Christ, _blessed the bread_, and _He gave thanks_,\nMat. xxvi. 26, 27. they only joining with him in their hearts, as the\ncongregation joins with the minister, who is their mouth in public\nprayer. But when he speaks of the ordinance of singing, they all join\nwith their voices therein; and therefore, the word, as was but now\nobserved, is in the plural number, ver. 30.\n[2.] As to that part of the objection, which respects the congregation\u2019s\njoining in the heart, with one that sings with the voice, in like manner\nas we do in prayer; let it be considered, that though he that joins with\nthe heart, with another that prays, may be said to perform the duty of\nprayer, though he does not express his desires with his own voice; yet\njoining with the heart, while one only sings, cannot properly speaking,\nbe called singing; much less singing with the voice, or singing with a\nloud voice, as it is often expressed in scripture. The apostle, indeed,\nspeaks of _singing and making melody in our hearts, to the Lord_, Eph.\nv. 19. which, in some measure, seems to favour the objection. And it is\ninferred from hence, that, if one sings with the voice, others may make\nmelody in the heart. But I take the meaning of that scripture to be\nthis; the apostle is pressing the church to sing, that is, to make\nmelody to the Lord; and, that this ordinance may be performed in a right\nmanner, the heart ought to go along with the voice; hereby intimating,\nthat there ought not only to be a melodious sound, by which the praises\nof God are sung, but, together with this, suitable acts of faith ought\nto be put forth, whereby we worship him with our hearts, as well as our\nvoices. This does not therefore prove, that the melody here spoken of,\nonly respects the frame of spirit, as excluding the use of the voice in\nsinging.\n[3.] As to what is objected against the inexpediency of joining in\nsinging, with a mixed multitude, in which, some must be supposed to want\ntwo necessary qualifications for singing, namely, the Spirit and\nunderstanding; this is to join in the external ordinance, where there is\nno harmony, as to the internal frame of spirit, or the exercise of\nfaith, which alone makes it pleasing to God.\nTo this it may be replied; that, if a mixed multitude may join together\nin prayer, and particularly the Psalms of David, may be read in the\npublic congregation; though, perhaps, there are many present who do not\nunderstand the meaning of every particular phrase used therein: yet it\ndoes not follow, that because we do not fully understand the Psalms of\nDavid, therefore they ought not to be sung by us. We have before\nobserved, that there is no essential difference, especially as to what\nconcerns the frame of our spirit, between singing and reading[24].\nTherefore it follows, that whatever psalm may be read, may be sung. He\nthat is not qualified for the latter is not qualified for the former.\nThe apostle, indeed, speaks of his _praying_ and _singing with the\nSpirit_, as well as _with the understanding_; but the meaning of that\nis, that we ought to desire the efficacious influences of the Spirit,\nand press after the knowledge of the meaning of the words we use, either\nin prayer or singing; yet the defect of our understanding, or having a\nless degree thereof than others, or, than we ought to have, does not\nexempt us from a right to engage in this ordinance. Therefore, we are\nnot to refuse to join with those in singing the praises of God, whom we\nwould not exclude from our society, if we were reading any of the Psalms\nof David in public.\n(5.) We are now to consider the matter to be sung. There are very few\nwho allow singing to be an ordinance, that will deny it to be our duty\nto sing the Psalms of David, and other spiritual songs, which we\nfrequently meet with in scripture. Some, indeed, have contested the\nexpediency of a Christian assembly\u2019s making use of several Old\nTestament-phrases, that are contained therein. And others have alleged,\nthat the phrase ought to be altered in many instances, (especially in\nthose which have a peculiar reference to the Psalmist\u2019s personal\ncircumstances,) and others substituted in their room, which are matter\nof universal experience. But, if what has been said under the last head,\nbe true, this argument will appear to have less weight in it; inasmuch\nas all the arguments that are brought in defence of making these\nalterations in the Psalms, as they are to be sung by us, will equally\nhold good, as applicable to the ordinance of reading them, and, it may\nbe, will as much evince the necessity of altering the phrase of\nscripture, in several other parts thereof, as well as in these, if what\nhas been said under the second head be allowed of. For it will follow\nfrom thence, that if some psalms are not to be sung by a Christian\nassembly, in the words in which they were at first delivered, and\nconsequently are not to be read by them; because the phrase thereof is\nnot agreeable to the state of the Christian church; and therefore it is\nto be altered, when applied to our present use; the same may be said\nconcerning other parts of scripture; and then the word of God, as it was\nat first given to us, is no more to be read, than to be sung by us[25].\nAs to what is objected concerning the inexpediency of our making use of\nthose words, and applying them to our case, in our devotions, that David\nused in his, with a peculiar view to his own condition. What has been\nsaid under the fourth head, relating to the frame of spirit with which\nthe psalms are to be sung, will very much weaken the force of it; and\nthis is what, in a great measure, determines my sentiments as to the\nordinance of conjoint singing, as well as the matter of it; for, I am\nwell persuaded, that if the words were to be considered as our own, (as\nthey ought to be, when joining with another, who is our mouth, to God in\nprayer,) there are very few psalms, or hymns of human composure, that\ncan be sung by a mixed assembly. But as a divine veneration ought to be\npaid to the psalms, and they are to be read with those acts of faith\nwhich are the main ingredients in our devotions; we are to sing them\nwith the same view, only with this difference; as making use of the tone\nof the voice, as a farther help to the raising our affections therein,\nas has been before observed.\nThe next thing to be considered is, what version of the Psalms is to\nhave the preference in our esteem, as it is subservient to the design of\nthis ordinance. It is not my business, under this head, to criticise on\nthe various versions of the Psalms; nor can it be supposed, that I have\na regard to those poetical beauties in which one version exceeds\nanother; for then I should be inclined to think some of them, which I do\nnot make use of in the ordinance of singing, much preferable to others,\nfor the exactness of their style and composure. But when I am singing\nthe praises of God, in, or as near as I can to, the words of David, or\nany other inspired writer; that which I principally regard is, the\nagreeableness of the version to the original; and then they may be sung\nwith the same frame of spirit with which they are to be read; and I am\nnot obliged in singing, to consider the words as expressive of my own\nframe of spirit, any more than I am in reading them. But if the\ncomposure cannot properly be called a version, but an imitation of\nDavid\u2019s Psalms, then I make use of it in the ordinance of singing, with\nthe same view as I would an hymn; of which, more hereafter[26].\nThe versions which, I think, come nearest to the original, are the\nNew-England and the Scots; the latter of which, I think, much preferable\nto the former; inasmuch as the sentences are not so transposed in this,\nas in the other, and the lines are much more smooth and pleasant to be\nread. I should be very glad to see a version more perfect, that comes as\nnear the sense of the original, and excels it in the beauty or elegancy\nof style. And it would be a very great advantage if some marginal notes\nwere added, as a comment upon it; which would be a help to our right\nunderstanding thereof.\nI shall now give my thoughts concerning the singing of hymns. These,\naccording to the common acceptation of the word, are distinguished from\npsalms, and they generally denote a human composure, fitted for singing;\nthe matter whereof, contains some divine subjects, in words agreeable\nto, or deduced from scripture. The arguments that are generally brought\nin defence thereof, are, that though scripture be a rule of faith, from\nwhence all the knowledge of divine things is primarily deduced; and\ntherefore it has the preference, as to the excellency and authority\nthereof, to any other composure; yet it is not only lawful, but\nnecessary to express our faith in the doctrines contained therein, in\nother words, as we do in prayer or preaching. Therefore, if it be a duty\nto praise God with the voice, it is not unlawful to praise him in words\nagreeable to scripture, as well as in the express words thereof;\naccordingly it is argued, that both may be proved to be a duty, _viz._\npraising God in the words of David, and by other songs contained in\nscripture, and praising him in words agreeable thereunto, though of\nhuman composure. This is the best method of reasoning that I have met\nwith in defence of the lawfulness of singing hymns, not as opposed to,\nor excluding David\u2019s Psalms, but as used occasionally, as providence\ndirects us; that so our acknowledgments of benefits received, may be\ninsisted on with greater enlargement than they are in the book of\nPsalms; wherein, though it may be, there is something adapted to every\ncase, yet the particular occasion of our praise is not so largely\ncontained in the same section or paragraph; and therefore an hymn may be\ncomposed on that occasion, in order to our praising God thereby. But,\nwhen on the other hand, persons seem to prefer hymns to David\u2019s Psalms,\nand substitute them in the room thereof, I cannot but disapprove of\ntheir practice.\nA late writer[27] speaks on this subject with a great deal of\nmoderation; when, though he proves that scripture psalms should be\npreferred before all others, and more ordinarily sung; yet he thinks\nthat hymns of human composure, ought not wholly to be excluded, provided\nthey be exactly agreeable to, and as much as may be, the words of holy\nscripture. There are other writers whom I pay equal deference to, who\nhave concisely, though with a considerable degree of judgment, proved\nsinging to be a gospel-ordinance[28], who argue against singing of\n_hymns_: and, indeed, what they say in opposition to those who defend\nthe practice thereof from Eph. v. 19. and Col. iii. 16. wherein _hymns_\nare supposed to be distinct from _psalms and spiritual songs_; and,\nconsequently, that we are to understand thereby human composures,\nagreeable to scripture, as by psalms and spiritual songs, we are to\nunderstand those which are contained in the very words of scripture,\nseems very just. And herein they speak agreeably to the mind of several\njudicious and learned men, who assert that these three words signify\nnothing else but those psalms or songs that are contained in\nscripture[29]. The question in debate with me, is not whether the\npsalms, hymns, or spiritual songs, that are contained in scripture, are\ndesigned to be a directory for gospel-worship; for that, I think, all\nought to allow; but, whether it be lawful to sing a human composure that\nis agreeable to scripture, either as to the words or sense thereof;\nespecially when the subject-matter of our praise is not laid down so\nlargely in one particular section of scripture, as we desire to express\nit. In this case, if we were to connect several parts of scripture\ntogether, so that the design of enlarging on a particular subject might\nbe answered thereby; it would render it less necessary to compose an\nhymn in other words. But, inasmuch as the occasions of praise are very\nlarge and extensive, and therefore it may be thought expedient, to adore\nthe divine perfections, in our own words in singing, in like manner as\nwe do in prayer, considering the one to be a moral duty as well as the\nother; I will not pretend to maintain the unlawfulness of singing hymns\nof human composure, though some of much superior learning and judgment\nhave done it.\nI would, however, always pay the greatest deference to those divine\ncomposures, which are given as the principal rule for our procedure\nherein. Nevertheless, I cannot but express my dislike of several hymns\nthat I have often heard sung; in some of which the heads of the sermon\nhave been comprised; and others, which are printed, are so very mean and\ninjudicious, and, it may be, in some respects, not very agreeable to the\nanalogy of faith, that I cannot, in the least, approve of them. But if\nwe have ground to conclude the composure, as to the matter thereof, and\nmode of expression, unexceptionable, and adapted to raise the\naffections, as well as excite suitable acts of faith in extolling the\npraises of God, it gives me no more disgust, though it be not in\nscripture-words, than praying or preaching do when the matter is\nagreeable thereunto. Yet, inasmuch as when we confess sin, acknowledge\nmercies received, or desire those blessings that are suited to our case,\nwe always suppose, that the words, which he, who is the mouth of the\ncongregation, uses, ought to be such, in which all can join with him\n(and in this, the reading one of David\u2019s prayers, and putting up a\nprayer in the congregation, differ as to a very considerable\ncircumstance in each of them) the same ought to be observed in hymns.\nBut, if an _hymn_ be so composed, as that all that sing it are\nrepresented as signifying their having experienced those things which\nbelong not to them, or as blessing God for what they never received:\nthis, I conceive, would be an unwarrantable method of singing hymns of\nhuman composure, as much as if the expressions were used in public\nprayer. There are, indeed, many hymns which have in them a great vein of\npiety and devotion, but are not adapted to the experience of the whole\nassembly that sings them; therefore, though they may join in signing\nsome hymns, I do not think they can well join in singing all;\nnotwithstanding the subject-matter of them may be agreeable to the\nanalogy of faith; and this principally depends upon what we have before\nlaid down, concerning the difference between making use of a divine and\nhuman composure, in the former of which, the words are not always to be\nconsidered as our own, or expressive of the frame of our own spirits;\nwhereas this is universally true, with respect to the latter.\nThus concerning the ordinance of singing; which we cannot but think\nincluded among those whereby Christ communicates to his church, the\nbenefits of his mediation. And this leads us to consider the other\nordinances, which are particularly insisted on in the remaining part of\nthis work. And that which next comes under our consideration, is the\nword read and preached.\nFootnote 21:\n  I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of Musical Instruments.\n  But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive\n  times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence\n  they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament, which\n  speak of Musical Instruments; as I might easily shew by a thousand\n  testimonies, out of _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, _Basil_, _Ambrose_,\n  _Jerom_, _Augustine_, _Chrysostom_, and many others. I can hardly\n  forbear laughing, when I meet with some of their allegorical\n  interpretations. Thus an Instrument with ten strings, according to\n  them, signifies the Ten Commandments, as the unknown author of the\n  Commentary upon the _Psalms_, among _Jerom\u2019s_ works, often explains\n  it, _In_ Ps. xxxii. 2. xliii. 4, &c. But the pleasantest fancy is the\n  explication of those words: _Praise him with stringed Instruments and\n  Organs_. Ps. cl. 4. \u201cThat the guts being twisted by reason of\n  abstinence from food, and so all carnal desires being subdued, men are\n  found fit for the kingdom of God, to sing his praises.\u201d But\n  _Chrysostom_ talks more handsomly; \u201cAs the _Jews_ praised God with all\n  kind of Instruments; so we are commanded to praise him with all the\n  members of our bodies, our eyes, _&c._\u201d _In_ Ps. cl. And _Clement_ of\n  _Alexandria_ talks much to the same purpose. P\u00e6dag. _lib. ii. c. 4_.\n  Besides, the ancients thought it unlawful to use those Instruments in\n  God\u2019s worship. Thus the unknown author of a Treatise, among _Justin\n  Martyr\u2019s_ works: \u201c_Q._ If songs were invented by unbelievers with a\n  design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the Law,\n  because of the childishness of their minds; why do they, who have\n  received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to\n  the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, just as they\n  did, who were children under the Law? _Answ._ Plain Singing is not\n  childish, but only the Singing with lifeless Organs, with Dancing and\n  Cym-bals, _&c._ Whence the use of such Instruments, and other things\n  fit for children, is laid aside, and Plain Singing only retained.\u201d\n  Resp. ad Orthodox. _Q._ 107.\n  _Chrysostom_ seems to have been of the same mind, and to have thought,\n  the use of such Instruments was rather allowed the _Jews_ in\n  consideration of their weakness, than prescribed and commanded. _In_\n  Ps. cl. But that he was mistaken, and that Musical Instruments were\n  not only allowed the _Jews_, as he thought, and _Isidorus_ of\n  _Pelusium_, (whose testimony I shall mention presently) but were\n  prescribed by God, may appear from the Texts of Scripture I have\n  before referred to.\n  _Clement_, as I have mentioned already, thought these things fitter\n  for beasts, than for men. And though _Basil_ highly commends, and\n  stifly defends the way of Singing by turns; yet he thought musical\n  Instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, _the inventions\n  of_ Jubal _of the race of_ Cain. And a little after, he thus expresses\n  himself: \u201c_Laban_ was a lover of the harp, and of music, with which he\n  would have sent away _Jacob_: _If thou hadst told me_, said he, _I\n  would have sent thee away with mirth, and musical instruments, and an\n  Harp_. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that\n  would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering\n  the works of his hands.\u201d Comment. in Is. _c._ v. _p._ 956, 957. And a\n  little before, he says thus \u201cIn such vain arts, as the playing upon\n  the Harp, or Pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases, the work\n  itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle\u2019s\n  expression, _The end of these things is destruction_.\u201d _page_ 955.\n  _Isidore_ of _Pelusium_, who lived since _Basil_, held, music was\n  allowed the _Jews_ by God, in a way of condescension to their\n  childishness: \u201cIf God\u201d _says he_, \u201cbore with bloody sacrifices,\n  because of men\u2019s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he\n  bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery?\u201d Epist. lib. 2. _ep._\n  Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of\n  _England_, who, for their very profession and employment, would have\n  been kept from the communion of the Church, except they desisted from\n  it. So we are informed by the _Apostolical Constitutions_: \u201cIf any\n  come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute,\n  or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected.\u201d _Lib._ viii. _c._\n  From what has been said, it appears, no musical instruments were used\n  in the pure times of the Church. It became Antichristian, before they\n  were received. _Bellarmine_ himself does not deny, they were late\n  brought into the Church. \u201cThe second ceremony,\u201d _says he_, \u201care the\n  Musical Instruments, which began to be used in the service of the\n  Church, in the time of Pope _Vitalian_, about the year 660, as\n  _Platina_ relates out of the _Pontifical_; or, as _Aimonius_ rather\n  thinks, _lib._ iv. _De gestis Francorum_, _c._ 114. after the year\n  820, in the time or _Lewis_ the Pious.\u201d De Missa, _lib._ ii. _c._ 15.\n  Item, De bon. Oper. _lib._ i. c. 17.\n  Dr. _N._ would hardly have denied, the Church of _Rome_ was become\n  Antichristian, when they were first brought in; even though we should\n  allow _Bellarmine\u2019s_ first date of them to be the true one. But a\n  Reformed Divine may well be ashamed of that antiquity, that does not\n  exceed the rise of Antichrist. But I am fully satisfied both\n  _Bellarmine\u2019s_ dates are false, and that instrumental music, in the\n  worship of God, is much later than either of those accounts allow. For\n  as to _Platina_, he seems to suspect the truth of what he wrote:\n  \u201c_Vitalian_,\u201d _says he_, \u201cbeing careful about the worship of God, made\n  an ecclesiastical rule, and ordered the singing, with the addition (as\n  some think) of organs.\u201d In Vital. Again, _Bellarmine\u2019s Aimonius_ is\n  not the true _Aimonius_. For (as Dr. _Cave_ says) _Aimonius of\n  Fleury_, who wrote, _De gestis Francorum_, flourished about the year\n  1000; and his History, which begins at the destruction of _Troy_, is\n  brought down as far as the coronation of King _Pipin_, or to the year\n  752. For what comes after that, and makes up the fifth book, and the\n  latter part of the fourth, is the continuation of another hand. Hist.\n  Farther, that these instruments were not used in God\u2019s worship, in\n  _Thomas Aquinas\u2019s_ time, that is, about the year 1250, he himself is\n  witness. \u201cIn the old Law,\u201d _says he_, \u201cGod was praised both with\n  musical instruments and human voices, and according to that _Psalm_\n  xxxiii. _Praise the Lord with harp, sing unto him with the psaltery,\n  and an instrument of ten strings._ But the Church does not use musical\n  instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize. Therefore,\n  by parity of reason, she should not use singing.\u201d Secunda secund\u00e6\n  Questio 91, _art._ 4. & _conclus._ 4. The like objection is made by\n  our author. But _Thomas_ answers: \u201cAs to this objection, we must say,\n  as the philosopher, _Lib._ viii. _Polit._ that Pipes are not to be\n  used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the\n  like: but whatever will make the hearers good men. For these musical\n  instruments rather delight the mind, than form it to any good\n  disposition. But under the Old Testament such instruments were used,\n  partly because the people were harder and more carnal; upon which\n  account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise\n  by earthly promises; and partly because these bodily instruments were\n  typical of something.\u201d Upon which place Cardinal _Cajetan_ gives us\n  this Comment: \u201c\u2019Tis to be observed, the Church did not use organs in\n  _Thomas\u2019s_ time. Whence, even to this day, the Church of _Rome_ does\n  not use them in the Pope\u2019s presence. And truly it will appear, that\n  musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical\n  offices we meet together to perform, for the sake of receiving\n  internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be\n  excluded, because God\u2019s internal discipline exceeds all human\n  disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments.\u201d _Cit._ Hoffm.\n  Lex. voce _Musica_.\n  If any one objects the practice of some foreign churches, I answer\n  with Mr. _Hickman_: \u201cThey are laid aside by most of the reformed\n  churches; nor would they be retained among the _Lutherans_, unless\n  they had forsaken their own _Luther_; who, by the confession of\n  Eckard, reckoned _organs among the ensigns of Baal_. That they still\n  continue in some of the _Dutch_ churches, is against the minds of the\n  Pastors. For in the National Synod at _Middleburg_, in the year 1581,\n  and in the Synod of _Holland_ and _Zealand_, in the year 1594, it was\n  resolved, _That they would endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the\n  laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches,\n  even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons_: so\n  far are those Synods from bearing with them in the worship itself.\u201d\n  The Church of _England_ herself had formerly no very good opinion of\n  these musical instruments; as may appear by her Homilies: \u201cLastly,\n  God\u2019s vengeance hath been, and is daily provoked, because much wicked\n  people pass nothing to resort unto the church; either for that they\n  are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God or godliness,\n  and care not with devilish malice to offend their neighbours; or else\n  for that they see the church altogether scoured of such gay gazing\n  sights, as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted with; because\n  they see the false religion abandoned, and the true restored, which\n  seemeth an unsavory thing to their unsavory taste, as may appear by\n  this that a woman said to her neighbour: Alas! gossip, what shall we\n  now do at church, since all the Saints are taken away; since all the\n  goodly sights we were wont to have are gone; since we cannot hear the\n  like piping, singing, Chaunting, and playing upon the organs that we\n  could before? But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and\n  give God thanks, that our churches are delivered out of all those\n  things, which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy\n  house, and his place of prayer.\u201d Hom. of the place and time of prayer,\n  A great number also of the Clergy in the first convocation of Queen\n  _Elizabeth_ in 1562, earnestly laboured to have organs, and that\n  pompous theatrical way of singing laid aside, and missed the carrying\n  it but by one vote, as I observe elsewhere. And in this Archbishop\n  _Parker_ concurred with them, or at least did not oppose them.\n  I will add one or two testimonies of Papists against this cathedral\n  way of worship. The first shall be _Polydorus Virgilius_.\n  Having taken notice of _Austine\u2019s_ dislike of that way of singing in\n  his time, he thus proceeds: \u201cBut in our time, it seems much less\n  useful to the commonwealth, now our singers make such a noise in our\n  churches, that nothing can be heard, beside the sound of the voice;\n  and they who come there (that is all that are in the city) are\n  satisfied with the concert of music, which their ears itch for, and\n  never mind the sense of the words. So that we are come to that pass,\n  that in the opinion of the common people, the whole affair of\n  religious worship is lodged in these singers; although, generally\n  speaking, there is no sort of men more loose or wicked: and yet a good\n  part of the people run to church, as to a theatre, to hear them bawl:\n  they hire and encourage them; and look upon them alone as ornaments to\n  the house of God. Wherefore, without doubt, it would be for the\n  interest of religion, either to cast these jackdaws out of the\n  churches; or else to teach them when they sing, they should do it\n  rather in the manner of reading, than bawling; as _Austine_ says\n  _Athanasius_ ordered, _&c._\u201d De Invent. Rer. _lib._ vi. _c._ 2. _p._\n  Next hear the judgment of _Erasmus_: \u201cLet a man be more covetous than\n  _Crassus_, more foul-mouthed than _Zoilus_, he shall be reckoned a\n  pious man, if he sings those prayers well, though he understands\n  nothing of them. But what, I beseech you, must they think of Christ,\n  who can believe he is delighted with such a noise of men\u2019s voices? Not\n  content with this, we have brought into our churches a certain operose\n  and theatrical music; such a confused disorderly chattering of some\n  words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the _Grecian_ or\n  _Roman_ theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes\n  and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with\n  them.\u2014Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled.\n  And for this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a\n  company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining\n  tones. Pray now compute how many poor people in great extremity might\n  be maintained by the salaries of those singers.\u201d In 1 Cor. xiv. 19.\n  Lastly, _Lindanus_ says: \u201cWho will compare the Music of this present\n  age, with that which was formerly used? Whatever is sung now,\n  signifies little for informing the people; which \u2019tis certain the\n  ancients always designed.\u201d Panopl. _lib._ iv. _c._ 73.\n  PIERCE\u2019S VINDICATION.\nFootnote 22:\n  The first hymns of Gospel churches, were neither rythm, nor metre; and\n  there was no version of David\u2019s psalms, that could be sung before\n  Calvin\u2019s time.\nFootnote 23:\n  \u1f59\u03bc\u03bd\u1f75\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5.\nFootnote 24:\n  There is a difference between praising God, and instructing men.\nFootnote 25:\n  The first christians composed and set to music their hymns.\nFootnote 26:\n  Grotius thought the first Gospel hymns were extemporary. Basnage from\n  Tertullian says; \u201cneither the prayers they made to God, nor the hymns\n  which they sung to his honour were reduced to rule; every one drew\n  them from the Holy Scriptures, or from his own treasure, according to\n  his genius.\u201d A council of 70 bishops, A. D. 272. charged among other\n  things against Paulus bishop of Antioch, that he abolished the Psalms,\n  which were sung _in gloriam Christi_.\u2014When the Ariam sang the doxology\n  _Glory be to the Father_, the orthodox added, _and to the Son and\n  Spirit_. Vide Dr. Latta, and Mr. Tod, on Psalmody.\nFootnote 27:\n  _See Mr. Richard Allein\u2019s essay on singing, chap. iv. who seems, in my\n  opinion, in the whole of his short performance, to argue with a\n  considerable degree of candor and judgment._\nFootnote 28:\n  _See Sidenham\u2019s gospel ordinance concerning singing, &c. and Hitchen\u2019s\n  scripture proof for singing, &c._\nFootnote 29:\n  _It cannot be denied that the Psalms of David are called indifferently\n  by these three names, psalms, hymns, and songs \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8, \u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05e8, \u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4,\n  \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u1f74, \u1f40\u03b4\u03b7, and sometimes the same psalm is called a song or\n  psalm, as in the title of Psalm. lxv. or a song of a psalm [as the\n  LXX. render it, \u1f40\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6.] And in Psalm cv. 2. when it is said, Sing\n  unto him, sing psalms unto him; \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d6\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 the former word\n  signifies to sing a spiritual song; the latter to sing a psalm; or, as\n  the Septuagint render the same word, in 1 Chron. xvi. 9. an hymn\n  [\u1f08\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5.] See Sidenham\u2019s gospel-ordinance, &c. chap.\n  ii. and Ainsworth on the title of Psalm liii. whom he therein refers\n    QUEST. CLV. _How is the word made effectual to salvation?_\n    ANSW. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the\n    preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening,\n    convincing, and humbling sinners, of driving them out of themselves,\n    and drawing them unto Christ, of conforming them to his image, and\n    subduing them to his will, of strengthening them against temptations\n    and corruptions, of building them up in grace, and establishing\n    their heart in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.\nHaving had an account, in the foregoing answer, of the ordinances by\nwhich Christ communicates the benefits of redemption to his church, and\nwhat they are; as also, that singing the praises of God is one of those\nordinances. We are now to consider another ordinance that is made\neffectual to salvation, _viz._ the word read, or preached. We have,\nunder some foregoing answers, had occasion to speak of the word of God\nas contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and\nconsidered it as the only rule of faith and obedience, and as having all\nthe properties that are necessary thereunto, so that we may depend upon\nit as a perfect and infallible revelation of all things necessary to be\nbelieved and done, in order to our enjoying God here, and attaining\neternal life hereafter[30]. And now we are to consider the word as made\nthe subject of our study and enquiry; without which it would be of no\nuse to us. Accordingly we may observe in this answer,\nI. Something supposed; namely, that the word of God is to be read by us,\nand explained by those who are qualified and called hereunto, by whom it\nis to be preached. We are not, indeed, to conclude, that the\nexplications of fallible men, how much soever they are fitted to preach\nthe gospel, are of equal authority with the sacred oracles, as\ntransmitted to us by those who received them, by infallible inspiration\nfrom the Spirit of God; and therefore, the text is much more to be\ndepended on than the comment upon it; the truth whereof is to be tried\nthereby, Isa. viii. 20. 1 Thess. v. 21. Acts xvii. 11. Nevertheless,\nthis is to be reckoned a great blessing, which God is pleased to bestow\nupon his church, in order to our understanding and making a right use of\nthe written word. Accordingly, preaching, as well as the reading of the\nword, is an ordinance which the Spirit of God makes subservient to the\nsalvation of them that believe; and in order thereunto, it is farther\nsupposed, that the word is to be read by us, and we are to attend to the\npreaching thereof; to neglect either of which, is to despise our own\nsouls, and deprive ourselves of the advantage of God\u2019s instituted means\nof grace. Therefore, we are not to content ourselves, barely, with the\nreading of the word of God, in our closets or families; but we must\nembrace all opportunities, in which we may hear it preached in a public\nmanner, one being no less an ordinance of God than the other.\n_Obj._ It is objected, by some, that they know as much as ministers can\nteach them; at least, they know enough, if they could but practise it.\n_Answ._ This objection, sometimes, savours of pride and self-conceit, in\nthose who suppose themselves to understand more, of the doctrines of the\ngospel, than they really do; and it can hardly be said, concerning the\ngreatest number of professors, that they either know as much as they\nought, or that it is not possible for them to make advances in\nknowledge, by a diligent attendance on an able and faithful ministry.\nHowever, that we may give the utmost scope to the objection, we will\nallow, that some Christians know more than many ministers, who are less\nskilful than others in the word of truth. Nevertheless, it must be\nobserved that there are other ends of hearing the word, besides barely\nthe gaining of knowledge, viz. the bringing the doctrines of the gospel\nto our remembrance, John xvi. 26. and their being impressed on our\naffections; and for this reason the wisest and best of men have not\nthought it below them, to attend upon the ministry of those who knew\nless than themselves. Our Saviour was an hearer of the word before he\nentered on his public ministry, Luke ii. 46. and though it might, I\nthink, truly be said of him, that though he was but twelve years old, he\nknew more than the doctors, in the midst of whom he sat, in the temple,\nyet he _heard and asked them questions_. And David, though he professes\nhimself to have _more understanding than all his teachers_, Psal. cxix.\n99. yet he was glad to embrace all opportunities, to go up into the\nhouse of the Lord; this being God\u2019s appointed means for a believer\u2019s\nmaking advances in grace.\nII. There are several things particularly mentioned in this answer, in\nwhich the Spirit of God makes the word, read or preached, effectual to\nsalvation.\n1. Hereby the mind is enlightened and furnished with the knowledge of\ndivine truths, which is a very great privilege, for as faith is\ninseparably connected with salvation; the knowledge of the doctrines of\nthe gospel is necessary to faith; and this is said to _come by hearing_,\nRom. x. 17. Acts viii. 30, 31. However, we must not content ourselves\nwith a bare assent to what is revealed in the word of God; but must duly\nweigh the tendency thereof, to our sanctification and consolation, and\nadmire the beauty, excellency, and glory that there is in the great\ndoctrines of the gospel, as the divine perfections shine forth therein,\nto the utmost. We must also duly consider the importance of those\ndoctrines that are contained therein, and how they are to be improved by\nus, to our spiritual advantage; and when we find our hearts filled with\nlove to Jesus Christ, in proportion to those greater measures of light,\nthat he is pleased to impart to us, so that we grow in grace as well as\nin the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. iii. 18.\nthen the word may be said to be made effectual to our salvation, as our\nminds are very much enlightened and improved in the knowledge of those\nthings that lead thereunto.\n2. The word is made effectual to bring us under conviction, by which\nmeans we see ourselves sinful and miserable creatures; particularly we\nare hereby led to see those depths of wickedness that are in our hearts,\nby nature, which otherwise could not be sufficiently discerned by us,\nmuch less improved to our spiritual advantage, Jer. xvii. 9. Rom. vii.\n9. Would we take a view of the manifold sins committed in our lives,\nwith all their respective aggravations, so as to lay to heart the guilt\nthat we have contracted hereby, or, if we would be effected with the\nconsideration of the misery that will ensue hereupon; as that, hereby,\nwe not only deserve the wrath and curse of God, but without an interest\nin forgiving grace, are bound to conclude ourselves liable to it: These\nthings we are led into by the word of God. And if we would know whether\nthese convictions of sin are such as have a more immediate reference to\nsalvation; let us enquire, whether they are attended with that grief and\nsorrow of heart for the intrinsic evil that there is in sin, as well as\nthe sad consequences thereof? Psal. xxxviii. 18. compared with ver. 4.\nor, whether, when we have taken this view thereof, we are farther led to\nenquire after the remedy, and seek forgiveness through the blood of\nChrist, and strength against those corruptions that we have ground to\ncharge ourselves with, which have so much prevailed over us? Acts xvi.\n30. Psal. xix. 13. xxv. 11. Jer. viii. 22.\n3. The word is made effectual to salvation, when what is contained\ntherein tends to humble and lay us low at the foot of God; when we\nacknowledge, that all his judgments are right, or whatever punishments\nhave been inflicted, pursuant to the threatenings which he has\ndenounced, have been less than our iniquities deserve, Ezra ix. 13. And\nwhen we receive reproofs for sins committed, with a particular\napplication thereof to ourselves, and are sensible of the guilt we have\ncontracted thereby.\nBut that we may make a right use of the word, to answer this great end,\nlet us consider, what humbling considerations are contained therein,\nthat may have a tendency to answer this end.\n(1.) The word of God represents to us that infinite distance that there\nis between him and us; so that the best of creatures are, in his sight,\nas nothing, Isa. xl. 17. _less than nothing, and vanity_. Herein we\nbehold God as infinitely perfect, and men as very imperfect, and unlike\nto him; and in particular, we behold him as a God of infinite holiness,\nspotless purity, and ourselves as impure, polluted creatures; which is a\nvery humbling consideration, Prov. xxx. 2. Isa. lxiv. 6.\n(2.) The word of God discovers to us the deceitfulness and desperate\nwickedness that there is in our hearts, whereby we are naturally\ninclined to rebel against him; and should, had it not been for his\npreventing and renewing grace, have run with the vilest of men, in all\nexcess of riot. It also leads us into the knowledge of the various kinds\nof sin, which we have ground to charge ourselves with, in the course of\nour lives; the frequent omission of those duties which are required of\nus; our great neglect of relative duties, in the station in which God\nhas fixed us; and the injury we have done to others hereby, whom we have\ncaused to stumble, or fall by our example, or, at least, by our\nunconcernedness about their spiritual welfare. It also discovers to us\nthe various aggravations of sins committed, as they are against light,\nlove, mercies, and manifold engagements, which we are laid under; and\nthe great contempt which we have cast on the blessed Jesus, in\ndisregarding, or not improving, the benefits of his mediation. All these\nthings duly considered, have a tendency to humble us, and we are led\ninto the discovery hereof by the word of God.\n4. The word of God is made effectual to salvation, as it has a tendency\nto drive sinners out of themselves, and to draw them to Jesus Christ. On\nthe one hand, it shews them the utter impossibility of their saving\nthemselves, by doing any thing that may bring them into a justified\nstate, and so render them accepted in the sight of God; and, on the\nother hand, it draws or leads them to Christ, whom they are enabled to\nbehold by faith, as discovered in the gospel, to be a merciful and\nall-sufficient Saviour. The former of these is not only antecedent, but\nnecessary to the latter: For, so long as we fancy that we have a\nsufficiency in ourselves, to recommend us to God, and procure for us a\nright and title to eternal life, we shall never think of committing our\nsouls into Christ\u2019s hand, in order to our obtaining salvation from him\nin his own way. Thus the prophet brings in a self-conceited people as\nsaying, _We are lords, we will come no more to thee_, Jer. ii. 31. No\none will seek help or safety from Christ, who is not sensible of his own\nweakness, and being in the utmost danger without him. The first thing\nthen that the Spirit of God does in the souls of men, when he makes the\nword effectual to salvation, is, his leading them into a humble sense of\ntheir utter inability to do what is spiritually good, or acceptable to\nGod, or to make atonement for the sins that they have committed against\nhim; that so they might be brought into a justified state. It is,\nindeed, an hard matter to convince the sinner of this; for he is very\nprone to be full of himself, sometimes to glory with the Pharisee, Luke\nxviii. 11. in some religious duties he performs; at other times in his\nabstaining from those gross enormities that others are chargeable with:\nOr, if he will own himself to have exceeded many in sin; yet he is ready\nto think, that, by some expedient or other, he shall be able to make\natonement for it. This sets him at a great distance from Christ; as it\nis said, _They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are\nsick_, Matt. ix. 12. So these do not see their need of a Saviour, till\nthey are convinced that they have nothing in themselves that can afford\nany relief to them, so as to deliver them from the guilt of sin, and the\nmisery that will ensue thereupon. On this account our Saviour observes,\nthat _publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God_, chap. xxi. 31.\n_i. e._ are more easily made sensible of their need of Christ, being\nconvinced of sin, when the _chief priests and elders_, who thought they\nhad a righteousness of their own to justify them, and therefore refused\nto comply with the method of the gospel, in having recourse to Christ\nalone for this privilege.\nNow the word of God is made use of by the Spirit, to drive the sinner\nout of these strong holds, and to shew him that he cannot, by any means\nrecover himself out of that state of sin and misery, into which he is\nplunged. It is a very hard thing for a person to be convinced of the\ntruth of what our Saviour says, viz. _That which is highly esteemed\namongst men, is an abomination in the sight of God_, Luke xvi. 15. when\nit is put in the room of Christ and his righteousness. This is one of\nthe great ends to which the word is made subservient when rendered\neffectual to salvation.\nMoreover, the word of God draws the soul to Christ, so that it is\npersuaded and induced, from gospel-motives, to come to him; and, at the\nsame time, enabled so to do by the almighty power of God, without which\nhe cannot come to him, John vi. 44. the former draws objectively, the\nlatter subjectively and internally.\nAs to what the gospel does in order hereunto, let it be considered, that\nit sets before us the excellency and glory of Christ, as our great\nMediator; represents him as a divine person, and, consequently, the\nobject of faith, and as such, _able to save, to the uttermost, them that\ncome unto God by him_, Heb. vi. 25. It considers him as having purchased\nsalvation for his people; so that they may obtain forgiveness through\nhis blood. It also discovers him as not only able, but willing to save\nall that come to him by faith; so that he will in no wise cast them out,\nJohn vi. 37. It also represents him as having a right to us; we are his\nby purchase; and therefore it is our indispensible duty to give up\nourselves unto him. It also makes known to us the greatness of his love,\nas the highest inducement hereunto; the freeness, riches and\nextensiveness of his grace, as ready to embrace the chief of sinners,\nand pass by all the injuries that they have done against him, and as\ngiving them the utmost assurance, that, having loved them in the world,\nhe will love them to the end. Thus Christ is set forth in the gospel;\nand when it is made effectual to salvation, the soul is induced, or, as\nit were, constrained hereby, to love him, and yield the obedience of\nfaith unto him in all things.\n5. The word is made of use by the Spirit, as a means to conform the soul\nto the image of God, and subdue it to his will. The image of God in man,\nis defaced by sin; so that he is not only rendered unlike, but averse to\nhim, stripped of all his beauty, and become abominable and filthy in his\nsight; and, as long as he remains so, is unmeet for communion with, or\nobtaining salvation from him. Now, when the Spirit of God communicates\nspecial grace to sinners, he instamps this image afresh upon the soul,\nwhich he renews in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, sanctifies\nall the powers and faculties thereof, and subdues the will, so that it\nyields a cheerful obedience to the will of God, and delights in his law\nafter the inward man; and its language is, _Speak, Lord, for thy servant\nheareth_. This change the Spirit of God works in the heart, by his\ninternal efficacious influence; as has been formerly observed, when we\nconsidered the work of conversion and sanctification, as brought about\nby him[31]. And this effect is also ascribed to the word as a moral\ninstrument thereof; so that it is not attained without it, it being,\nindeed, the principal end of the preaching the gospel; as the apostle\nsays, _The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through\nGod, to the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and\nevery high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God_, 2\nCor. x. 4, 5. and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience\nof Christ.\n6. The word is farther said to be made effectual to salvation, as hereby\nwe are strengthened against temptation, and corruption. By the former,\nthose objects are presented to us that have a tendency to alienate our\naffections from God; by the latter, these temptations are complied with,\nand the affections entangled in the snare that is laid for them, Satan,\nor the world, present the bait, and corrupt nature is easily allured and\ntaken by it. The tempter uses many wiles and stratagems to ensnare us,\nand our own hearts are deceitful above all things, and without much\ndifficulty, turned aside thereby; and so led captive by Satan at his\nwill. But when the Spirit of God makes the word effectual to salvation,\nhe takes occasion hereby to detect the fallacy; lays open the design of\nour spiritual enemies, and the pernicious tendency thereof; and\ninternally fortifies the soul against them, whereby it is _kept from the\npaths of the destroyer_, Psal. xvii. 4. and this he does by presenting\nother and better objects to engage our affections, and leading us into\nthe knowledge of those glorious truths, that may prevent a sinful\ncompliance with the solicitations of the devil. And, according to the\nnature of the temptation that may occur, we are directed to the precepts\nor promises contained in the word of God; which, being duly improved by\nus, have a tendency to keep the heart steady, and fixed in the ways of\nGod.\n7. The word of God is made effectual by the Spirit, as he thereby builds\nthe soul up in grace, and establishes it in holiness and comfort,\nthrough faith unto salvation. The work of grace is not immediately\nbrought to perfection, but is, in a progressive way, making advances\ntowards it; and therefore we are first made holy by the renovation of\nour hearts and lives, and made partakers of those spiritual consolations\nthat accompany or flow from the work of sanctification; and then we are\nbuilt up in holiness and comfort, whereby we go from strength to\nstrength, and are more and more established in the ways of God; and this\nis done by the preaching of the word, whereby we are said to _grow in\ngrace, and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ_, 2 Pet.\niii. 18. so that every step we take in our way to heaven, from the time\nthat our faces are first turned towards it, we are enabled hereby to go\non safely and comfortably, till the work of grace is perfected in glory.\nFootnote 30:\n  _See Vol. I. 48. 69. Quest. III. and IV._\nFootnote 31:\n  _See Quest. LXVII, LXVIII. Vol. III. p. 16._\n    QUEST. CLVI. _Is the word of God to be read by all?_\n    ANSW. Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly\n    to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it\n    apart by themselves, and with their families, to which end the holy\n    scriptures are to be translated out of the original, into vulgar\n    languages.\n    QUEST. CLVII. _How is the word of God to be read?_\n    ANSW. The holy scriptures are to be read, with an high and reverend\n    esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word\n    of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them, with\n    desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them,\n    with diligence and attention to the matter and scope of them; with\n    meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.\nThe word\u2019s being made effectual to salvation, which was the subject last\ninsisted on, not only supposes that we read it as translated into vulgar\nlanguages, but that we understand what we read, in order to our applying\nit to our particular case, and improving it for our spiritual advantage.\nThese things are next to be considered as contained in the answers we\nare now to explain. Accordingly,\nI. We have an account, in the former of them, of the obligation that all\npersons are under to read, or at least, attend to the reading of the\nword of God; more particularly,\n1. It is to be read publicly in the congregation, by those who are\nappointed for that purpose. This is evident, inasmuch as the church, and\nall the public worship that is performed therein, is founded on the\ndoctrines contained in scripture; and every one who would be made wise\nto salvation, ought to be well acquainted with it; and the reading it\npublicly, as a part of that worship that is performed in the church, is\nnot only a testimony of the high esteem that we have for it; but it will\nbe of great use to those, who, through a sinful neglect to read it in\nfamilies, and their not being disposed to do this in their private\nretirement; or, through the stupidity of their hearts, and the many\nincumbrances of worldly business, will not allow themselves time for\nthis necessary duty, by reason whereof they remain strangers to those\ngreat and important truths contained therein.\nThat this is a duty appears from the charge that the apostle gives, that\nthe epistle which he wrote to the church at Thessalonica, should _be\nread unto all the holy brethren_, 1 Thess. v. 27. And he gives the like\ncharge to the church at Colosse, Col. iv. 16. And to this we may add,\nthat the scripture is not only to be read, but explained; which is the\nprincipal design of the preaching thereof. This is no new practice; for\nthe Old Testament was not only read, but explained in the synagogues\n_every Sabbath-day_; which is called, by a metonymy, a _reading Moses_,\nActs xv. 21. _viz._ explaining the law that was given by him. Thus Ezra\n_stood upon a pulpit of wood, opened the book in the sight of all the\npeople_; and he, with some other of his brethren that assisted him\nherein, _read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the\nsense, and caused them to understand the reading_, that is, the meaning\nthereof, Neh. viii. 4,-8. In like manner our Saviour _went into the\nsynagogue the Sabbath-day_, and _stood up_ and _read_, that part of the\nholy scriptures, taken from the prophecy of Isaiah; which, when he had\ndone, he applied it to himself, and shewed them how _it was fulfilled in\ntheir ears_, Luke iv. 16,-24. So that it is supposed that the word is to\nbe publicly read.\nThe only thing in this answer, that needs explaining is, what is meant\nby those words, all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to\nthe congregation. We are not to suppose that there is an order of men\nthat Christ has appointed to be readers in the church, distinct from\nministers; therefore the meaning of this expression may be, that all are\nnot to read the word of God together, in a public assembly, with a loud\nvoice; for that would tend rather to confusion than edification. Nor\nought any to be appointed to do it, but such as are grave, pious, and\nable to read it distinctly, for the edification of others. And who is so\nfit for this work, as the minister whose office is not only to read, but\nexplain it in the ordinary course of his ministry?\n2. The word of God is to be read in our families; which is absolutely\nnecessary for the propagating religion therein. This, indeed, is\nshamefully neglected; which is one great reason of the ignorance and\ndecay of piety in the rising generation; and the neglect hereof is\ncontrary to God\u2019s command, Deut. vi. 6, 7. as well as the example of\nthose who are highly commended for this practice; as Abraham was for\n_commanding his children, and his household after him, that they should\nkeep the way of the Lord_, Gen. xviii. 19. Psal. lxxviii. 3, 4.\n3. The word of God ought to be read by every one, in private; and that\nnot only occasionally, but frequently as one of the great businesses of\nlife. Thus God says to Joshua, Josh. i. 8. _This book of the law shall\nnot depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and\nnight_, Psal. i. 2. And our Saviour commands the Jews to _search the\nscriptures_, John v. 39. and, in some of his discourses with them,\nthough he was sensible that they were a degenerate people; yet he takes\nit for granted, that they had not altogether laid aside this duty, Matt.\nxii. 5. chap. xxi. 42. Luke vi. 3. This practice, especially where the\nword of God has not only been read, but the meaning thereof sought\nafter, and attended to with great diligence, is commended as a peculiar\nexcellency in Christians, who are, in this respect, styled more _noble_\nthan others, who are defective in this duty, Acts xvii. 11.\nNow it appears, that it is the duty of every one to read the word of\nGod, inasmuch as it is given us with this design. If God is pleased, as\nit were, to send us an epistle from heaven, it is a very great instance\nof contempt cast on it, as well as on the divine condescension expressed\ntherein, for us to neglect to read it. Does he impart his mind to us\nherein, and is it not our indispensable duty, to pay the utmost regard\nthereto? Rev. i. 11. compared with chap. ii. 29. Moreover, our own\nadvantage should be a farther inducement to us, to read the word of God;\nsince his design in giving it, was, that we might believe, and that\nbelieving, we may attain life, through the name of Christ, John xx. 31.\nRom. x. 17. chap. xv. 4. It is sometimes compared to a _sword_, for our\ndefence, against our spiritual enemies, Eph. vi. 17. and is therefore\ndesigned for use; otherwise it is no advantage for us. It is elsewhere\ncompared to a _lamp to our feet_, Psal. cxix. 105. which is not designed\nfor an ornament, but to guide us in the right way; therefore we must\nattend to its direction. It is also compared to _food_, whereby we are\nsaid to be _nourished up in the words of faith and good doctrine_, and\n_as new-born babes_ we are exhorted, to _desire the sincere milk of the\nword, that we may grow thereby_, 1 Pet. ii. 2. but this end cannot be\nattained, unless it be read and applied by us to our own necessities.\nThis leads us to take notice of the opposition that the Papists make\nhereunto, inasmuch as they deny the common people the liberty of reading\nthe scriptures in their own language, without leave given them from the\nbishop, or some other spiritual guides, who are authorized to allow or\ndeny this privilege, as they think fit; but without this, the reading of\nit is strictly prohibited. And, as an instance of their opposition to\nit, they have sometimes burnt whole impressions of the Bible, in the\nopen market-place; as well as expressed their contempt hereof, by\nburning particular copies of scripture, or dragging them through the\nstreets, throwing them in the kennels, and stamping them under feet, or\ntearing them in pieces, as though it was the vilest book in the world;\nand some have been burned for reading it. And, that it may be brought\ninto the utmost contempt, they have cast the most injurious reproaches\nupon it, by calling it a bending rule, a nose of wax, a dumb judge. And\nsome have blasphemed it, by saying, that it has no more authority than\nEsop\u2019s fables; and have compared the psalms of David to profane ballads.\nAnd, they pretend, by all this, to consult the good of the people, that\nthey may not be misled thereby.\nThat which they generally allege in vindication of this practice, is,\nthat they do not so much oppose the reading the scripture, as the\nreading those translations of it, which have been made by Protestants;\nand that it is our Bible, not that which they allow to be the word of\nGod, that they treat with such injurious contempt.\nBut to this it may be replied; that the objections they bring against\nscripture, are not taken so much from such passages thereof, which they\npretend to be falsely translated; but their design is, plainly, to keep\nthe people in ignorance, that they may not, as the consequence of their\nreading it, imbibe those doctrines, that will, as they pretend, turn\nthem aside from the faith of the church; and therefore, they usually\nmaintain, that the common people ought to be kept in ignorance, as an\nexpedient to excite devotion; and that, by this means, they will be the\nmore humble, and pay a greater deference to those unwritten traditions\nthat are propagated by them, and pretended to be of equal authority with\nscripture, which the common people must take up with instead of it. And,\nindeed, the consequence hereof, is agreeable to their desire; for they\nappear to be grossly ignorant, and think themselves bound to believe\nwhatever their leaders pretend to be true, without exercising a judgment\nof discretion, or endeavouring to know the mind of God relating\nthereunto.\nThat which they generally allege in opposing the common people\u2019s reading\nthe Bible, is, that it contains _some things_ in it that are _hard to be\nunderstood_; as the apostle Peter expresses it, in 2 Pet. iii. 16.\n_which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the\nother scriptures, unto their destruction_.\nBut to this it may be replied; that it must be allowed that some things\ncontained in scripture, are hard to be understood; inasmuch as the\ngospel contains some mysteries which finite wisdom cannot comprehend;\nand the great doctrines of the gospel, are sometimes unintelligible by\nus, by reason of the ignorance and alienation of our minds from the life\nof God, as well as from the imperfections of this present state, in\nwhich we know but in part. Notwithstanding, they, who with diligence and\nhumility, desire, and earnestly seek after the knowledge of those truths\nthat are more immediately subservient to their salvation, shall find\nthat their labour is not lost; but in following on to know the Lord,\nshall know as much of him as is necessary to their glorifying and\nenjoying him, as the prophet says, _Then shall ye know if ye follow on\nto know the Lord_, Hos. vi. 3. It is to be owned, that there are some\ndepths in scripture, that cannot be fathomed by a finite understanding;\nwhich should tend to raise our admiration, and put us upon adoring the\nunsearchable wisdom of God, as well as an humble confession that _we are\nbut of yesterday, and know_, comparatively, _nothing_, Job viii. 9. Yet\nthere are many doctrines that we may attain to a clear knowledge of, and\nimprove, to the glory of God, in the conduct of our lives. Thus the\nprophet speaks of an _high way_, that is called _the way of holiness_;\nconcerning which it is said, that _way-faring men_, who walk therein,\n_though fools_, that is, such as have the meanest capacity, as to other\nthings, _shall not err therein_, Isa. xxxv. 8. that is, they who humbly\ndesire the teaching of the Spirit, whereby they may be made acquainted\nwith the mind and will of God, shall not be led out of the way by any\nthing that he has revealed to his people in his word. It is very\ninjurious to the sacred oracles to infer, that because some things are\nhard to be understood, therefore all that read them, must necessarily\nwrest them to their own destruction. And besides, the apostle does not\nsay, that all do so, but only those who are _unlearned and unstable_;\n_unlearned_, that is, altogether unacquainted with the doctrines of the\ngospel, as not making them the matter of their study and enquiry; and\n_unstable_, that is, such as give way to scepticism, or they whose faith\nis not built on the right foundation, but are inclined to turn aside\nfrom the truth, with every wind of doctrine. This God\u2019s people may hope\nto be kept from, while they study the holy scriptures, and earnestly\ndesire to be made wise thereby unto salvation.\nAs to what the Papists farther allege against the common people\u2019s being\npermitted to read the scriptures, because, as they pretend, this will\nmake them proud, and induce them to enquire into those things that do\nnot belong to them, whereby they will soon think themselves wiser than\ntheir teachers; and that it has been the occasion of all the heresies\nthat are in the world.\nTo this it may be answered, that whatever ill consequences attend a\nperson\u2019s reading of scripture, these are not to be ascribed to the use,\nbut the abuse of it. Will any one say, that we ought to abstain from\neating and drinking, because some are guilty of excess therein, by\ngluttony and drunkenness? No more ought we to abstain from reading the\nscriptures, because some make a wrong use of them. But, inasmuch as it\nis supposed that hereby some, through pride, will think themselves wiser\nthan their teachers; this, we will allow, they may do, without passing a\nwrong judgment on themselves; and it is injurious treatment of mankind,\nto keep the world in ignorance, that they may not detect the fallacies,\nor expose the errors of those who pretend to be their guides in matters\nof faith.\nAs to what is farther alleged, that the reading of scripture has been\nthe occasion of many heresies in the world, I am rather inclined to\nthink, that this ought to be charged on the neglect thereof, or, at\nleast, on their not studying them with diligence, and an humble\ndependence on God for his blessing to attend it.\nIt may be observed, that whatever reasons are assigned for their denying\nthe people the liberty of reading the scriptures, these seem to carry in\nthem a pretence of great kindness to them, that they may not, hereby, be\nled out of the way, and do themselves hurt by this means; as it is a\ndangerous thing to put a knife, or a sword, into a child\u2019s, or madman\u2019s\nhand; by which they suppose the common people to be ignorant, and would\nkeep them so. But, whatever reasons they assign, the true reason why\nthey so much oppose the reading of scripture is this, because it detects\nand exposes the absurdity of many doctrines that are imbibed by them,\nwhich will not bear to be tried by it. If they can but persuade their\nvotaries, that whatever is handed down by tradition, as a rule of faith,\nis to be received, without the least hesitation, though contrary to the\nmind of God in scripture, they are not like to meet with any opposition\nfrom them, let them advance doctrines never so absurd, or contrary to\nreason.\nIf it be enquired, whether they universally prohibit the reading of\nscripture? It must be allowed, that the Vulgar Latin version thereof may\nbe read by any one that understands it, without falling under their\ncensure. But this they are sensible of, that the greatest part of the\ncommon people cannot understand it; and if they do, it is so corrupt a\ntranslation, that it seems plainly calculated to give countenance to the\nerrors that they advance[32]. So that it appears from their whole\nmanagement herein, that their design is to deprive mankind of the\ngreatest blessings which God has granted to them; and to discourage\npersons from the performance of a duty, which is so absolutely necessary\nto promote the interest of God and religion in the world. Therefore we\nmust conclude, that it is an invaluable privilege that we are not only\npermitted, but commanded to read the scriptures, as translated into that\nlanguage that is generally understood by us.\nAnd this leads us to consider the inference that is deduced from hence,\ncontained in the latter part of the answer which we are explaining,\n_viz._ that the scriptures are to be translated out of the original into\nvulgar languages. This is evident, inasmuch as reading signifies\nnothing, where the words are not understood; and every private Christian\nis not obliged to addict himself to the study of the languages in which\nthe scriptures were written; and it is, indeed, a work of so much pains\nand difficulty, that few have opportunity, or inclination, to apply\nthemselves, to any considerable purpose, to the study thereof.\nTherefore, the words of scripture must be rendered intelligible to all,\nand consequently, translated into a language they understand.\nThis may be argued from the care of providence, that the scriptures\nshould be delivered, at first, to the Jews, in their own language; as\nthe greatest part of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and those\nfew sections or chapters in Ezra and Daniel, that were written in the\nChaldee language, were not inserted till they understood that\nlanguage[33]. And, when the world generally understood the Greek tongue,\nso that there was no necessity for the common people to learn it in\nschools, and the Hebrew was not understood by those nations, for whom\nthe gospel was designed; it pleased God to deliver the New Testament in\nthe Greek language. So that it is beyond dispute that he intended, that\nthe scriptures should not only be read, but understood by the common\npeople. And when the gospel was sent to various nations of different\nlanguages, the Spirit of God, by an extraordinary and miraculous\ndispensation, furnished the apostles to speak to every one in their own\nlanguage, by bestowing on them the gift of tongues; which would have\nbeen needless, if it were not necessary for persons to read or hear the\nholy scriptures with understanding.\nII. We are now to consider, how the word of God is to be read, that we\nmay understand, and improve what is contained therein to our spiritual\nadvantage; and in order thereunto, there are several directions given in\nthe latter of the answers we are explaining.\n1. We must read the scriptures with an high and reverent esteem of them,\narising from a firm persuasion, that they are the word of God. That they\nare so, has been proved by several arguments[34]; therefore we will\nsuppose them that read them, to be persuaded of the truth thereof; and\nthis will beget an high and reverent esteem of them. The perfections of\nGod, and particularly his wisdom, sovereignty, and goodness, shine forth\nwith equal glory in his word, as they do in any of his works; and\ntherefore it has a preference to all human composures; in that whatever\nis revealed therein, is to be admired and depended on for its unerring\nwisdom and infallible verity; so that it is impossible for them, who\nunderstand and improve it, to be turned aside thereby, from the way of\ntruth. We are also to consider the use that God makes of it, to\npropagate his kingdom and interest in the world. It is by this means\nthat he convinces men of sin, and discovers to them the way of obtaining\nforgiveness of it, and victory over it, and thoroughly furnishes them\nunto every good work, 2 Tim. iii. 16. For this reason the wisest and\nbest of men have expressed the highest esteem and value for it. The\nPsalmist mentions the love he had to it, as a person that was in a\nrapture; _O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day_, Psal.\ncxix. 97. And elsewhere he speaks of it as _more to be desired than\ngold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honey\ncomb_, Psal. xix. 16. which argues the high veneration he had for it.\nThis we all ought to have; otherwise we may sometimes be tempted to read\nit with prejudice, and thereby, through the corruption of our nature, be\nprone to cavil at it, as we sometimes do at those writings that are\nmerely human, which savour of the weakness and imperfection of their\nauthors, and consequently, it will be impossible for us to receive any\nsaving advantage thereby.\n2. We must, in reading the word of God, be sensible that he alone can\nenable us to understand it. To read the scriptures and not understand\nthem, will be of no advantage to us; therefore it is supposed, that we\nare endeavouring to have our minds rightly informed and furnished with\nthe knowledge of divine truths: But by reason of the corruption,\nignorance, and depravity of our natures, this cannot be attained without\na peculiar blessing from God attending our endeavours; therefore we\nought to glorify him, by dependence on him, for this privilege, (as\nbeing sensible that all spiritual wisdom is from him,) if we would see a\nbeauty and glory in those things that are revealed therein, and be\nthoroughly established in the doctrines of the gospel, so as not to be\nin danger of being turned aside from them; or, especially, if we would\nimprove them to our being made wise unto salvation, we must consider\nthis as the gift of God. It is he alone who can enable us to understand\nhis word aright; this is evident, inasmuch as it is necessary that there\nbe an internal illumination, as well as an external revelation, which is\nthe subject-matter of our studies and enquiries. Thus our Saviour not\nonly repeated the words of those scriptures that concerned himself, to\nthe two disciples going to Emmaus; but he _opened their understandings,\nthat they might understand them_, Luke xxiv. 45. Without this, a person\nmay have the brightest parts, and most penetrating judgment in other\nrespects, and yet be unacquainted with the mind of God in his word, and\ninclined to embrace those doctrines that are contrary to it; and\nespecially if God is not pleased to succeed our endeavours, we shall\nremain destitute of the experimental knowledge of divine truths, which\nis absolutely necessary to salvation.\n3. We must read the word of God with a desire to know, believe, and obey\nhis will, contained therein. If we do not desire to know, or understand\nthe meaning of scripture, it will remain no better than a sealed book to\nus; and, instead of receiving thereby, we shall be ready to entertain\nprejudices against it, till we lay it aside, with the utmost dislike;\nand, as the consequence thereof, we shall be utterly estranged from the\nlife of God, through the ignorance and vanity of our minds. We must also\nread the word of God with a desire to have our faith established\nthereby, that our feet may be set upon a rock, and we may be delivered\nfrom all manner of doubts and hesitations, with respect to those\nimportant truths which are revealed therein; and we ought to desire, not\nonly to believe, but yield a constant and cheerful obedience to every\nthing that God requires of us therein.\n4. Our reading the word of God ought to be accompanied with meditation,\nand the exercise of self-denial. Our thoughts should be wholly taken up\nwith the subject-matter thereof, and that with the greatest intenseness,\nas those who are studiously, and with the greatest earnestness, pressing\nafter the knowledge of those doctrines that are of the highest\nimportance, that our profiting herein may appear to ourselves and\nothers, 1 Tim. iv. 15.\nAs to the exercise of self-denial, all those perverse reasonings which\nour carnal minds are prone to suggest against the subject-matter of\ndivine revelation, are to be laid aside. If we are resolved to believe\nnothing but what we can comprehend, we ought to consider that the gospel\ncontains unsearchable mysteries, that surpass finite wisdom; therefore\nwe must be content to acknowledge, that we know but in part. There is a\ndeference to be paid to the wisdom of God, that eminently appears in\nevery thing which he has discovered to us in his word; so that we must\nadore the divine perfections that are displayed therein, whilst we\nretain an humble sense of the imperfection of our own knowledge. Our\nreason is not to be considered as useless; but we must desire that it\nmay be sanctified, and inclined to receive whatever God is pleased to\nimpart. We are also to exercise the grace of self-denial, with respect\nto the obstinacy of our wills; whereby they are naturally disinclined to\nacquiesce in, approve of, and yield obedience to the law of God, so that\nwe may be entirely satisfied, that every thing that he commands in his\nword, is holy, just, and good.\n5. The word of God is to be read with fervent prayer; as the apostle\nsays, _If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all\nmen liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him_, James i.\n5. The advantage we expect hereby, is as was before observed, his gift;\nand therefore we are humbly to supplicate him for it. There are many\nthings in his word that are hard to be understood; therefore we ought to\nsay, whenever we take the scriptures into, our hands, as the Psalmist\ndoes, _Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy\nlaw_, Psal. cxix. 18. We may, in this case, humbly acknowledge the\nweakness of our capacities and the blindness of our minds, which renders\nit necessary for us to desire to be instructed by him, in the way of\ntruth. We may also plead, that his design in giving us this word, was,\nthat it may be a lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths; therefore\nwe dread the thoughts of walking in darkness, when there is such a clear\ndiscovery of those things which are so glorious and necessary to be\nknown. We may also plead, that our Lord Jesus is revealed to his people\nas the prophet of his church; and that whatever office he is invested\nwith, he delights to execute it, as his glory is concerned therein;\ntherefore we trust, and hope that he will lead us, by his Spirit into\nhis truth. We may also plead the impossibility of our attaining the\nknowlege of divine things, without his assistance; and how much it would\nredound to his glory, as well as our own comfort and advantage, if he\nwill be pleased to lead us into the saving knowlege of the truth, as it\nis in him: This we cannot but importunately desire, as being sensible of\nthe sad consequences of our being destitute of it; inasmuch as we should\nremain in darkness, though favoured with the light of the gospel.\n6. The word of God is to be read with diligence and attention to the\nmatter and scope thereof. We have hitherto been directed in this answer,\nto apply ourselves to the reading of scripture, with that frame of\nspirit which becometh Christians, who desire to know the mind and will\nof God therein, viz. that we ought to have our minds disengaged from\nthose prejudices which would hinder our receiving any advantage from it,\nand to exercise those graces that the nature and importance of the duty\nrequires; that we ought to depend upon God, and address ourselves to him\nby faith and prayer for the knowlege of those divine truths contained\ntherein. But, in this last head, we are led to speak of some other\nmethods conducive to our understanding the scriptures; which are the\neffects of diligence and attendance to the sense of the words thereof,\nand the scope and design of them.\nThis being an useful head, I shall take occasion to enlarge on it more\nthan I have done on the former, and to add some other things, which may\nserve as a farther means to direct us, how we may read the scriptures\nwith understanding. I might here observe, that they who are well\nacquainted with the languages in which they were written, and are able\nto make just remarks on the words, phrases, and particles used therein,\nsome of which cannot be expressed in another language without losing\nmuch of their native beauty and significancy, these have certainly the\nadvantage of all others: But since this cannot be done by the greatest\npart of mankind, who are strangers to the Greek and Hebrew languages;\nthey must have recourse to some other helps for the attaining this\nvaluable end. And in order thereunto,\n(1.) It will be of great use for them to consult those expositions,\nwhich we have of the whole, or some particular parts of scripture; of\nwhich some are more large, others concise; some critical, others\npractical. I shall forbear making any remarks tending to depreciate the\nperformance of some, or extol the judgment of others; only this must be\nobserved, that many have passed over some difficulties of scripture,\nwhich omission has given a degree of disgust to the more inquisitive\npart of Christians: But this may be attributed in some instances, to a\ncommendable modesty, which we find not only in those that have written\nin our own, but in other languages; whereby they tacitly confess, either\nthat they could not solve the difficulty; or, that it was better to\nleave it undetermined, than to attempt a solution, which, at best, would\namount to little more than a probable conjecture. It may also be\nobserved, that others, who have commented on scripture, seem to be\nprepossessed with a particular scheme of doctrine, which, if duly\nconsidered, is not very defensible; and they are obliged, sometimes, to\nstrain the sense thereof, that it may appear to speak agreeably to their\nown sentiments; however, their expositions, in other respects, may be\nused with great advantage.\nTo this we may add, that the word preached, being designed to lead us\ninto the knowledge of scripture-doctrines, we ought to attend upon, and\nimprove it, as a means conducive thereto, and to bless God for the great\nhelps and advantages we have to attain it; but more of this will be\nconsidered under some following answers relating to the preaching and\nhearing the word:[35] therefore we proceed to consider,\n(2.) That we ought to make the best use we can of those translations of\nscripture, that we have in our own language; which, if we compare\ntogether, we shall find, not only that the style in which one is\nwritten, differs from that of another, agreeably to the respective times\nin which they were written; but they differ very much in the sense they\ngive of many places of scripture; which may easily be accounted for from\nthe various acceptations of the same Hebrew or Greek word, as may be\nobserved in all other languages; and there are other difficulties\nrelating to the propriety of translating some particular phrases, or the\nvarious senses in which several particles made use of, are to be\nunderstood. However, by comparing these translations together, they who\nare unacquainted with the original, will be sometimes led into a sense\nmore agreeable to the context and the analogy of faith, by one of them,\nthan by another. But we will suppose the English reader to confine\nhimself to the translation that is generally used by us; which, as it\ncannot be supposed to be of equal authority with the original, nor yet\nso perfect, as that it is impossible to be corrected, as to every word\nor phrase contained therein; yet I would be far from taking occasion\nfrom hence to depreciate it, or say any thing that may stagger the faith\nof any, as though we were in danger of being led aside thereby, from the\nway of truth, as some have pretended, who plead for the necessity of a\nnew translation of the Bible; whereas it is much to be feared, that if\nany such thing should be attempted, it would deviate more from the sense\nof the Holy Ghost, than that which we now have, and have reason to bless\nGod for, which, I cannot but think, comes as near the original as most\nthat are extant. We shall therefore consider how this may be used to the\nbest advantage, for our understanding the mind of God therein. And here\nwe shall observe,\n[1.] That there is another translation of words referred to in the\nmargin of our Bibles; which will sometimes give very great light to the\nsense of the text, and appear more emphatical, and rather to be\nacquiesced in. I shall give a short specimen of some texts of scripture,\nthat may be illustrated this way; in which the marginal reading differs\nfrom the words it refers to: Thus it is said, in Job iv. 18. _He put no\ntrust in his servants, and his angels he charged folly_: In the margin,\nit is observed, that the words may be read, _He put no trust in his\nservants, nor in his angels in whom he put light_; which denotes the\nexcellency of their nature, and the wisdom with which they are endowed:\nNevertheless, God put no trust in them, not having thought fit to make\nuse of them in creating the world, nor committing the government thereof\nto them.\nAgain, in Isaiah liii. 3. it is said, _We hid, as it were, our faces\nfrom him_, speaking of our Saviour; but in the margin, it is, _He hid,\nas it were, his face from us_; which implies, that, as he bore our\ngrief, so he was charged with our guilt; and accordingly is represented,\nas having his face covered, as an emblem hereof; or else it denotes his\nconcealing or veiling his glory, as he, who was really in the form of\nGod, appeared in the form of a servant.\nAgain, in Jer. xlii. 20. the prophet reproving the people, says, _Ye\ndissembled in your hearts, when ye sent me unto the Lord your God,\nsaying, Pray for us_; but, in the margin, it is, _You have used deceit\nagainst your souls_; which contains a farther illustration of the sense\nof the words; as it not only denotes their hypocrisy, but the\nconsequence thereof, to wit, their destruction; which agrees very well\nwith the threatning denounced in verse 22. that they should _die by the\nsword, the famine, and by the pestilence_. And the same prophet in chap.\nx. 14. speaking of idolaters, says, _Every man is brutish in his\nknowlege_; but in the margin it is, _Every man is more brutish than to\nknow_; in which their stupidity is rather assigned to their ignorance\nthan their knowlege.\nAgain, in Zechariah xii. 5. it is said in the text, _The governors of\nJudah shall say in their hearts, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be\nmy strength in the Lord of hosts their God_; but in the margin it is,\n_The governors of Judah shall say, There is strength to me, and to the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, in the Lord of hosts_; and this reading seems\nmore agreeable to what follows; which contains several promises of\ndeliverance and salvation, which God would work for the inhabitants of\nJerusalem; So that we are not to suppose them saying, _Jerusalem shall\nbe our strength_; but, the _Lord of hosts_, who is a safe-guard to it,\nas well as to the governors of Judah.\nAgain, in Acts xvii. 23. it is said in the text, _As I passed by, and\nbeheld your devotions_; but, in the margin it is, _The gods whom you\nworship_, or, the things ye pay divine honour to; which is very\nagreeable to the context, and the design of the apostle therein. Again,\nin chap. xxii. 29. it is said in the text, _that they departed from him,\nwhich should have examined him_, meaning Paul, in the margin it is,\n_tortured him_; which is agreeable to the Roman custom of scourging, and\nthereby tormenting one that was under examination for supposed crimes.\nAgain, in Gal. i. 14. the apostle says, _I profited in the Jews\nreligion, above many my equals_; in the margin it is, _My equals in\nyears_; which seems much more agreeable to the apostle\u2019s design.\nAgain, in Heb. ii. 7. it is said in the text, _Thou madest him_, viz.\nour Saviour, _a little lower than the angels_; in the margin it is, _A\nlittle while inferior to them_; as referring to his state of\nhumiliation; which continued comparatively, but a little while.\n[2.] In order to our making a right use of our English translation, that\nwe may understand the mind of God contained therein, let it be farther\nobserved, that by reason of the conciseness of the Hebrew and Greek\ntexts, there are several words left out, which must be supplied, to\ncomplete the sense thereof; which are inserted in an _Italic_ character.\nAnd it will not be difficult for us to determine whether the insertion\nbe just or no; when we consider that the translators often take their\ndirection herein from some words, either expressed or understood in the\ncontext; as in Heb. viii. 7. it is said, _If the first_ covenant _had\nbeen faultless_, &c. where the word _covenant_ is inserted; as it is\nalso in verse 13. because it is expressly mentioned, in verses 8, 9, 10.\nAgain, in chap. x. 6. it is said, in _sacrifices for sin thou hadst no\npleasure_. The word _sacrifices_ is supplied from the foregoing verse;\nand, for the same reason, _offerings_ might as well have been supplied,\nas in ver. 8. And, in ver. 25. we are commanded to _exhort one another_;\nwhere _one another_ is supplied from the foregoing verse.\nAgain, in 1 Pet. iv. 16. it is said, _If any man suffer as a Christian,\nlet him not be ashamed_; where the words, _any man suffer_, are inserted\nas agreeable to what is mentioned, ver. 15.\nAnd, in Eph. ii. 1. _You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses\nand sins_; the words, _hath he quickened_, are supplied from ver. 5. and\nour translators might as well have added, _you hath he quickened\ntogether with him_, viz. Christ. These things I only mention as a\nspecimen of the insertions, to complete the sense in our translation;\nand we shall find, that the words supplied in other scriptures, are for\nthe most part, sufficiently just; but if they be not so, they are\nsubject to correction, without the least imputation of altering the\nwords of scripture, while we are endeavouring to give the true sense\nthereof; and we may be allowed, without perverting of the sacred\nwritings, sometimes, to supply other words instead of them, which may\nseem more agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost therein. Thus, in Eph.\nvi. 12. it is said, _We wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high\nplaces_. The word _places_, is supplied by our translators; and, in the\nmargin, it is observed, that it might as well be rendered _heavenly\nplaces_. Now because there is no spiritual wickedness in heavenly\nplaces, therefore they choose, without regard to the proper sense of the\nGreek word, to render it _high places_. Whereas, in chap. iii. 10. where\nthere is no appearance of such an objection, they render the same word,\n_heavenly places_; though, I think, the words in both those scriptures,\nmight better be rendered _in what concerns heavenly things_.\nAgain, in 2 Cor. vi. 1. it is said, _We, as workers together with him,\nbeseech you_, &c. where, _with him_, is supplied to complete the sense;\nbut, I think, it might better have been left out, and then the sense\nwould have been, ministers, are _workers together with one another_, and\nnot _together with God_; they are honoured to be employed by God, as\nmoral instruments, which he makes use of; but they have no other\ncasuality in bringing about the work of grace. The principal reason why\nthe words _with him_, are supplied, is because it seems agreeable to the\napostle\u2019s mode of speaking, in 1 Cor. iii. 9. _We are workers together\nwith God_; but, I think, those words might better be rendered,\n_labourers together of God_[36]; or we are jointly engaged in his work;\ntherefore there is no reason from hence to supply the words _with him_,\nin the text but now referred to.\n(3.) If we would understand the sense of a particular text of scripture,\nwe must consider its connexion with the context. Accordingly we must\nobserve,\n_1st_, The scope, design, or argument insisted on, in the paragraph, in\nwhich it is contained. Thus in Rom. viii. the apostle\u2019s design in\ngeneral, is to prove that there is _no condemnation to them which are in\nChrist Jesus_, and to shew who they are, that may conclude themselves to\nbe interested in this privilege; together with the many blessings that\nare connected with, or flow from it, which the subject matter of that\nchapter principally relates to.\nAnd, in Heb. i. the apostle\u2019s principal design is, to prove the\nexcellency and glory of Christ, as Mediator, above the angels, as he\nintimates ver. 4. which argument is principally insisted on, and\nillustrated, in the following part of the chapter.\nAnd, in chap. xi. his design is, to give an account of the great things\nthe Old Testament church were enabled to do, and suffer, by faith, of\nwhich, there is an induction of particulars in several parts of it.\nAnd, in Rom. v. the apostle insists on the doctrine of original sin, and\nshews how sin and death first entered into the world, and by what means\nwe may expect to be delivered from it; and so takes occasion to compare\nAdam and Christ together, as two distinct heads and representatives of\nthose who were included in the respective covenants which mankind were\nunder; by the former of which, sin reigned unto death, and, by the\nlatter, grace and righteousness, unto eternal life.\nAgain, in chap. vii. especially from ver. 5. the general argument\ninsisted on, is, the conflict and opposition there is between sin and\ngrace, and the manner in which corrupt nature discovers itself in the\nsouls of the regenerate, together with the disturbance and uneasiness\nthat it constantly gives them. And, in Psal. lxxxviii. we have an\naccount of the distress that a soul is in, when under divine desertion,\nand brought to the very brink of despair. And, in Psal. lxxii. under the\ntype of the glory of Solomon\u2019s kingdom, and the advantages his subjects\nshould receive thereby, the glory and excellency of Christ\u2019s kingdom is\nillustrated, together with the gospel-state, and blessings thereof. And,\nin Psal. li. David represents a true penitent as addressing himself to\nGod for forgiveness; though particularly applied to his own case, after\nhe had sinned in the matter of Uriah. Again, the general argument in\nIsa. liii. is to set forth the sufferings of Christ, whereby he made\nsatisfaction for sin, together with the glory redounding to himself, and\nthe advantages that believers derive from it.\n_2dly_, We must consider the method made use of in managing the\nargument; whether by a close way of reasoning and consequences deduced\nfrom premises, or, by an explication of what was designed to inform the\njudgment, and laid down before in a general proposition. Or, whether the\nprincipal design of the paragraph be, to regulate the conduct of our\nlives, awaken our consciences out of a stupid frame, or excite in us\nbecoming affections, agreeable to the subject-matter thereof. And, we\nare to observe how every part of it is adapted to answer these ends.\n_3dly_, We are to consider who is the person speaking, or spoken to;\nwhether they are the words of God, the church, or the inspired writer;\nand, whether they are directed to particular persons, or to all men in\ngeneral? Here we may often observe, that in the same paragraph there is\nan _apostrophe_, or turning the discourse from one person to another.\nNothing is more common than this in the poetical writings of scripture.\nThus, in the Psalms of David, sometimes God is represented as speaking\nto man, and then man as speaking to, or concerning God, as we may\nobserve, in Psal. cxxxvii. 1-4. there is a relation of the church\u2019s\ntroubles in Babylon; and, in verses 5 and 6. the Psalmist addresses his\ndiscourse to the church; _If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right\nhand forget her cunning_. And, in ver. 7. he speaks to God, praying that\nhe would _remember the children of Edom, in the day of Jerusalem; who\nsaid, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof_. And, in ver. 8,\n9. he turns his discourse to Babylon, as a nation destined to\ndestruction.\nAgain, in Psal. ii. he speaks concerning the _rage_ of the _Heathen_,\nagainst Christ and his church, and that disappointment and ruin that\nthey should meet with for it. And, in ver. 6. he represents God the\nFather as speaking concerning Christ; _yet have I set my King upon my\nholy hill of Zion_. And, in ver. 7, 8. Christ is brought in as speaking\nor making mention of the _decree_ of God relating to his character and\noffice, as Mediator, and the success of his kingdom, as extended to the\n_uttermost parts of the earth_, pursuant to his intercession, which was\nfounded on his satisfaction. And, in ver. 10-12, the Psalmist turns his\ndiscourse to those persecuting powers, or the kings of the earth, whom\nhe had spoken of in the former part of the Psalm, and instructs them\nwhat methods they should take to escape God\u2019s righteous vengeance.\nSuch-like change of persons speaking, or spoken to, may be observed in\nmany of the Psalms, Psal. xvi. 1, _&c._ and cxxxiv.\nAnd throughout the whole book of Canticles, there is an inter-changeable\ndiscourse between Christ and his church, which is sometimes called his\n_spouse_, at other times his _sister_; sometimes he speaks to the\nchurch, and at other times of it. And, in other places, the church is\nrepresented as speaking to him, or to the _daughters of Jerusalem_,\nnamely, those professors of religion, that had little more than a form\nof godliness.[37]\nAgain, we often find, that there is a change with respect to the persons\nspeaking, spoken to, or of, in the writings of the prophets, as well as\nin the poetical writings; as may be observed in Isa. lxiii. throughout\nthe whole chapter. And, in Micah vii. 18, 19, 20. there is a change of\npersons in almost every sentence; _Who is a God like unto thee that\npardoneth iniquity_, &c. _He retaineth not his anger for ever; he will\nsubdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths\nof the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to\nAbraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old._\n_4thly_, We are farther to consider the occasion of what is laid down in\nany chapter, paragraph, or book of scripture, which we desire to\nunderstand. Thus the particular occasion of the book of Lamentations,\nwas the approaching ruin of Judah, and the miseries that they should be\nexposed to when Jerusalem was besieged by the Chaldeans; as appears by\nthe subject-matter thereof; though, it may be, that which was the more\nimmediate occasion of its being delivered at that time, was, that the\nprophet might lament the death of good Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxv. 25. which,\nprobably, he had a peculiar eye to, when he says, _The crown is fallen\nfrom our head_, Lam. v. 16. as well as the destruction of the whole\nnation, which would ensue soon after it, in which their civil and\nreligious liberties would be invaded by their enemies, who would oppress\nand lead them captive.\nAnd the principal occasion of the apostle\u2019s writing the epistle to the\nGalatians, was, that he might establish some among them, in the faith of\nthe gospel, who were so much disposed to turn aside from him that called\nthem, and embrace another scheme of religion that was subversive of it;\nas he observes, in chap. i. 6. where, by this _other gospel_, which he\ndissuades them from turning aside unto, we are to understand those\ndoctrines that they had imbibed from those false teachers who endeavour\neither to re-establish the observation of the ceremonial law, or to put\nthem upon seeking righteousness and life, from their observing the\nprecepts of the moral law, which tended to overthrow the doctrine of\njustification by Christ\u2019s righteousness; which is a subject often\ninsisted on by the apostle, both in this and his other epistles.\nThis method of enquiring into the occasion of what is mentioned in\nparticular paragraphs of scripture, will often give light to some things\ncontained therein. Thus we read, in Matt. xxi. 23-27. that the _chief\npriests and elders_ ask our Saviour this question, _By what authority\ndost thou these things?_ which, had it proceeded from an humble mind,\ndesirous to be convinced by his reply to it; or, had he not often, in\ntheir hearing, asserted the authority by which he did those things, he\nwould, doubtless, have told them, that he received a commission to do\nthem from the Father; and, that every miracle which he wrought, was, as\nit were, a confirming seal annexed to it. But our Saviour, knowing the\ndesign of the question, and the character of the persons that asked it,\nhe does not think fit to make any reply to it, rather chusing to put\nthem to silence, by proposing another question to them, which he knew\nthey would not be forward to answer, relating to the baptism of John,\n_viz._ whether it was _from heaven_, or _of men_. And this was certainly\nthe best method he could have taken; for he dealt with them as\ncavillers, who were to be put to silence, and made ashamed at the same\ntime.\n(4.) In order to our understanding the sense of scripture, we must, so\nfar as it is possible, compare the phrases, or modes of expression, as\nwell as the subject insisted on, with what occurs in other parallel\nplaces. Thus, in several of the historical parts of scripture, we have\nthe same history, or, at least, many things tending to illustrate it; as\nthe history of the reign of the kings of Judah and Israel, is the\nprincipal subject of the book of Kings and Chronicles; one of which\noften refers to, as well as explains the other, and, by comparing them\ntogether, we shall find, that one gives light to the other. Thus it is\nsaid, in 2 Kings xii. 2. that _Jehoash did that which was right, in the\nsight of the Lord all his days, wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed\nhim_; by which it is intimated, that, after the death of Jehoiada, he\ndid that which was evil in the sight of the Lord; but this is not\nparticularly mentioned in this chapter, which principally insists on\nthat part of his reign which was commendable. But if we compare it with\n2 Chron. xxiv. we have an account of his reign after the death of\nJehoiada, how he _set up idolatry_, ver. 17, 18. being instigated\nhereunto by his princes that flattered, or, as it is expressed, _made\nobeisance unto him_, and disregarded the prophets sent to testify\nagainst these practices; and how he _stoned Zachariah in the court of\nthe house of the Lord_, for his faithful reproof and prophetic\nintimation of the consequence of the idolatry, in which he shewed the\ngreatest ingratitude, and forgetfulness of the good things that had been\ndone for him by his father, who set him on his throne. We have an\naccount of the time when the Syrians came up against him, and how they\novercame him with a small company of men; and, that _the Lord delivered\na very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken the Lord\nGod of their fathers_, ver. 23, 24.\nAgain, in the book of Kings, we have but a short history of the reign of\nAzariah, otherwise called Uzziah, and of his being _smitten by the Lord,\nso that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in a\nseveral house_, 2 Kings xv. 1-5. but in 2 Chron. xxvi. there is a larger\naccount of him, as successful in war, and of the honour and riches that\nhe gained thereby; and also we have a particular account of the reason\nof the Lord\u2019s smiting him with leprosy, namely, for his invading a\nbranch of the priest\u2019s office.\nAgain, in the history of the reign of Manasseh, in 2 Kings xxi. we have\nonly an account of the vile and abominable part thereof; whereas, in 2\nChron. xxxiii. we have not only an account of his wickedness, but of his\nrepentance, together with the affliction that occasioned it, ver. 12-19.\nMoreover, when we read the prophetic writings, we must, for our better\nunderstanding them, compare them with the particular history of the\nreign of those kings, in whose time they prophesied, and the state of\nthe church at that time, their alliances or wars with neighbouring\nprinces, and the sins that they were guilty of, which gave occasion to\ntheir being sometimes insulted, and overcome by them, till their ruin\nwas completed in being carried captive into Babylon. Thus when we read\nIsa. vii. which gives an account of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the\nson of Remaliah, against Ahaz, and contains a prediction of their\nmiscarriage in this attempt; and also, that the king of Asyria should be\nhired to assist Ahaz, but should, instead thereof, deal deceitfully with\nhim, so that he should deprive Judah of their ornaments, and impoverish,\ninstead of being helpful to them. This we have a farther explication of\nin the history of Ahaz\u2019s reign, in 2 Kings xvi. and 2 Chron. xxviii.[38]\nAgain, we ought to compare the account of Sennacherib\u2019s invading Judah,\nand the blasphemous insult of Rabshakeh sent for that purpose, together\nwith his defeat, and the remarkable hand of God that brought this about,\nas an encouragement of Hezekiah\u2019s piety, in the xxxvith and xxxviith\nchapters of Isaiah, with the historal account of the same thing, in 2\nKings xviii. and xix. and 2 Chron. xxxii.\nAgain, we must compare the Psalms of David with his life, or the state\nof the church, which is particularly referred to in some of them; which\nmay be very much illustrated from other scriptures, that have relation\nto the same dispensations of providence, or contain an historical\naccount thereof. As for those psalms that were penned on particular\noccasions, mentioned in the respective titles prefixed to them, these\nwill be better understood if we compare the subject-matter thereof with\nthe history they refer to. Moreover, we shall often find, that when the\nsame thing is mentioned in different places of scripture, there is\nsomething added in one, which farther illustrates what is contained in\nthe other. Thus, in the account we have of the life of Joseph, in Gen.\nxxxix. 20. it is said, that he was _put into the prison, the place where\nthe king\u2019s prisoners were bound_; and, in chap. xli. 14. that he was\nkept in the _dungeon_, which is the worst part of the prison. But the\nPsalmist speaking of the same matter, in Psal. cv. 18. adds, that his\n_feet were hurt with fetters_, and he was _laid in iron_; which contains\na farther illustration of the history of his troubles.\nAgain, when we read in Numb. xi. 31, 32. of God\u2019s _feeding Israel_, upon\ntheir murmuring in the desert, for want of flesh, _with quails in great\nabundance_; this is mentioned elsewhere, in Psal. lxxviii. 27. in which\nwe have an account, that these quails were a sort of _feathered fowl_,\nwhich could not have been so well understood by the sense of the Hebrew\nword, which we render _quails_[39]. We have also an account, in Exod.\nxvii. 6. of God\u2019s supplying them with _water out of the rock in Horeb_;\nand if we compare this with Psal. cv. 41. we shall find that this water\nissued from thence in so large a stream, that it was like a _river_. And\nthe apostle Paul gives farther light to it, when he says, speaking in a\nfigurative way, that _the rock followed them_, 1 Cor. x. 4. that is, the\nwater that ran from it like a river, did not flow in a right line; but,\nby a continued miracle, changed its course, as they altered their\nstations, in their various removes from place to place in the\nwilderness. And he also adds, that God designed this to be a type of\nChrist.\nI might also observe, that there were many things in the life of David,\nafter his expulsion from Saul\u2019s court, that would argue him an usurper;\ninasmuch as he did not barely fly to secure his life, which he might\nlawfully do, as a private person; but he raised a small army; and\naccordingly it is said, in 2 Sam. xxii. 2. that every one that was \u2018in\ndistress, or in debt, or discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and\nhe became a captain over him; and there were with him about four hundred\nmen.\u2019 And Jonathan, who was heir apparent to the crown, is forced to\ncapitulate with, and take an oath of him, that he would grant him his\nlife, as concluding, that he would be king after his father\u2019s death, 1\nSam. xx. 14, 15. compared with the 42. and Saul\u2019s jealousy hereof, which\nwas attended with rage, amounting to a kind of destraction, was not\naltogether without ground; as he intimates to him, when he tells him,\n\u2018Behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king,\u2019 chap. xxiv. 20.\nand accordingly, in the following verses, he makes him \u2018swear to him,\nthat he would not cut off his seed after him, or destroy his name out of\nhis father\u2019s house.\u2019 Now this could hardly be justified, if we did not\nconsider what we read in another part of scripture, that, before that\ntime, God had taken away the kingdom from Saul, and anointed David to be\nking in his stead, in 1 Sam. xvi. 13. though he had not the actual\npossession of it till after Saul\u2019s death.\nI might farther observe, that when we read the account contained in the\nbooks of Moses, of the ceremonial law, and the various rites and\nordinances of divine service contained therein, or meet with any\nexpressions in the Old Testament that refer to it; these ought to be\ncompared with several things that are recorded in the writings of the\napostle Paul, and, particularly, a very considerable part of his epistle\nto the Hebrews[40], in which we have an account of the signification\nthereof, as ordained to be types of the gospel-dispensation. And,\nindeed, there are many scriptures of the Old Testament, which will be\nbetter understood by comparing them with others that refer to them in\nthe New. Thus it is said, in Isa. xvi. 23. _Unto me every knee shall\nbow_; which appears to be very agreeable to what is said concerning our\nSaviour, in Phil. ii. 10. and it is not only spoken of the divine honour\nthat should be paid to him; but it relates, in a peculiar manner, to\nthat glory which all shall ascribe to him, when they stand before his\ntribunal, as appears by comparing it with Rom. xiv. 10, 11.\nAgain, when we read, in Isa. vi. 10. of God\u2019s sending the prophet to\n_make the heart of the people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their\neyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and\nunderstand with their hearts, and convert, and be healed_. It is not to\nbe supposed that God is represented hereby as the author of their sin;\nwhich will plainly appear, if we compare it with Matt. xiii. 15. in\nwhich this text is cited, and farther explained, as it is said, _This\npeople\u2019s heart is waxed fat, and their eyes have they closed, lest they\nshould see with their eyes_, &c. And it is also referred to, and\nexplained in the same sense as charging their sin, and the consequence\nthereof upon themselves, in Acts xxviii. 26, 27. By this method of\ncomparing the Old and New Testament together, we shall be led to see the\nbeautiful harmony of the scriptures, and how the predictions thereof\nhave been accomplished; which will tend very much to establish our faith\nin the truth of the Christian religion, that is founded on them. But\nthis having been insisted on elsewhere[41], we pass it over at present,\nand proceed to consider,\nThat there are several places, in the New Testament, which being\ncompared together, will give light to one another. Thus, in the four\nEvangelists, which contain the history of the life and death of Christ,\nwe may observe, that some things are left out, or but briefly hinted at\nin one of them, which are more largely insisted on in another. Thus we\nread, in Matt. xii. 14, 15. that \u2018the Pharisees went out and held a\ncounsel against our Saviour, how they might destroy him;\u2019 upon which\noccasion \u2018he withdrew himself from thence. And great multitudes followed\nhim, and he healed them all.\u2019 But Mark, chap. iii. 17, _& seq._ speaking\nconcerning the same thing, intimates that the Herodians were joined with\nthe Pharisees in this conspiracy; and that he \u2018withdrew himself to the\nsea,\u2019 _viz._ of Tiberias; where he ordered that \u2018a small ship should\nwait on him, lest the multitude should throng him.\u2019 And we have also an\naccount of several places from whence they came, namely, Galilee,\nJerusalem, Idumea, and from beyond Jordan, and they about Tyre and\nSidon, so that a great part of them were Gentiles; and this gives light\nto what follows in Matt. xii. 18, 21. in which it is intimated, that\nthis was an accomplishment of what was _foretold by the prophet Isaias_,\nthat he should _shew judgment to the Gentiles_; and that, _in his name\nshould the Gentiles trust_; therefore he wrought miracles for their\nconviction that he was the Messias.\nAgain, it is said, in Matt. xiii. 12. \u2018Whosoever hath, to him shall be\ngiven, and he shall have more abundance. But whosoever hath not from him\nshall be taken away, even that he hath.\u2019 Some will be ready to enquire,\nhow can that which he hath be said to be taken away, when he is supposed\nto have nothing? or, how can a person be said to lose that which he\nnever had? But if compare this with a parallel scripture, in Luke viii.\n18. there it is said, _Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken, even\nthat which he seemeth to have_; or, as it is in the margin, _that which\nhe thinketh he hath_. Now, though a man cannot lose grace, that had it\nnot; yet an hypocrite, who seems to have it, may lose that which he\nsupposeth himself to have.\nThis method of comparing the four Evangelists together, is attempted by\nseveral divines; and, among them, a late writer, who is deservedly\nesteemed by all the reformed churches[42], thinks, that the inscription,\non the cross of Christ, can hardly be determined, without what is said\nof it, by all the four Evangelists. Mark says these words were written,\n_The king of the Jews_, Mark xv. 26. and Luke says, _This is the king of\nthe Jews_, Luke xxiii. 38. and Matthew adds another word, _This is\nJesus, the king of the Jews_, Matt. xxvii. 37. and John expresses it\nthus, _Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews_, John xix. 19. So that,\nby comparing them all together, and supplying those words from one,\nwhich are left out by others of them, we must conclude, that the\ninscription was, _This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews_.\nAgain, as the Acts of the Apostles contains a brief history of the first\nplanting the gospel-church, and of the travels and ministry of the\napostle Paul, in particular; this ought to be compared with some things,\noccasionally mentioned in his epistles, which will give farther light to\nthem. Thus the apostle says, in 1 Cor. xv. 8. _Last of all, he was seen\nof me also, as one born out of due time_; and speaks of himself in ver.\n9. as the _least of the apostles, not meet to be called an apostle;\nbecause he persecuted the church of God_. This ought to be compared with\nActs ix. 1-6. which gives an account of him as a persecutor before his\nconversion, and shews how our Saviour was seen of him; which is not to\nbe taken in the same sense as he was seen by the rest of the apostles,\nbefore his ascension into heaven; but of his being seen of him, after\nhis ascension, when, on this occasion, he appeared to him. And, if this\nbe compared with 1 Cor. ix. 1. he considers this sight of Jesus as a\nnecessary qualification for the apostleship; therefore, when he speaks\nof himself as _born out of due time_, he means, called to, and qualified\nfor the apostleship, out of due time; that is, not at the same time in\nwhich the other apostles were, but by this extraordinary dispensation of\nprovidence.\nAgain, when the apostle, in 1 Thes. ii. 2. speaks of his having been\n_shamefully entreated at Philippi_. This will be better understood if we\ncompare it with Acts xvi. 16, 21, 22, _& seq._ And when he tells the\nThessalonians, in the following words, _that we were bold in our God, to\nspeak unto you the gospel of God with much contention_; this should be\ncompared with Acts xvii. 1, _& seq._ Many instances of the like nature\nmight be given, by which, the usefulness of comparing one scripture with\nanother, would farther appear. But, I design this only as a specimen, to\nassist us in the application of this direction; which a diligent\nenquirer into the sense of scripture, will be able, in reading it, to\nmake farther improvements upon.\n(5.) In order to our understanding the scriptures, we must take notice\nof the several figurative modes of speaking that are used therein. As,\n_1st_, The part is often put for the whole[43]. Thus the soul, which is\none constituent part of man, is sometimes put for the whole man; as in\nGen. xlvi. 26. we read of the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt;\nand, in Rom. xii. 1. the body is put for the whole man; _I beseech you,\nbrethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies_, that is,\nyourselves, _a living sacrifice to God_. So the blood of Christ, which\nis often spoken of, in scripture, as that by which we are redeemed,\njustified, and saved, is to be taken for the whole of his obedience and\nsufferings, both in life and death, to which our salvation is to be\nascribed, as well as to the effusion of his blood.\n_2dly_, The thing containing, is put for that which is contained\ntherein[44]; so the cup in the Lord\u2019s supper, is put for the wine, 1\nCor. xi. 25. And the thing signified is put for the sign thereof. Thus\nwhen it is said, _This is my body_, ver. 24. the meaning is, this bread\nis a sign of my body, to wit, of the sufferings endured therein.\n_3dly_, Places are, by way of anticipation, called by those names, which\nin reality, were not given them, or, which they were not commonly known\nby, till some time after. Thus it is said, that, as soon as Israel had\npassed over Jordan, they _encamped in Gilgal_, Josh. iv. 19. that is, in\nthe place which was afterwards so called; for it is said, that it was\ncalled Gilgal because there they were circumcised; and so the _reproach\nof Egypt_, occasioned by the neglect of that ordinance, _was rolled\naway_, chap. v. 9. Again, it is said, _The kings that came up against\nSodom_, when Lot was taken prisoner, _had smitten all the country of the\nAmalekites_, Gen. xiv. 7. whereas, the country that was afterwards known\nby that name, could not be so called at that time; since Amalek, from\nwhom it took its name, was not born till some ages after, he being of\nthe posterity of Esau, chap. xxxvi. 11.\n_4thly_, The time past, or present, is often, especially in the\nprophetic writings, put for the time to come; which denotes the certain\nperformance of the prediction, as much as though it were actually\naccomplished. Thus it is said, _He_, that is, our Saviour, _is despised\nand rejected of men; he hath born our griefs, he was wounded for our\ntransgressions_, Isa. liii. 4, 5. And elsewhere, _The people that walked\nin darkness have seen a great light_, chap. ix. 2. and _unto us a child\nis born_, chap. v. 9. _&c._\n_5thly_, One of the senses is sometimes put for another. Thus it is\nsaid, _I turned to see the voice that spake to me_, Rev. i. 12. where\nseeing is put for hearing, or, understanding the meaning of the voice\nthat spake.\n_6thly_, Positive assertions are sometimes taken in a comparitive sense.\nThus God says to Samuel, the people in asking a king, _have not rejected\nthee, but me_, 1 Sam. viii. 7. that is, they have cast more contempt on\nme than they have on thee, _q. d._ they have offered a greater affront\nto my government, who condescended to be their king; though they have\nbeen uneasy under thine administration, as appointed to be their judge.\nAnd, in Psal. li. 4. David says, _Against thee, thee only, have I\nsinned_. Whereas he had sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba, as having\nmurdered the one, and tempted the other to commit adultery with him; he\nhad sinned against the army, whom he occasioned to fall in battle,\npursuant to the orders he gave Joab, with a design to destroy Uriah; yet\nsays he, _against thee, thee only, have I sinned_; that is, the greatest\naggravation of my sin is, that it contains rebellion against thee. And\nelsewhere, God says, _I desired mercy, and not sacrifice_, Hos. vi. 6.\nthat is, more than sacrifice.\n_7thly_, There are several hyperbolical ways of speaking in scripture,\nwhereby more is expressed than what is generally understood. Thus the\nvessel in the temple, in which things were washed, which was ten cubits\nfrom one brim to the other, is called _a molten Sea_, 1 Kings vii. 23.\nbecause it contained a great quantity of water; though, indeed, it was\nvery small, if compared with the dimensions of the sea: And in 1 Kings\nx. 27, it is said, that Solomon _made silver to be in Jerusalem, as\nstones; and cedars as the sycamore-trees, which are in the vale for\nabundance_. Silver was not, strictly speaking, as plentiful as stones;\nbut it implies, that there were vast treasures thereof, heaped up by the\nking, and many of his subjects, and no lack of it in any one. And, in\nJudges xx. 16. it is said, there were _some of the Benjamites\nleft-handed, every one_ of whom _could sling stones at an hair-breadth,\nand not miss_; which only signifies that they had an uncommon expertness\nin this matter; and when we read of some of the cities in the land of\nCanaan, that were _great, and walled up to heaven_, Deut. i. 28. it only\ndenotes that their walls were very high: And, in Kings i. 43. it is said\nupon the occasion of Solomon\u2019s being anointed king, that _the people\nrejoiced with great joy; so that the earth rent with the sound of them_;\nthe meaning of which is only this, that the shouts of the people were so\ngreat, that if the concussion of the air, that was made thereby, could\nhave rent the earth, this would have done it.\n_8thly_, We sometimes find ironical expressions, and sarcasms used in\nscripture, with a design to expose the wickedness and folly of men.\nThus, when our first parents sinned by adhering to the suggestions of\nSatan, who told them, that they _should be as gods, knowing good and\nevil_, Gen. iii. 5. God says in an ironical way, _Behold the man is\nbecome as one of us, to know good and evil, &c._ ver. 22. And the\nprophet Elijah exposes Baal\u2019s worshippers; and Micaiah, Ahab\u2019s false\nprophets, by using a sarcastic way of speaking, 1 Kings xviii. 27. and\nchap. xxii. 15. And Job uses the same figurative way of speaking, when\nhe reproves the bitter invectives, and false reasonings of his friends;\n_No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you_, Job\nxii. 2. And Solomon uses the same way of address, when he says,\n_Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the\ndays of youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the sight of\nthine eyes: But know thou, that for all these things God bring thee into\nJudgment_, Eccl. xi. 9. And, the man that trusts in his own\nrighteousness for justification, is also exposed in the same way,\n\u2018Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with\nsparks; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have\nkindled: This shall ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow,\u2019\nIsa. l. 11. And when our Saviour says to his disciples, having found\nthem asleep, in Matt. xxvi. 45, 46. \u2018Sleep on now, and take your rest;\nbehold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the\nhands of sinners,\u2019 it is plain from the following words, that he uses\nthis figurative way of speaking; for he immediately adds, without an\nirony, _Rise, let us be going_.\nThis, some think to be the method of speaking which our Saviour makes\nuse of, when he reproves his disciples for that fond conceit that they\nhad, that his kingdom was of this world; and contending sometimes among\nthemselves, who should be greatest therein: Upon which occasion he bids\nthem make provision for war; and take care to secure those two things\nthat are necessary thereunto, money and arms: Thus he says, in Luke\nxxii. 36. \u2018He that hath a purse, let him take it; and he that hath no\nsword, let him sell his garment, and buy one;\u2019 they did not, indeed,\nimmediately perceive that he spake in an ironical way; and therefore\nreplied, in ver. 38. _Lord, behold here are two swords_: Upon which he\nsays, still carrying on the irony, _It is enough_. So that, whether they\nunderstood his meaning or no, it seems to be this; if you are disposed\nto contend who shall be greatest, as though my kingdom were of a\ntemporal nature, and to be erected and maintained by force of arms, do\nyou think you have sufficient treasure to hire forces to join with you,\nor buy arms for that purpose? or, do you imagine that you have courage\nenough to attack the Roman empire, and gain it by force? You say, you\nhave two swords, can you suppose that these are enough? what a\nludicrious and indifferent figure would you make, if you expected to\ncome off conquerors by this means? No, they that take the sword shall\nperish with the sword; for my kingdom is not of this world: So that all\nthe advantages and honours that you are to expect therein, are of a\nspiritual nature. This seems rather to be the meaning of this scripture,\nthan that which the Papists generally acquiesce in, namely, that by the\n_two_ swords, are meant the civil and ecclesiastical; both which, as\nthey pretend, are put into the Pope\u2019s hands.\n9thly, The scripture often makes use of a figurative way of speaking,\ngenerally called an _hendyadis_, whereby one complex idea, is expressed\nby two words, which is very common in the Hebrew language. Thus in Jer.\nxxix. 11. when God promises his people, that he would _give_ them _an\nexpected end_, intending hereby their deliverance from the Babylonish\ncaptivity; the words, if literally translated, ought to be rendered, as\nit is observed in the margin, _an end and expectation_; whereas, our\ntranslators were apprized that there is such a figurative way of\nspeaking contained in them, and therefore they render them, _an expected\nend_: And this figure is sometimes used in the New Testament; as when\nour Saviour tells his disciples, in Luke xxi. 15. _I will give you a\nmouth and wisdom_; that is, I will give you ability to express\nyourselves with so much wisdom, _that all your adversaries shall not be\nable to gain-say_ it. And some think, that there is the same way of\nspeaking used in John iii. 5. \u2018Except a man be born of water, and of the\nSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;\u2019 that is, except a man\nbe born of the Holy Spirit, or regenerated, which is signified by being\nborn of water, he cannot, &c.\n_10thly_, Nothing is more common than for the Holy Ghost, in scripture\nto make use of metaphors, which are a very elegant way of representing\nthings, by comparing them with, and illustrating them by others, and\nborrowing such modes of speaking from them, as may add a very\nconsiderable beauty to them. Thus repentance and godly sorrow, together\nwith the blessed privileges which shall hereafter attend them, are\ncompared to sowing and reaping, in Psal. cxxvi. 5, 6. \u2018They that sow in\ntears, shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing\nprecious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his\nsheaves with him.\u2019 And the prophet sets forth the labour and pains which\nIsrael had taken in sin; and exhorts them, by a metaphor taken from\nhusbandry, to be as industrious in pursuing what would turn to a better\naccount, in Hos. x. 12, 13. where he speaks of their having _plowed\nwickedness, and reaped iniquity_; and advises them to _sow to themselves\nin righteousness, and reap in mercy_; which, as he farther adds, they\nshould do by _seeking the Lord_; and _it is time_, says he, _to seek_\nhim, _till he come and rain righteousness upon you_; which is necessary\nto a plenteous harvest of blessings, which you may hope for in so doing.\nAnd, in chap. vii. 4. he reproves their adulteries by a metaphor, taken\nfrom _an oven heated by the baker_; and their hypocrisy by another,\ntaken from _a cake not turned_, ver. 8. and their being weakened, and\nalmost ruined hereby, he compares to the _gray hairs_ of those who are\nbowed down under the infirmities of age, ver. 9. and for their cowardice\nand seeking help from other nations, and not from God, he calls them _a\nsilly dove without an heart_, ver. 11.\nAnd we may observe, that there is oftentimes a chain of metaphors in the\nsame paragraph. Of this kind is that elegant description of old age,\nsickness, and death, which Solomon gives, in exhorting persons to\n_remember their Creator in the days of their youth_, Eccl. xii. 1-6.\n_while the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars be not\ndarkened_; by which, it is probable, he intends the impairing the\nintellect, the loss of those sprightly parts which once they had, or, of\nthe memory and judgment; upon which account men are sometimes said to,\nout-live themselves. And he speaks of _the keepers of the house\ntrembling_; that is, the hands and arms, designed for the defence of the\nbody, being seized with paralytic disorders; _the strong men bowing\nthemselves_; that is, those parts which are designed to support the body\nbeing weakened, and needing a staff to bear up themselves; _the grinders\nceasing because they are few_, signifies the loss of teeth; _and they\nthat look out of the windows being darkened_, a decay of sight; their\n_rising up at the voice of the bird_, implies their loss of one of the\nmain props of nature, to wit, sleep; so that they may rise early in the\nmorning, when the birds begin to sing, because their beds will not\nafford them rest: _And the daughters of music being brought low_,\ndenotes a decay of the voice and hearing, and being not affected with\nthose sounds which were once most delightful to them. _The almond-tree\nflourishing_, plainly signifies the hoary head; _the grashopper_ being\n_a burden_, is either a proverbial speech, importing a want of courage,\nstrength, and resolution to bear the smallest pressures; or, as others\nunderstand it, their stooping, when bowed down with old age. _The silver\ncord loosed_, or, _the golden bowl broken at the fountain, or the wheel\nbroken at the cistern_, signifies a decay of the animal spirits, a\nlaxation of the nerves, the irregular circulation of the blood, or the\nuniversal stoppage thereof; and then the frame of nature is broken, and\nman _returns to the dust_[45].\nIn the New Testament there are several metaphors used; some of which are\ntaken from the Isthmian and Olympic games, practised by the Greeks and\nRomans. Thus the apostle Paul compares the Christian life to _a race_ in\nwhich _many run_; but they do not all _receive the prize_, 1 Cor. ix.\n24. And, in ver. 25. he alludes to another exercise, to wit, wrestling;\nand recommends temperance as what was practised by them, as a means for\ntheir obtaining the crown. And, ver. 26. he uses a metaphor, taken from\nanother of the games, to wit, fighting, in hope of victory; by which he\nillustrates his zeal in the discharge of his ministry. And in Heb. xii.\n1. he speaks of the Christian _race_, and the necessity of _laying aside\nevery weight_, to wit, allowed sins, which would retard our course, or\nhinder us in the way to heaven. And in Phil. iii. 13, 14. he speaks of\nhimself both as a minister and a Christian, as \u2018forgetting those things\nwhich are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are\nbefore,\u2019 and, \u2018pressing towards the mark, for the prize of the high\ncalling of God in Christ Jesus;\u2019 where he plainly alludes to the\npurpose, industry, and earnestness of those who run in a race. And, in\nEph. vi. 11-16. he speaks of the difficulties, temptations, and\nopposition that believers are exposed to, in the Christian life; and\nadvises them, to _put on the whole armour of God_; and so carries on the\nmetaphor or allegory, by alluding to the various pieces of armour, which\nsoldiers make use of when engaged in battle, to illustrate the methods\nwe ought to take, that we may come off conquerors at last.\n(6.) It will be very useful, in order to our understanding scripture,\nfor us to know some things, relating to the different forms of civil\ngovernment, and the various changes made therein, among the Jews, and\nother nations, with whom they were conversant. At first we find, that\ndistinct families had the administration of civil affairs committed unto\nthem, and the heads thereof were, as it were, the chief magistrates, who\nhad the exercise of civil power, in some instances; especially if it did\nnot interfere with that of the country wherein they lived. Some think,\nindeed, that it extended to the punishing capital crimes with death; and\nthat Judah, who was the head of a branch of Jacob\u2019s family, when he\npasses this sentence concerning Tamar, in Gen. xxxviii. 24. _Bring her\nforth, and let her be burnt_, does it as a civil magistrate: But, if it\nbe not deemed a rash and unjustifiable expression in him, when he says,\n_Let her be brought forth, and burnt_, we must suppose the meaning to\nbe, let her first be confined till she is delivered of her child, and\nthen tried by the civil magistrate, the consequence whereof will be, her\nbeing burnt, when found guilty of the adultery that was charged upon\nher. So that it does not appear that the heads of families, when\nsojourning in other countries, had a power distinct from that of the\ngovernment under which they lived, to punish offenders with death;\nthough, I think, it is beyond dispute, that they had a government in\ntheir own families, that extended, in many respects, to civil affairs,\nas well as obliged them to observe those religious duties which God\nrequired of them.\nIt may be farther observed, that this government extended so far, as\nthat the Patriarchs, or heads of families, had, sometimes, a power of\nmaking war, or entering into confederacies with neighbouring princes,\nfor their own safety, or recovering their rights when invaded. Thus when\nLot and the Sodomites, were taken prisoners by the four kings that came\nup against them, we read, in Gen. xiv. 13, 14. that Abraham called in\nthe assistance of some of his neighbours, with whom he was in\nconfederacy, and _armed his trained servants, three hundred and\neighteen, born in his house_, and rescued him, and the men of Sodom from\nthe hands of those that had taken them prisoners.\nWe have little more light as to this matter, so long as the government\ncontinued domestic, and the church in the condition of sojourners: But,\nwhen they were increased to a great nation, their civil, as well as\nreligious government, was settled, by divine direction, under the hand\nof Moses, in the wilderness. The first form thereof, was a theocracy, in\nwhich God gave them laws in an immediate way; condescended to satisfy\nthem, as to some things, which they enquired of him about; gave them\nparticular intimations how they should manage their affairs of war and\npeace; and appeared for them in giving them victory over their enemies,\nin a very extraordinary, and sometimes, miraculous way. But, besides\nthis great honour that God put on them, he established a form of\ngovernment among them, in which they were divided into _thousands_,\n_hundreds_, _fifties_, and _tens_, Exod. xviii. 31. Deut. i. 15. each of\nwhich divisions had their respective captain or governor; who are,\nsometimes, styled the _nobles of the children of Israel_, Exod. xxiv.\n11. And these governors were generally heads of considerable families\namong them; which were also divided in the same way, into thousands,\nfifties, and tens, in proportion to the largeness thereof; thus Gideon,\nspeaking of his family, in Judges vi. 25. calls it, as the Hebrew word\nsignifies, his _thousand_. And, in the same manner, their armies were\ndivided, when engaged in war; thus when Jesse sent David with a present,\ninto the army, to his brethren, he bade him deliver it to the _captain\nover their thousand_, 1 Sam. xvii. 18. and chap. xviii. 13. And we read,\nthat Saul made David his _captain over a thousand_; which is the same\nwith what we, in our modern way of speaking, call a commanding officer\nover a regiment of soldiers. Again, when David\u2019s soldiers went out to\nwar against Absalom, it is said, _They came out by hundreds and by\nthousands_, 2 Sam. xviii. 4. each distinct company, or regiment, having\ntheir commanding officer.\nThus the government was settled as to civil and military affairs, in\nsuch a way, that the head of the respective division, had a power of\njudging in lesser matters. But since there were some affairs of the\ngreatest importance to be transacted in the form of their government, by\ndivine direction, God appointed seventy men of the children of Israel,\nto assist Moses in those matters, in which they had more immediately to\ndo with him; and accordingly he _gave them the Spirit_, Numb. xi. 16,\n17. that is, the extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit; whereby he\ncommunicated his mind and will to them. This was the first rise of the\nSanhedrim; and these had a power of judging in civil matters, throughout\nall the ages of the church till the Jews were made tributary to the\nRomans; and after that, this body of men were as vile and contemptible\nas they had before been honourable in the eyes of just and good men, as\nappears by their tumultuous and unprecedented behaviour in the trial of\nour Saviour, and the malicious prosecutions, set on foot by them,\nagainst the apostles, without any pretence or form of law.\nAfter the death of Joshua, and the elders that survived him, there was\nan alteration in the form of government, occasioned by the oppression\nwhich they were liable to from their enemies, who insulted, vexed, and\nsometimes plundered them of their substance. Then God raised up judges,\nwho first procured peace for them, by success in war; and afterwards\ngoverned them; though without the character or ensigns of royal dignity.\nAnd, this government not being successive, they were, on the death of\ntheir respective judges, brought into great confusion, every one doing\nthat which was right in his own eyes, till another judge was raised up,\nas some future emergency required it. Thus the posture of their affairs\ncontinued, as the apostle observes, _about the space of four hundred and\nfifty years_, Acts xiii. 20. and then it was altered, when, through\ntheir unsettled temper, they desired a king, in conformity to the custom\nof the nations round about them; which thing was displeasing to God:\nnevertheless, he granted them their request, 1 Sam. viii. 5-7. and so\nthe government became regal. And then followed a succession of kings,\nset over the whole nation, till the division between Judah and Israel;\nwhen they became two distinct kingdoms, and so continued, till their\nrespective captivity. These things being duly considered, will give\ngreat light to several things contained in scripture; especially as to\nwhat relates to the civil affairs of the church of God.\nAnd, for our farther understanding thereof, it will be necessary that we\ntake a view of the government of other nations, with whom they were\noften conversant. We read almost of as many kings in scripture, as there\nwere cities in several of those countries which lay round about them;\nthus, in Gen. xxxvi. we read of many dukes and kings, (whose power was\nmuch the same) who descended from Esau. These had very small dominions,\neach of them being, as it is probable, the chief governor of one city,\nor, at most, of a little tract of land round about it; and, indeed,\nbesides the Assyrian, and other monarchies, that were of a very large\nextent, and had none who stood in competition with them, under that\ncharacter, while they subsisted; all other kingdoms were very small;\ntherefore four kings were obliged to enter into a confederacy, to make\nwar with Sodom, and the four neighbouring cities, which a very\ninconsiderable army might, without much difficulty, have subdued, Gen.\nxiv. 1, _&c._ One of them, indeed, is called king of nations; not as\nthough he had large dominions, but because he was the chief governor of\na mixed people, from divers nations, who were settled together in one\ndistinct colony; and the king of Shinar, there spoken of, is not the\nking of Babylon, who was too potent a prince to have stood in need of\nothers to join with him in this expedition; but it was a petty king, who\nreigned in some city near Babylon, and was tributary to the Assyrian\nempire. These four kings, with all their forces, were so few in number,\nthat Abraham was not afraid to attack them; which he did with success.\nAgain, we read, that in Joshua\u2019s time, the kings in the land of Canaan,\nwhom he subdued, had, each of them, very small dominions, consisting of\nbut one capital city, with a few villages round about it. Thus we read\nof thirty one kings that reigned in that country, which was not so big\nas a fourth part of the kingdom of England, Josh. xii. And afterwards\nmost of these kingdoms were swallowed up by the Assyrian empire. Thus\nthe king of Assyria, as Rabshakeh boasts, had entirely conquered the\nkings of Hamath, Arphad, Gozan, and Haran, with several others, 2 Kings\nxix. 12, 13. these had very small dominions, and therefore were easily\nsubdued by forces so much superior to any that they could raise. Egypt,\nindeed, was more formidable; and therefore we often read in scripture of\nIsrael\u2019s having recourse to them for help, and are blamed for trusting\nin them more than God: And, in Arabia, there were some kings who had\nlarge dominions, as appears by the vast armies that they raised: Thus\n_Zerah the Ethiopian came forth against Asa, with a thousand thousand\nmen_, 2 Chron. xvi. 19. Nevertheless, the church of God was able to\nstand its ground; for, whether the neighbouring kings were many of them,\nconfederate against them, or the armies they raised, exceeding numerous,\nlike the sand on the sea shore; they had safety and protection, as well\nas success in war, from the care and blessing of providence; of which we\nhave an account in the history of scripture relating thereunto.\n(7.) It will be of some advantage, in order to our understanding the\nsense of scripture, for us to enquire into the meaning of those civil\nand religious offices and characters, by which several persons are\ndescribed, both in the Old and New Testament. Concerning the Priests and\nLevites, we have had occasion frequently to insist on their call and\noffice: Among the former of these, one is styled _high-priest_; who was\nnot only the chief minister in holy things under the Jewish\ndispensation; but presided over the other priests in all those things\nthat respected the temple-service. There was also another priest, who\nhad pre-eminence over his brethren, that was next to the high-priest in\noffice, who seems to be referred to, in 2 Kings xxv. 18. where we read\nof _Seriah, the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest_. This\noffice is not often mentioned in scripture, but is frequently spoken of\nby Jewish writers: They call him, who was employed therein, as the\nauthor of the Chaldee paraphrase does on that text, the Sagan: And, some\nthink, that this office was first instituted in Numb. iii. 32. in which\nEleazar, the son of Aaron the priest was to be _chief over the chief of\nthe Levites, and to have the oversight of them, that kept the charge of\nthe sanctuary_: And elsewhere, we read of Zadok and Abiathar, being, by\nway of eminency, _priests at the same time_, 2 Sam. xv. 35. by which, it\nis probable, we are to understand, as many expositors do, that one was\nthe _high priest_, the other the _Sagan_; who was to perform the office\nthat belonged to the high priest in all the branches thereof, if he\nshould happen to be incapacitated for it.\nBesides these, there were others who were styled _chief-priests_, as\nbeing the heads of their respective classes, and presided over them when\nthey came to Jerusalem, to minister in their courses. There was also the\npresident of the Sanhedrim, who is generally reckoned one of the chief\npriests. Moreover, when any one was by the arbitrary will of the\ngovernors, in the degenerate and declining state of the Jewish church,\ndeposed from the high-priesthood, barely to make way for another\nfavourite to enjoy that honour, he was, though divested of his office,\nnevertheless called chief priest. This will give light to several\nscriptures in the New Testament, in which we often read of many chief\npriests at the same time, See Luke iii. 2. Mark xiv. 53.\nAgain, as to the Levites, these were not only appointed to be the high\npriest\u2019s ministers in offering gifts and sacrifices in the temple; but\nmany of them were engaged in other offices; some in instructing the\npeople, in the respective cities where they dwelt, who were to resort to\nthem for that purpose, or in synagogues, erected for this branch of\npublic worship. Others were employed as judges in determining civil or\necclesiastical, matters.\nAgain, we often read, in scripture, of Scribes: These were of two sorts;\nsome were employed only in civil matters; and we sometimes read of one\nperson, in particular, who was appointed to be the king\u2019s scribe. Thus\nin David\u2019s reign, we read of Shemaiah the scribe, and in Hezekiah\u2019s of\nShebna, 1 Chron. xxiv. 6. 2 Kings xviii. 18. This seems to have been a\ncivil officer, not much unlike a secretary of state among us; and we\nseldom find mention made of more than one scribe at a time, except in\nSolomon\u2019s reign in which there were two, 1 Kings iv. 4.\nBut besides this, we often read of scribes who were engaged in other\nworks; thus it is generally supposed, that many of them were employed in\ntranscribing the whole, or some parts of scripture, for the use of those\nwho employed them therein, and gratified them for it; which was\nnecessary for the propagating religion in those ages, in which printing\nwas not known.\nThere were others who explained the law to the people. Thus Ezra is\nstyled, _a ready scribe in the law of Moses_, Ezra, vii. 6. This was an\nhonourable and useful employment, faithfully managed by him and many\nothers, in the best ages of the church. But, in our Saviour\u2019s time,\nthere were scribes who pretended to expound the law, and instruct the\npeople; but the doctrines they propagated, were very contrary to the\nmind of the Holy Ghost in Moses\u2019s writings; and their way of preaching\nwas very empty and unprofitable: Upon which occasion it is said, that\nour Lord _taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes_, Matt.\nMoreover, we sometimes read in the New-Testament, of Lawyers, against\nwhom our Saviour denounces woes, for opposing him and his gospel. This\nis supposed by some, to be only a different name given to the scribes;\ninasmuch as they practised the law in public courts of judicature, and\npleaded causes in the Sanhedrin, or taught in their schools or religious\nassemblies; both which the scribes did. And the evangelist Matthew,\nspeaking concerning a lawyer, who asked our Saviour a question, _Which\nis the great commandment_, chap. xxii. 35, 36. Mark mentioning the same\nthing, calls him _one of the scribes_, Mark xii. 28. So that the same\nthing, for substance, seems to be intended by both of them; or if there\nwas any difference between them, as others suppose there was, from what\nis said in Luke xi. 44, 45. that when our Saviour had been reproving the\nscribes and Pharisees, _One of the lawyers said unto him, thus saying\nthou reproachest us also_, where they speak as though they were distinct\nfrom them: yet it is evident from hence, that however they might be\ndistinguished from them, in other respects, they agreed with them as\nengaged in expounding the law, and herein are said to lade _men with\nheavy burdens and grievous to be born_; which they themselves would _not\ntouch with one of their fingers_.\nAs for those civil officers which we read of in the Old Testament before\nthe captivity, especially in David and Solomon\u2019s reign, they were either\nsuch as were set over the tribute, the principal of which was at the\nhead of the treasury, 1 Kings iv. 6. and others were employed under\nthem, to see that the taxes were duly levied and paid: These are called\nreceivers, Isa. xxxiii. 18. Others were employed in keeping and\nadjusting the public records, of which, one was the chief; who, by way\nof eminence, is called the recorder: And others were appointed to manage\nthe king\u2019s domestic affairs, of which, the chief was _set over the\nhousehold_, 2 Kings xviii. 18. Another is said to be _set over the\nhost_, 1 Kings iv. 4. who either had the chief command of the army, or\nelse was appointed to muster and determine who should go to war, or be\nexcused from it. And there is another officer we read of once in\nscripture, _viz._ he that _counted the towers_, Isa. xxxiii. 18. whose\nbusiness seems to have been to survey and keep the fortifications in\nrepair; but these not being so frequently mentioned in scripture as\nothers, we pass them over, and proceed more especially to consider some\ncharacters of persons we meet with in the New Testament.\nThere was one sort of officers who were concerned in exacting the public\nrevenues, after the Jews were made tributary to the Roman empire: These\nare called publicans; the chief of which were generally persons of great\nhonour and substance, who sometimes farmed a branch of the revenue, and\nthey were, for the most part, Romans of noble extract, of whom we have\nan account in Cicero[46], and other heathen writers; but there is no\nmention of them in scripture. This honourable post was never conferred\non the Jews; nevertheless, we read of Zaccheus, who is said to have been\none _of the chief among the publicans_, though a Jew, Luke xix. 2. the\nmeaning of which is, that he was the chief officer in a particular port,\nwho had other publicans under him; whose business was, constantly to\nattend at the ports, and take an account of the taxes that were to be\npaid there, by those of whom they were exacted. Of this latter sort was\nMatthew, who is called the publican, _i. e._ one of the lowest officers\nconcerned in the revenue, Matt. x. 3. compared with chap. ix. 9. These\nwere usually very profligate in their morals, and inclined to oppress\nthose of whom they received taxes, probably to gain advantage to\nthemselves; and were universally hated by the Jews.\nThere was another sort of men often mentioned in the New Testament, that\nmade the greatest pretensions to religion, but were most remote from it,\nand justly branded with the character of hypocrites, to wit, the\nPharisees, who made themselves popular by their external shew of piety.\nThere is not, indeed, the least hint of there being such a sect amongst\nthe Jews before the captivity; though, it is true, the prophet Isaiah,\nIsa. lxv. 5. speaks of a sort of people that much resembled them, which\nsaid, _Stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than\nthou_; from whence, it seems, that there were some of like principles in\nhis day; unless we suppose that this scripture had its accomplishment\nwhen the sect of the Pharisees appeared in the world in a following age;\nwhich was not long after the reign of Alexander the great[47], between\ntwo and three hundred years before our Saviour\u2019s time. They are\ngenerally described in scripture, as pretending to be more expert than\nall others in the knowledge of the law; but, in reality, making it void,\nby establishing those oral traditions, which were contrary to the true\nintent and meaning thereof, and, as setting up their own righteousness,\nand depending on the performance of some lesser duties of the law, as\nthat from whence they expected a right to eternal life. These were the\ngreatest enemies, in their conduct, as well as their doctrines, to\nChrist, and his gospel.\nThere was another sect that joined with the Pharisees, in persecuting\nand opposing our Saviour; though otherwise they did not, in the least,\naccord with one another; and these were the Sadducees, who appeared in\nthe world about the same time with the Pharisees: These were men\ngenerally reputed as profligate in their morals, and for that reason, as\nmuch hated by the common people, as the Pharisees were caressed by them.\nThey adhered to the Philosophy of Epicurus; and took occasion, from\nthence to deny the resurrection, angels, and spirits, as they are said\nto do in scripture, Acts xxiii. 8. It is true they did not desire to be\nthought irreligious, though they were really so; yet our Saviour\ndescribes them, as well as the Pharisees, as _hypocrites_, and\ninveterate enemies of the gospel.\nThere was another sort of people sometimes mentioned in the New\nTestament, _viz._ the Samaritans, who separated from the Jews, out of a\nprivate pique, and built a distinct temple on mount Gerizzim[48]; and\nfor this they were excommunicated by the Jews, and universally hated, so\nthat there was no intercourse between them, John iv. 9, especially in\nthose things in which one might be said to be obliged to the other:\nThese did very much corrupt the worship of God, so that Christ charges\nthem with _worshipping they knew not what_, ver. 12. and it is observed\nconcerning them, after the ten tribes were carried captive into Assyria,\nand they who were left in the land _feared not the Lord_, that he _sent\nlions amongst them_, 2 Kings xvii. 25. upon which occasion a priest was\ndismissed by the king of Assyria, under pretence of _instructing them in\nthe manner of the God of the land_; and he erected a strange medly of\nreligion, consisting partly of those corruptions therein, which had been\npractised by the Israelites for some ages past, and partly of the\nHeathen idolatry, which they brought from Assyria; upon which account it\nis said, _They feared the Lord, and served their own gods after the\nmanner of the nations whom they carried away from thence_, 2 Kings xvii.\nThere is another sort of men, mentioned in the New Testament, who are\ncalled Herodians: These seem to have been a political rather than a\nreligious sect. Some of the Fathers, indeed, think that they were so\ncalled because they complimented Herod with the character of the\nMessiah[49], who, as they supposed, would be a very flourishing prince,\nwho was to reign over them, according to the ancient prediction of the\npatriarch Jacob, after _the sceptre was departed from Judah_: But this\nseems to be a very improbable conjecture; for _Herod the Great_ was\ndead, before we read any thing of the Herodians in scripture: And the\nJews had an opinion, about this time, that the Messiah should never die,\nJohn xii. 34. Therefore, the most probable opinion is, that these\nHerodians were, in their first rise, the favourites and courtiers of\nHerod, and disposed to give into any alterations that he was inclined to\nmake in the religious or civil affairs of the Jews[50]. By what is said\nconcerning them in scripture, it is supposed, that they were, for thy\nmost part, Sadducees; for if we compare Matt. xvi. 6. with Mark viii.\n15. our Saviour warns his disciples upon the same occasion, to wit,\ntheir having _forgot to take bread_, to _beware of the leaven of the\nPharisees and of the Sadducees_; as the former evangelist expresses it,\nand _of the leaven of Herod_, viz. the Herodians, as it is in the\nlatter: Now, though these Herodians, or court-parasites, might take\ntheir first rise in the reign of Herod the Great; yet there was a party\nof men succeeded them, who held the same principles, and were disposed\nto compliment their governors with their civil and religious rights; but\nthey more especially distinguished themselves, by their propagating\nprinciples of loyalty among the people: And, whereas the Jews, under a\npretence that they were a free nation, were very unwilling to give\ntribute to Cesar, (though they would not venture their lives as Judas of\nGalilee, and some others had done, by refusing it;) these Herodians laid\nit down as an article of their faith, that they ought to pay tribute to\nCesar; and therefore, when they came with this question to our Saviour,\n_Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not?_ Matt. xxii. 17. he soon\ndiscovered their hypocrisy, and knew the design of that question as he\nmight easily do from their being Herodians. Thus concerning the various\ncharacters of persons mentioned in scripture, as subservient to our\nunderstanding thereof.\n(8.) After all these helps for the understanding the sense of scripture,\nthere is one more which is universally to be observed; namely, that no\nsense is to be given of any text, but what is agreeable to the analogy\nof faith, has a tendency to advance the divine perfections, stain the\npride of all flesh, in the sight of God, and, promote practical\ngodliness in all its branches.\n_1st_, Scripture must be explained agreeably to the analogy of faith. It\nis supposed that there is something we depend on, which we can prove to\nbe the faith of scripture, or demonstrably founded upon it: This we are\nbound to adhere to; otherwise we must be charged with scepticism, and\nconcluded not to know where to set our feet in matters of religion. Now,\nso far as our faith herein is founded on scripture, every sense we give\nof it must be agreeable thereunto; otherwise we do as it were suppose\nthat the word of God in one place destroys what, in another, it\nestablishes, which would be a great reflection on that which is the\nstandard and rule of our faith. I do not hereby intend, that our\nsentiments are to be a rule of faith to others, any farther than as they\nare evidently contained in, or deduced from scripture: Yet that which we\nbelieve, as thinking it to be the sense of scripture, is so far a rule\nto us, that, whatever sense we give of any other scripture, must be\nagreeable to it; or else, we must be content to acknowledge, that we are\nmistaken in some of those things which we called articles of faith, as\nfounded thereon.\n_2dly_, No sense given of scripture, must be contrary to the divine\nperfections: Thus, when human passions are ascribed to God, such as\ngrief, fear, desire, wrath, fury, indignation, _&c._ these are not to be\nexplained, as when the same passions are ascribed to men, in which sense\nthey argue weakness and imperfection. And when any phrase of scripture\nseems to represent him defective in power; as in Jer. xiv. 9. \u2018Why\nshouldst thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save?\u2019\nwe are to understand it as a charge that would be unjustly brought\nagainst God, if he did not appear in the behalf of his people, by those\nwho are disposed to reproach and find fault with the dispensations of\nhis providence: But, since we have taken occasion, in explaining many\nscriptures and doctrines founded upon them, to apply this rule; I shall\ncontent myself, at present, with the bare mentioning of it.\n_3dly_, We are to explain scripture in such a way, as that it may have a\ntendency to promote practical godliness in all its branches; which is\nthe main end and design thereof. Many instances might be given, in which\nthis rule is to be applied; as when we are said, in Rom. vii. 14. _not_\nto be _under the law, but under grace_; we are not to understand this as\nthough we were discharged from an obligation to yield obedience to\nwhatever God commands; but either, as denoting our being delivered from\nthe condemning sentence of the law; or, from the ceremonial law, to\nwhich the gospel-dispensation, which is a display of the grace of God,\nis always opposed. And when it is said in Eccl. vii. 16. \u2018Be not\nrighteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise: Why shouldst thou\ndestroy thyself?\u2019 We are not to understand thereby, that there is any\ndanger of being too holy, or strict in the performance of religious\nduties; but as forbidding an hypocritical appearing to be more righteous\nthan we are, or entertaining a proud and vain-glorious conceit of our\nown righteousness, because we perform some duties of religion.\nAgain, there are other scriptures which are sometimes perverted, as\nthough they intimated, that prayer, or other religious duties, were not\nincumbent on wicked men; as when it is said, in Prov. xxi. 27. _The\nsacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord_: And, chap.\nxxviii. 9. that his prayer is so, or that he has nothing to do with\nthose duties; because it is said to such, in Psal. l. 16. _What hast\nthou to do to declare my statutes, or, that thou shouldst take my\ncovenant in thy mouth._ But these scriptures do not imply, that they are\nnot obliged to perform religious duties; but, that it is contrary to the\nholiness of God, and a great provocation to him when they regard not the\nframe of spirit with which they perform them, who draw nigh to him with\ntheir lips, when their heart is far from him, or lay claim to the\nblessings of the covenant of grace, while continuing in open hostility\nagainst him. To apply this rule fully, would be to go through the whole\nscripture, and to shew how all the great doctrines of religion which are\nfounded upon it, are conformed thereunto; But this we have endeavoured\nto do in all those instances in which we have had occasion to give the\nsense thereof; and therefore shall content ourselves with this brief\nspecimen, and leave it to every one to improve upon it in his daily\nmeditations, in enquiring into the sense of scripture, in order to his\nbeing farther established in that religion which is founded thereon.\nFootnote 32:\n  _Many instances of this might be produced, viz. Gen. iii. 15. instead\n  of, it shall bruise thy head, they render it she; by which they\n  understand the Virgin Mary, shall bruise thy head, that is, the\n  serpent\u2019s. And, Gen. xlviii. 16. instead of, my name shall be named on\n  them, which are the words of Jacob, concerning Joseph\u2019s sons; it is\n  rendered, my name shall be invoked, or called upon by them; which\n  favours the doctrine of invocation of saints. And, in Psal. xcix. 5.\n  instead of exalt the Lord thy God, and worship at his holy hill, they\n  read, worship his footstool; which gives countenance to their error of\n  paying divine adoration to places or things. And, in Heb. xi. 21.\n  instead of, Jacob worshipped leaning on the top of his staff, they\n  render it, he worshipped the top of his staff. And, in Heb. xiii. 16.\n  instead of, with such sacrifices God is well pleased, they render it,\n  with such sacrifices God is merited; which they make use of to\n  establish the merit of good works._\nFootnote 33:\n  _There is indeed, one verse in Jeremiah, chap. x. 11. that is written\n  in Chaldee; which, it is probable, they did not, at that time, well\n  understand; but the prophet, by this, intimates to them, that they\n  should be carried into a country where that language should be used;\n  and therefore the Holy Ghost furnishes them with a message, that they\n  were to deliver to the Chaldeans, from the Lord, in their own\n  language. The gods, that have not made the heavens and the earth, even\n  they shall perish from the earth, and from these heavens._\nFootnote 34:\n  _See Vol. I. Quest. IV. p. 69, & seq._\nFootnote 35:\n  _See Quest. CLIX, CLX._\nFootnote 36:\n  \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf.\nFootnote 37:\n  Vide T. Williams on the Song of Solomon.\nFootnote 38:\n  Vide Table of the Order of the Prophecies. Vol. I. p. 55.\nFootnote 39:\n  _The word is \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5, which being neither a root to any other word, nor\n  derived from any other root, by which the sense of Hebrew words is\n  generally known, nor found any where in scripture, excepting in those\n  two or three places which refer to this particular dispensation of\n  providence; it is an hard matter to determine the sense of it, without\n  comparing these two scriptures together.\u2014It occurs Numb. xi. 31, 32.\n  Exod. xvi. 13. Psa. cv. 40._\nFootnote 40:\n  _See the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. v. to the x. inclusive, and 2\nFootnote 41:\nFootnote 42:\n  _See Lightfoot\u2019s Harmony of the Four Evangelists. And his Harmony of\n  the New Testament, Vol. I. p. 268._\nFootnote 43:\n  _This is called Synecdoche._\nFootnote 44:\n  _This is called a Metonymy._\nFootnote 45:\n  _See more of this in an ingenious discourse on this subject by Smith\n  in Solomon\u2019s portraiture of old age._\nFootnote 46:\n  _Vid. Cic. in Orat. pro Planc. florem equitum Romanorum ornamentum\n  civitatis, firmamentum reipublic\u00e6 publicanorum ordine contineri. And\n  in his oration, ad Quintum Fratrem, he has many things concerning the\n  dignity of the publicans, and their advantage to the commonwealth:\n  accordingly he says, Si publicanis adversemur ordinem do nobis optime\n  meritum, & per nos cum republica conjunctum, & a nobis, & a republica\n  disjungimus. And, in his familiar epistles, Lib. xix. Epist. x. he\n  calls them, Ordinem sibi semper commendatissimum; & ad Atticum, Lib.\n  vii. Epist. vii. he says, C\u00e6sari amicissimos fuisse publicanos._\nFootnote 47:\n  _See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xiii. Cap. ix. And we have an account of\n  their pride and insolence in the same author, chap. xviii. and of the\n  great disturbance that they made in civil governments, if chief\n  magistrates did not please them._\nFootnote 48:\n  _See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xi. Cap. viii._\nFootnote 49:\n  _See Tertull. in pr\u00e6scrip. adv. H\u00e6r. Cap. xlv. and Epiphanius, in H\u00e6r.\n  Cap. xx._\nFootnote 50:\n  _That Herod was disposed to make alterations in the Jews religion, by\n  adding to it a mixture of several rites and ceremonies, taken from the\n  Heathen, is affirmed by some. See Cun\u00e6us de Rep. H\u0153b. Lib. i Cap. xvi.\n  who quotes Josephus as saying, that he altered the ancient laws of\n  their country._\n    QUEST. CLVIII. _By whom is the word of God to be preached?_\n    ANSW. The word of God is to be preached only by such as are\n    sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that\n    office.\n    QUEST. CLIX. _How is the word of God to be preached by those that\n    are called thereto?_\n    ANSW. They that are called to labour in the ministry of the word,\n    are to preach sound doctrine, diligently; in season, and out of\n    season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man\u2019s wisdom, but in\n    demonstration of the spirit, and power, faithfully, making known the\n    whole council of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities\n    and capacities of the hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God,\n    and the souls of his people; sincerely, aiming at his glory, and\n    their conversion, edification, and salvation.\n    QUEST. CLX. _What is required of those that hear the word preached?_\n    ANSW. It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they\n    attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer, examine what\n    they hear, by the scripture, receive the truth with faith, love,\n    meekness, and readiness of mind, as the word of God; meditate, and\n    confer of it; hide it in their heart, and bring forth the fruit of\n    it in their lives.\nHaving considered, what method we are to take, in our private station,\nor capacity, to understand the word of God; we have great reason to be\nthankful, that he has ordained that it should be publicly preached, or\nexplained, as a farther means conducive to this end. And accordingly we\nare led, in these answers, to shew, who they are that God has called to\nthis work; and how such ought to perform it; and with what frame of\nspirit we ought to attend on it.\nI. The persons by whom the word of God is to be preached; and these are\nonly such, whom he has qualified with gifts sufficient for it; and they\nought also to be duly approved of, when called hereunto, by those among\nwhom the providence of God directs them to exercise their ministry.\n1. Concerning the qualifications which are necessary, in those that are\nemployed in preaching the gospel. Here it is to be observed in general,\nthat they must be sufficiently gifted for it; which is so evident, that\nit would be unreasonable for any one to deny it, since no one is to\nattempt any thing that he is not able to perform; especially if it be a\nwork of the highest importance, and the unskilful managing thereof may\nhave a tendency to do prejudice to, rather than advance the interest of\nChrist. It would be a reflection on the wisdom of a master, to employ\nhis servant in a work that he has no capacity for, or entrust him with\nan affair that is like to miscarry in his hands. In like manner, we are\nnot to suppose that God calls any to preach the gospel, but those whom\nhe has, in some measure, furnished for it; though, it is true, the best\nmay say, as the apostle does, _We are not sufficient of ourselves, to\nthink any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God_: Yet he\nadds, that they who are employed by him in this work, are made _able\nministers of the New-Testament_, 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. It is, indeed, a\ndifficult matter to determine who are sufficiently gifted for it; the\nwork being so great and our natural and acquired endowments very small,\nif compared with it. But that we may briefly consider this matter, it\nmay be observed,\n(1.) That some qualifications are moral, without which, they who preach\nthe gospel, would be a reproach to it. These respect, more especially,\nthe conversation of those who are engaged in this work, which ought to\nbe blameless and exemplary; not only inoffensive, but such as they, whom\nthey are called to instruct, may safely copy after. Thus the apostle\nmakes a solemn appeal, when he says, _Ye are witnesses, and God also,\nhow holily, and justly, and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you\nthat believe_, 1 Thess. ii. 10. And he advises the Corinthians to be\n_followers of him_, 1 Cor. iv. 16. and commends the church elsewhere,\nfor conforming themselves to his example, so far as it was agreeable to\nthat of our Saviour, 1 Thess. i. 6. in which respect alone the best of\nmen are to be followed, 1 Cor. xi. 1. Now this supposes that they have\nthat which we call the moral qualifications, necessary to the work of\nthe ministry, without which, a person will do more hurt, by his example,\nthan he can do good by his doctrine; inasmuch as he will lay a\nstumbling-block in the way of Christians, who would be ready to say, as\nthe apostle does to some of those who were teachers among the Jews;\n_Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?_ Rom. ii. 21.\nor, dost thou live in the practice of those crimes, which thou\ncondemnest in others, and exhortest them to avoid? This qualification\ntherefore, must be supposed to be necessary; and, indeed, an\nexperimental knowledge of divine truths, will greatly furnish them to\ncommunicate the same to others, and spirit them, with zeal, in using\ntheir utmost endeavours, that they may be made partakers of the same\nexperiences which they themselves, have been favoured with.\nNevertheless, we are not to suppose that this alone will warrant a\nperson\u2019s engaging in the work of the ministry; for then every one who\nhas experienced the grace of God, might attempt it, how unable soever he\nbe to manage it to the glory of God, and the edification of the church.\nTherefore,\n(2.) There are other qualifications more directly subservient hereunto.\nThese the apostle speaks of, when he describes a gospel-minister as one\nwho is _apt to teach_, 1 Tim. iii. 2. and able _rightly to divide the\nword of truth_, 2 Tim. ii. 15. and, by _sound doctrine_, to exhort and\n_convince gainsayers_, Tit. i. 9. They who take upon them to explain\nscripture, and apply it to the consciences of men, ought, certainly,\nwith great diligence and hard study, to use their utmost endeavours to\nunderstand it. And to this we may add, that they ought to be able to\nreason, or infer just consequences from it; whereby they may appear to\nbe well versed in those great doctrines, on which our faith and religion\nis founded. This, indeed, must be confessed to be a work of difficulty;\nand, they who think themselves best furnished in this respect, will have\nreason to conclude, as the apostle says, that they _know but in part,\nand prophesy in part_, 1 Cor. xiii. 9.\nTo this we may add, that there are various parts of learning, that may\nbe reckoned, in some respects, ornamental, which would tend to secure\nhim that preaches the gospel from contempt; and others, that are more\nimmediately subservient to our understanding scripture, namely, a being\nwell acquainted with those languages, in which the Old and New Testament\nwere written, and able to make critical remarks on the style and mode of\nexpression used in each of them, and a being conversant in the writings\nof those, whether in our own or other languages, who have clearly and\njudiciously explained the doctrines of the gospel, or led us into the\nknowledge of those things that have a tendency to illustrate them. And,\ninasmuch as preaching contains in it an address to the judgments and\nconsciences of men, I cannot but reckon it a qualification necessary in\norder hereunto, that all those parts of learning that have a tendency to\nenlarge the reasoning faculties, or help us to see the connexion or\ndependence of one thing upon another, should be attended to, that we may\nhereby be fitted to convey our ideas with judgment and method. These\nqualifications are to be acquired. We pass by those that are natural, to\nwit, a sufficient degree of parts, and such an elocution as is necessary\nfor those who are to speak to the edification of an audience, without\nwhich all other endeavours to furnish themselves for this work, will be\nto very little purpose.\n2. They, by whom the word of God is to be preached, are to be duly\napproved and called to that office. A person may think himself qualified\nfor it without sufficient ground; therefore this matter ought to be\nsubmitted to the judgment of others, by whose approbation he is to\nengage in this work. The first thing that is to be enquired into, is;\nwhether he is called to it by God, not only by his providence, which\nopens a door for his preaching the gospel, but by the success which he\nis pleased to grant to his endeavours, in order to his being duly\nqualified for it? Notwithstanding, since persons may be mistaken, and\nthink they have a divine call hereunto, when they have not; it is\nnecessary that they should be approved by those who are sufficient\njudges of this matter, that they may not be exposed to temptation, so as\nto engage in a work which they are not deemed sufficient for. Not that\nit is in the power of ministers, or churches, especially according to\nthe present situation of things, to hinder an unqualified person who has\ntoo high thoughts of his own abilities, from preaching to a number of\npeople that is disposed to hear him; yet no one is bound or ought, in\nprudence, or faithfulness to God or man, to own any to be a minister,\nwhose gifts do not render him fit to be approved; nor, on the other\nhand, can any judgment be passed on this matter, without sufficient\nacquaintance or conversation with him, that thereby it may be known\nwhether he be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, and able rightly\nto divide the word of truth.\nHere, I think, there is some difference between the approbation that\nought to be passed on those who first engage in the work of preaching,\nand the call to the pastoral office; the latter supposes the former; and\ntherefore a person ought first to be approved of, as fit to preach the\ngospel, in the opinion of those who are allowed to be competent judges\nhereof, which is necessary to his entrance on that work with reputation\nand acceptance; without which, he is to stand and fall to his own\nmaster, and acquiesce in the approbation of those who are willing to sit\nunder his ministry; while others are not bound (as being destitute of\nsufficient evidence) to conclude him furnished for, or called to it.\nAs to the call to the pastoral office; though no one has a right to\nimpose pastors on churches; yet it is the indispensible duty of every\nchurch not barely to enquire; whether the person, whom they have a\ndesire to call to that office, be such an one as is approved by the\ngreater number of them; but, whether the step they are taking herein, is\nsuch as has a tendency to secure their reputation as a church of Christ,\nwithout exposing them to the just blame and censure of others, who are\nin the same faith and order with themselves? that they may do nothing\nthat is in the least offensive, or that has a tendency to weaken the\ninterest of Christ in his churches. It is true, no one can put a stop to\ntheir proceeding, if they are resolved to set over them one that is not\nonly scandalous in his conversation, but inclined to preach what is\nsubversive of the fundamental articles of our faith; yet they cannot\nhereby act as a church that has obtained mercy from God to be faithful,\nor engage in this important work with judgment. It is therefore\nexpedient, that churches should set over them ministers approved by\nothers as sound in the faith, as well as reckoned, by themselves, able\nto preach to their edification; and, in order hereunto, it is expedient\nthat some ministers, and members of other churches, should be present at\ntheir investiture in that office, to which they have called them, not\nbarely as being witnesses of their faith and order, in common with the\nwhole assembly, but as testifying hereby their approbation of their\nproceedings, and giving ground to the world to conclude, that that\nperson, whom they have called, is owned by others, as well as\nthemselves.\nAnd, in order thereunto, it is necessary that ministers, who are to join\nin begging the blessing of God on their proceedings, and giving a word\nof exhortation to them, should be satisfied concerning the fitness of\nhim whom the church has called to that office; which is supposed by\ntheir being present, and bearing their respective parts therein. This, I\nthink, is intended by that expression of the apostle, in which he\nadvises Timothy, _to lay hands suddenly on no man; nor to be partaker of\nother men\u2019s sins; but to keep himself pure_, 1 Tim. v. 22. that is,\nwithout guilt, as being active in approving those that he ought not to\napprove of. I do not, by this, take the power out of the hands of the\nchurch, of setting a pastor over themselves; but only hereby argue the\nexpediency of their consulting the honour of the gospel herein, and\nacting so, as that they may have the approbation of other churches in\nthat solemnity.\nII. We are now to consider how the word of God is to be preached by\nthose who are qualified, approved, and called thereunto; and that, both\nas to doctrines to be insisted on, and the manner in which they are to\nbe delivered.\n1. What they are to preach, ought to be sound doctrine, and that not\nbarely what is deemed to be so by him that preaches it; since there is\nscarce any one but thinks himself sound in the faith, how remote soever\nhis sentiments may be from the true intent and meaning of the word of\nGod. But hereby we understand those doctrines which are so called by the\napostle, Tit. i. 9. such as are agreeable to that _form of sound words_\nwhich is transmitted to us by divine inspiration, 2 Tim. i. 13. _the\ndoctrine which is according to godliness_, 1 Tim. vi. 3. as having a\ntendency to recommend and promote it. This is styled elsewhere, _The\nfaith once delivered to the saints_; which is not only to be preached,\nbut _earnestly contended for_, Jude, ver. 3. These are such doctrines as\nhave a tendency to advance the glory of God, and do good to the souls of\nmen, that are relished and savoured by sincere Christians, who know the\ntruth, as it is in Jesus; and are _nourished up_, as the apostle says,\n_in the words of faith and of good doctrine_, 1 Tim. iv. 6. This, as it\nhas a peculiar reference to the gospel, and the way of salvation\ncontained therein, is called _preaching Christ_, Col. i. 18. or a\n_determining to know nothing_; that is, to appear to know, or to\ndiscover nothing, _save Jesus Christ and him crucified_, 1 Cor. ii. 2.\nor deliver nothing but what tends to set forth the person and offices of\nChrist, either directly, or in its remote tendency thereunto. Our\nSaviour advises the church, to _take heed what they hear_, Mark iv. 24.\nas signifying, that we are to receive no doctrines but what are\nagreeable to the gospel. And this is a sufficient intimation that such\nonly are to be preached, the contrary to which method of preaching, the\napostle calls _perverting the gospel of Christ_; and adds, that _though\nwe, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we\nhave preached, let him be accursed_, Gal. i. 7, 8. These are the only\ndoctrines that God will own, because they tend to set forth his\nperfections, as they were at first communicated by him for that end.\n2. We are now to consider the manner in which these doctrines are to be\npreached. This is laid down in several heads,\n(1.) Diligently and constantly, in season and out of season, considering\nthis work as the main business of life, that which a minister is to\n_give himself wholly to_, 1 Tim. iv. 15. and all his studies are to be\nsubservient to this end. He is to rejoice in all opportunities, in which\nhe may lead those whom he is called to minister to, in the way to\nheaven, and be willing to lay out his strength, and those abilities\nwhich God has given him, to his glory. Thus the apostle says, _I would\nvery gladly spend, and be spent for you_, 2 Cor. xii. 14. This argues,\nthat the word is not barely to be preached occasionally, as though it\nwere to be hid from the world, or only imparted, when the leisure or\ninclination of those who are called thereto, will admit of it. The\ncharacter which the apostle gives of gospel-ministers, is, that they\n_watch for the souls of those to whom they minister_; that is, they wait\nfor the best and fittest seasons to inculcate divine truths to them.\nThis is particularly expressed _by preaching the word_, and _being\ninstant in season, and out of season, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting\nwith all long-suffering and doctrine_, 2 Tim. iv. 2. which implies, that\nit ought to be preached, not only on that day, which God has sanctified\nfor public worship, of which preaching is a part; but on all occasions,\nwhen they are apprehensive that the people are desirous to receive and\nhear it.\n(2.) It is to be preached plainly. Thus the apostle says, _We use great\nplainness of speech_, 2 Cor. iii. 12. This method of preaching is\ninconsistent with the using unintelligible expressions: which neither\nthey nor their hearers well understand. The style ought to be familiar,\nand adapted to the meanest capacities; which may be done without\nexposing it to contempt. And it is particularly observed, that it ought\nnot to be, _in the enticing words of man\u2019s wisdom, but in demonstration\nof the Spirit and of power_; as the apostle says concerning his method\nof preaching, 1 Cor. ii. 14. The great design hereof, is, not to please\nthe ear with well turned periods, or rhetorical expressions, or an\naffectation of shewing skill in human learning, in those instances in\nwhich it is not directly adapted to edification, or rendered subservient\nto the explaining of scripture. A demonstrative way of preaching, is\nnot, indeed, opposed to this plainness that is here intended but it is\nthe _demonstration of the Spirit_; which, though it differs from that\nwhich the apostles were favoured with (who were led into the doctrines\nthey preached, by immediate inspiration;) yet we are to endeavour to\nprove, by strength of argument, that what we deliver is agreeable to the\nmind and will of God therein; and yet to do this with that plainness of\naddress, as those who desire to awaken the consciences of men, and give\nthem the fullest conviction, proving from the scripture, that what we\nsay is true. This account the apostle gives of his ministry, 2 Cor. iv.\n2. as what was most adapted to answer the valuable ends thereof.\n(3.) The word of God is to be preached faithfully; which supposes that\nthey who are called to this work, have the souls of those whom they\npreach to, committed to their care; so that, if they perish for want of\ndue instruction, they are, for this neglect, found guilty before God.\nThus God says to the prophet, _Son of man, I have made thee a watchman\nto the house Israel_, Ezek. iii. 17, &c. and therefore he was to _give\nthem warning_, which, if he did, he _delivered his_ own _soul_; but if\nnot, God intimates to him that _their blood should be required at his\nhand_. This supposes that they are accountable to God for the doctrines\nthey deliver; for which reason the apostle speaks of them, as _stewards\nof the mysteries of God_, of whom it was _required that_ they should _be\nfound faithful_, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. and, as a particular instance thereof,\nhe makes a solemn appeal to the elders of the church of Ephesus, that he\nhad _kept back nothing that was profitable unto them_, nor _shunned to\ndeclare all the counsel of God_, Acts xx. 27. This faithfulness in the\nexercise of the ministry, is opposed to their having respect of persons\nfrom some obligation which they are laid under to them, or the prospect\nof some advantage that they expect from them, which makes them sparing\nin reproving those who are blame-worthy, for fear of giving offence, or\nlosing their friendship. It is also opposed to preaching those doctrines\nwhich are suited to the humours and corruptions of men, and neglecting\nto insist on the most necessary and important truths; because they\napprehend that they will be entertained with disgust. This is to act as\nthough their main design were to please men rather than God. And it is\nvery remote from the conduct of the prophet Isaiah; who, when he was\ninformed that the people desired that the _prophets_ would _prophesy\nsmooth things_ to them, and _cause the holy one of Israel to cease from\nbefore them_, Isa. xxx. 10, 11. he takes occasion to represent God as\nthe holy one of Israel, in the following words, and to denounce the\njudgments which he would bring upon them, how unwilling soever they were\nto receive this doctrine from him.\nAnd, to this we may add, that they are to be reckoned no other than\nunfaithful in their method of preaching, who, under a pretence of\npressing the observance of moral duties, set aside the great doctrines\nof faith in Christ, and justification by his righteousness, which is the\nonly foundation of our acceptance in his sight. Concerning which we may\nsay, without being supposed to have light thoughts of moral virtue; that\nthe one ought, in no wise to exclude the other. Neither can they be\nreckoned faithful, who shun to declare those important truths, on which\nthe glory of God, and the comfort of his people depend; and therefore,\nif morality be rightly preached, it ought to be inculcated from\nevangelical motives, and connected with other truths that have a\ntendency more directly to set forth the Mediator\u2019s glory; which ought\nnot to be laid aside as controverted doctrines, which all cannot\nacquiesce in, as supposing that the tempers, or rather the ignorance and\ncorruption of men, will not bear them.\n(4.) The word of God is to be preached wisely. This wisdom consists,\n[1.] In the choice of those subjects, that have the greatest tendency to\npromote the interest of Christ, and the good of mankind in general.\nThere are many doctrines which must be allowed to be true, that are not\nof equal importance with others; nor so much adapted to promote the work\nof salvation, and the glory of God therein. There are some doctrines\nwhich the apostle calls _the present truth_, 2 Pet. i. 12. in which he\ninstructs those to whom he writes. Accordingly, those truths are to be\nfrequently inculcated, which are most opposite to the dictates of\ncorrupt nature and carnal reason; because of their holiness,\nspirituality, beauty, and glory. Again, those doctrines are to be\nexplained and supported by the most solid and judicious methods of\nreasoning, which are very much perverted and undermined by the subtle\nenemies of our salvation. And whatever truth is necessary to be known,\nas subservient to godliness, which multitudes are ignorant of, this is\nto be frequently insisted on, that they may not be destroyed for lack of\nknowledge; and those duties, which we are most prone to neglect, in\nwhich the life and power of religion discovers itself, these are to be\ninculcated as a means to promote practical godliness.\n[2.] The wisdom of those that preach the gospel farther appears, in\nsuiting their discourses to the capacities of their hearers; of whom, it\nmust be supposed,\n_1st_, That some are ignorant and weak in the faith who cannot easily\ntake in those truths that are, with much more ease, apprehended and\nreceived by others; for their sake the word of God is to be preached\nwith the greatest plainness and familiarity of style. Thus the apostle\nspeaks of some who needed to be _fed with milk_, being _unskilful in the\nword of righteousness_, and, as it were, _babes_ in knowledge, Heb. v.\n12-14. whereas others, that he compares to _strong men_, were fed with\n_meat_, that was agreeable to them. By which he doth not intend, as I\napprehend, a difference of doctrines, as though some were to have\nnothing preached to them but moral duties: while others were to have the\ndoctrines of justification, and faith in Christ, &c. preached to them;\nbut rather a different way of managing them, respecting the closeness\nand connexion of those methods of reasoning by which they are\nestablished which some are better able to improve and receive advantage\nby, than others.\n_2dly_, Some must be supposed to be wavering, and in danger of being\nperverted from the faith of the gospel; for their sakes the most strong\nand cogent arguments are to be made use of, and well managed, in order\nto their establishment therein, and those objections that are generally\nbrought against it, answered.\n_3dly_, Others are lukewarm and indifferent in matters of religion;\nthese need to have awakening truths, insisted on with great seriousness\nand affection, suited to the occasion thereof.\n_4thly_, Others are assaulted with temptations, and subject to many\ndoubts and fears, about the state of their souls, and the truth of\ngrace; or, it may be, their consciences are burdened with some scruples,\nabout the lawfulness or expediency of things, and some hesitation of\nmind, whether what they engage in is a sin or duty. Now, that the word\nmay be adapted to their condition, the wiles of Satan are to be\ndiscovered, cases of conscience resolved, evidences of the truth of\ngrace, or the marks of sincerity and hypocrisy are to be plainly laid\ndown, and the fulness, freeness, and riches of divine grace, through a\nMediator, to be set forth as the only expedient to fence them against\ntheir doubts and fears, and keep them from, giving way to despair.\n_5thly_, The word of God is to be preached zealously, with fervent love\nto God, and the souls of his people. Thus it is said, in Acts xviii. 25.\nconcerning Apollos, that _being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and\ntaught diligently in the things of the Lord_. This zeal doth not consist\nin a passionate, furious address, arising from personal pique and\nprejudice; or, in exposing men for their weakness; or expressing an\nundue resentment of some injuries received from them; but it is such a\nzeal, that is consistent with fervent love to God, and the souls of men.\nThe love which is to be expressed to God, discovers itself, in the\nconcern they have for the advancing his truth, name, and glory, and the\npromoting his interest in the world, which is infinitely preferable to\nall other interests; and their love to the souls of men induceth them to\npreach to them, as considering that they have not only the same nature\nin common with themselves, in which they must either be happy or\nmiserable, for ever: But they are liable to the same infirmities,\ndifficulties, dangers, and spiritual enemies, which should incline those\nthat preach the gospel, to express the greatest sympathy with them in\ntheir troubles, while they are using their utmost endeavours to help\nthem in their way to heaven. They are to be considered as being, by\nnature, in a lost, undone condition; and the success of the gospel, as\nbeing the only means to prevent their perishing for ever. And, with\nrespect to those, in whom the word of God is made effectual for their\nconversion, ministers are to endeavour to build them up in their holy\nfaith, as those who, they hope, will be their _crown of rejoicing in the\npresence of our Lord Jesus Christ, at his coming_, 1 Thess. ii. 19.\n_6thly_, The word is to be preached sincerely, aiming at the glory of\nGod, and the conversion, edification, and salvation of his people.\nAccordingly,\n_1st_, Ministers must firmly believe the doctrines they deliver, and not\npreach them because they are the generally-received opinion of the\nchurches; for that is hardly consistent with sincerity; at least, it\nargues a great deal of weakness, or want of judgment, as though they\nwere wavering about those important truths, which they think in\ncompliance with custom, they are obliged to communicate.\n_2dly_, They must have no by and unwarrantable ends in preaching,\nnamely, the gaining the esteem of men, or promoting their own secular\ninterest. Though what the apostle says be true, that the _labourer is\nworthy of his hire_, and, _they that preach the gospel, must live of the\ngospel_, 1 Cor. ix. 14. Yet this ought not to be the principal end\ninducing them hereunto; for that is like what is threatened against the\nremains of the house of Eli, who were exposed to such a servile and\nmercenary temper, as to _crouch for a piece of silver; and to say, put\nme, I pray thee, into one of the priest\u2019s offices, that I may eat a\npiece of bread_, 1 Sam. ii. 36. The glory of God is to be the principal\nend of the ministry; and, accordingly, they are to endeavour to approve\nthemselves to him in the whole of their conduct therein. Thus the\napostle speaks of himself, as _not seeking to please men; which, if I\ndo_, says he, _I should not be the servant of Christ_, Gal. i. 10. This\nmethod of preaching will be a means to beget, in the minds of men, the\nhighest esteem of him. And, more especially, the glory of God is to be\nset forth as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ, or discovers itself\nin the work of salvation, brought about by him. This is the only\nexpedient to render the preaching of the gospel conducive to answer the\nmost valuable ends.\nAnd, inasmuch as next to the glory of God, the conversion, edification,\nand salvation of men, is to be aimed at; such a method of preaching is\nto be used, as is best adapted hereunto. Therefore,\n(_1st_,) In order to the promoting the conversion of sinners, they are\nto be led into a sense of their guilt and misery, while in an\nunconverted state; together with the necessity of their believing on\nChrist, to the salvation of the soul; as also the methods prescribed in\nthe gospel for their recovery, and escaping the wrath they are liable\nto. They are to be made acquainted with the gospel-call, in which\nsinners are invited to come to Christ, and his willingness to receive\nall that repent and believe in him. And, since this is the peculiar work\nof the Spirit, they are to pray and hope for his grace, to give success\nto his ordinances, in which they wait for his salvation. And if God is\npleased to set home these truths on the consciences of men, and enable\nthem to comply with this call, then the word is preached in a right\nmanner, and their labour is not in vain in the Lord.\n(_2dly_,) As for those who are converted, their farther establishment,\nand edification in Christ is designed, together with the increase of the\nwork of grace that is begun in them. Accordingly they are to be told of\nthe imperfection of their present state, and what is still lacking to\nfill up the measure of their faith and obedience; and they are to be\nwarned of the assaults that they are like to meet with from their\nspiritual enemies, of the wiles and devices of Satan, to interrupt the\nactings of grace, overthrow their confidence, or disturb their peace.\nThey are also to be directed how they may improve the redemption\npurchased by Christ, for the mortifying of sin, obtaining the victory\nover temptation, and increasing their faith in him. And, in addressing\nthemselves to them, they are to explain difficult scriptures, that they\nmay grow in knowledge, and discover to them the evidences of the\nstrength and weakness of grace, tending to promote the one, and prevent\nthe other. Also, the promises of the gospel are to be applied to them\nfor their encouragement, and they excited to go on in the ways of God,\ndepending on, and deriving strength from Christ, for the carrying on the\nwork that is begun in them. This leads us to consider what is contained\nin the last of the answers we are explaining, _viz._\nIII. What is the hearer\u2019s duty, who desires to receive spiritual\nadvantage by the word preached; and this respects his behaviour before,\nin, and after his hearing the word.\n1. Before we hear the word, we are to endeavour to prepare ourselves for\nthe solemn work which we are to engage in, duly considering how we need\ninstruction, or, at least, to have truths brought to our remembrance,\nand impressed on our hearts; as also, that this is an ordinance which\nGod has instituted for that purpose; and, as it is instamped with his\nauthority, so we may depend on it, that his eye will be upon us, to\nobserve our frame of spirit under the word. And we ought to have an\nawful sense of his perfections, to excite in us an holy reverence, and\nthe exercise of other graces, necessary to our engaging in this duty, in\na right manner; and inasmuch as these are God\u2019s gift, we are to be very\nimportunate with him in prayer for them. And, among other things, we are\nto desire that he would assist his ministers in preaching the word; so\nthat what shall be delivered by them, may be agreeable to his mind and\nwill; and, that this may be done in such a way, that it may recommend\nitself to the consciences of those that hear it; that their\nunderstandings may be enlightened, and they enabled to receive it with\nfaith and love; and that all those corruptions, or temptations, that\nhinder the success thereof, may be prevented. These, and such-like\nthings are to be desired of God in prayer; not only for ourselves in\nparticular, but for all those who shall be engaged with us in this\nordinance.\nWe might here consider the arguments or pleas that we may make use of,\nwith relation hereunto, viz. such as are taken from those promises which\nGod has made of his presence with his people, when engaged in public\nworship, Exod. xx. 24. Matt. xviii. 20. We may also plead the\ninsufficiency of man\u2019s instructions, without the Spirit\u2019s teaching, or\nleading us into all truth; and that Christ has promised that his Spirit\nshall be given to his people for this end, John xvi. 13, 14. We may also\nplead our own inability to hear the word of God in a right manner, and\nthe violent efforts that are made by our corrupt nature, to hinder our\nreceiving advantage by it, and what endeavours Satan often uses in\nconjunction with it, by which means, as our Saviour expresses it in the\nparable, Matt. xiii. 19. he _catches away_ that seed which was sown in\nthe heart; whereby it will become unfruitful. And to this we may add,\nthe afflictive sense we have of the ill consequences which will attend\nour hearing the word, and not profiting by it, whereby the soul is left\nworse than it was before; as the apostle says, that he was, in the\ncourse of his ministry, to some, the _saviour of death unto death_, 2\nCor. ii. 16. We may also plead the glory that will redound to God, by\nthe displays of his grace, in making the word effectual to salvation,\nand the great honour he hereby puts on his own institution, inasmuch as,\nherein, he sets his seal thereunto. We may also plead that this is God\u2019s\nusual way in which he dispenses his grace, and accordingly he has\nencouraged us, to hope and wait for it therein; and, that multitudes of\nhis saints, both in earth and heaven, have experienced his presence with\nthem under the word; whereby they were first enabled to believe in\nChrist, and afterwards established more and more in that grace, which\nthey were made partakers of at first from him. Therefore we hope and\ntrust that we may be admitted to participate of the same privilege.\n2. There are several duties required of us in hearing the word;\nparticularly we are to try the doctrines that are delivered, whether\nthey are agreeable unto, and founded on scripture, that we may not be\nimposed upon by the errors of men, instead of the truths of God.\nMoreover, we are to endeavour to exercise those graces that are suitable\nto the work we are engaged in; and, as the apostle says, _mix the word\nwith faith_, 2 Cor. ii. 16. and express the highest love and esteem for\nthe glorious truths which are contained therein, discovering the\ngreatest readiness to yield obedience to every thing God commands, and\nthankfulness for whatever he has promised to us. Moreover we are to hear\nthe word with a particular application of it to our own condition,\nwhether it be in a way of admonition, reproof, exhortation or\nencouragement, and to see how much we are concerned to improve it, to\nour spiritual advantage.\n3. We are now to consider those duties which are to be performed by us,\nafter we have heard the word preached. Some of these require privacy or\nretirement from the world; by which means we may meditate on, digest,\nand apply what we have heard; and, together with this, examine\nourselves, and thereby take a view of our behaviour, whilst we have been\nengaged in public worship, in order to our being humbled for sins\ncommitted, or thankful for grace received. But this having been\nparticularly considered under another answer, relating to our\nsanctifying the Sabbath in the evening thereof[51], I shall pass it over\nat present.\nThere is another duty incumbent on us, after we have heard the word,\nwhich may conduce to the spiritual advantage of others, as it is to be\nthe subject of our conversation; upon which account we are to take\noccasion to observe the excellency, beauty, and glory of divine truths,\nthat are communicated in scripture: We are to hear the word, not merely\nas critics, making our remarks on the elegancy of style, the fluency of\nexpression, or other gifts, which we are ready to applaud in the\npreacher, on the one hand, nor exposing and censuring the defects which\nwe have observed in his method of address, on the other. We are rather\nto take notice of the suitableness of the truths delivered to the\ncondition of mankind in general, or our own in particular, and observe\nhow consonant the word preached has been to the holy scriptures, the\nstandard of truth, and the agreement thereof, with the experiences of\nGod\u2019s people. We are also to take occasion from hence, to enquire into\nthe meaning of scripture, especially some particular texts that have\nbeen insisted on, or, in some measure, explained, in the preaching of\nthe word, in order to our farther information and improvement in the\nknowledge of divine things.\nThe last thing that is observed in this answer, is, that after having\nheard the word of God, we are to endeavour to bring forth the fruit of\nit in our lives: This consists in a conversation becoming the gospel;\nand being induced hereby to _deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to\nlive soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world_, Tit. ii.\n13. And we ought to express a becoming zeal for divine truths, defending\nthem when opposed, and endeavouring to establish others therein; that so\nwe may recommend religion to them, as that which is the most solid\nfoundation for peace, and leads to universal holiness, that hereby we\nmay adorn the doctrine of God, our Saviour, in all things.\nFootnote 51:\n  _See Vol. III. p. 495._\n                 Quest. CLXI., CLXII., CLXIII., CLXIV.\n    QUEST. CLXI. _How doth the sacraments become effectual means of\n    salvation?_\n    ANSW. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation; not by any\n    power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety and\n    intention of him by whom they are administered; but only by the\n    working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they\n    are instituted.\n    QUEST. CLXII. _What is a sacrament?_\n    ANSW. A sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by Christ in his\n    church, to signify, seal, and exhibit, unto those that are within\n    the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen\n    and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to\n    obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with\n    another, and to distinguish them from those that are without.\n    QUEST. CLXIII. _What are the parts of a sacrament?_\n    ANSW. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and\n    sensible sign, used according to Christ\u2019s own appointment; the\n    other, an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified.\n    QUEST. CLXIV. _How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his\n    church, under the New Testament?_\n    ANSW. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church\n    only two sacraments; Baptism, and the Lord\u2019s Supper.\nIt has pleased God, in setting forth the glory of his wisdom and\nsovereignty to impart his mind and will to man, various ways, besides\nthe discovery which he makes of himself in the dispensations of his\nprovidence. These are, more especially, reducible to two general heads,\nviz. his making it known by words, which is the more plain and common\nway by which we are led into the knowledge of divine truths; or else, by\nvisible signs, which are sometimes called types, figures, or sacraments.\nThe former of these we have already insisted on; the latter we now\nproceed to consider. And, in order hereunto, we are first to explain the\nnature, and shew what are the parts of a sacrament, as we have an\naccount thereof in the two last of these answers; and then consider, how\nthe sacraments become effectual means of salvation, as contained in the\nfirst, of them.\nI. Concerning the nature and parts of a sacrament: In order to our\nunderstanding whereof, we shall consider,\n1. The meaning of the word. It is certain, that the word _sacrament_ is\nnot to be found in scripture, though the thing intended thereby, is\nexpressed in other words; and, for this reason, some have scrupled the\nuse of it, and choose rather to make use of other phrases more agreeable\nto the scripture mode of speaking: But, though we are not to hold any\ndoctrine that is not founded on scripture; yet those which are contained\ntherein, may be explained in our own words, provided they are consonant\nthereunto. The Greek church knew nothing of the word _sacrament_, it\nbeing of a Latin original; but, instead thereof, used the word\n_mystery_; thereby signifying, that there is in the sacraments, besides\nthe outward and visible signs, some secret or hidden mystery signified\nthereby. The Latin church used the word _sacrament_, not only as\nsignifying something that is sacred; but as denoting, that thereby they\nwere bound as with an oath, to be the Lord\u2019s; as the Psalmist says, _I\nhave sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous\njudgments_, Psal. cxix. 106. and God, by the prophet, says, _Unto me\nevery knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear_, Isa. xlv. 23.\nThe word Sacrament was used, indeed, by the Romans, to signify that oath\nwhich the soldiers took, to be true and faithful to their general, and\nto fight courageously under his banner; but the primitive Christians\nsignified hereby, that, when they were called to suffer for Christ,\nwhich was, as it were, a fighting under his banner, they did in this\nordinance, as it were, take an oath to him, expressing their obligation\nnot to desert his cause. Now, since this is agreeable to the end and\ndesign of a sacrament, whatever be the first original of the use of the\nword, I think we have no reason to scruple the using of it, though it be\nnot found in scripture: Nevertheless, Christians ought not to contend,\nor be angry with one another about this matter, it being of no great\nimportance, if we adhere stedfastly to the explication given thereof in\nscripture.[52]\n2. We shall now consider the nature of a sacrament, as described in one\nof the answers we are explaining. And here,\n(1.) It is observed, concerning it, that it is an holy ordinance,\ninstituted by Christ. What we are to understand by an ordinance, and its\nbeing founded on a divine institution, which is our only warrant to\nengage therein, has been before considered; and, indeed, every duty that\nis to be performed by God\u2019s express command, which he has designed to be\na pledge of his presence, and a means of grace, is a branch of religious\nworship, and may be truly styled an holy ordinance. Now, that the\nsacraments are founded on Christ\u2019s institution, is very evident from\nscripture. Thus he commanded his apostles, to _baptize all nations_,\nMatt. xxviii. 19. and, as to the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, he\ncommanded them to _do_ what is contained therein, _in remembrance of\nhim_, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. compared with 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.\n(2.) The persons, for whom the sacraments were instituted, are the\nchurch, who stand in an external covenant-relation to God, and, as the\napostle says, are _called to be saints_, Rom. i. 7. It is to them, more\nespecially, that Christ, when he ascended up on high, gave ministers, as\na token of his regard to them, that hereby they may be edified, who are\nstyled _his body_, Eph. iv. 16. And, though these ministers are\nauthorized to preach the gospel to all nations, which is necessary for\nthe gathering churches out of the world; yet they are never ordered to\nadminister the sacraments to all nations, nor, indeed, to any,\nespecially the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, till they profess\nsubjection to Christ, and thereby join together in the fellowship of the\ngospel. As the sacraments under the Old Testament dispensation, were to\nbe administered to none but the church of the Jews, the only people in\nthe world that professed the true religion; so, under the gospel\ndispensation, none have a right to sacraments but those who are therein\nprofessedly devoted to him.\n3. We are now to consider the matter of the sacraments, which is set\nforth in general terms; and it is also called in one of the answers we\nare explaining, the parts of a sacrament; these are an outward and\nvisible sign, and an inward and spiritual grace, signified thereby; or,\nas it is otherwise expressed, it signifies, seals, and exhibits to those\nwho are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of Christ\u2019s\nmediation. These words are often used, but not so well explained as\nmight be desired.\n(1.) It is called a sign, in which, by a visible action, some spiritual\nbenefits are signified: This is undoubtedly true; and it is a reproach\ncast on God\u2019s holy institutions, in some who deny sacraments to be\ndivine ordinances, when they style them all carnal ordinances, beggarly\nelements, or a re-establishing the ceremonial law, without\ndistinguishing between significant signs, that were formerly ordinances\nto the Jewish church, but are now abolished; and those that Christ hath\ngiven to the gospel church. In this idea of the sacraments, we must\nconsider, that they agree, in some things, with the preaching of the\nword; namely, that hereby Christ and his benefits, are set forth as\nobjects of our faith; and the same ends are desired and attained by\nboth, _viz._ our being affected with, and making a right improvement of\nthe blessings purchased by him, together with our enjoying communion\nwith him; and they are, both of them, sacred ordinances, instituted by\nChrist, and therefore to be attended on in an holy manner: But, on the\nother hand, they differ, with respect to the way or means by which\nChrist and his benefits are set forth; inasmuch, as in the preaching of\nthe word, there is a narration of what he hath done and suffered; and,\nupon this account the apostle says, _Faith cometh by hearing, and\nhearing by the word of God_, Rom. x. 17. whereas, in the sacraments,\nthere is a representation thereof by signs; in which case we may apply\nthe words of the prophet, _Mine eye afflicteth mine heart_, Lam. iii.\n51. as there is the external symbol of Christ\u2019s dying love, which is an\ninducement to us to love him again. They also differ, in that the\nsacraments are not only designed to instruct; but, by our act and deed,\nwe signify our engagement to be the Lord\u2019s.\n(2.) The sacraments are also said to seal the blessings that they\nsignify; and accordingly they are called, not only signs, but seals. It\nis a difficult matter to explain, and clearly to state the difference\nbetween these two words, or to shew what is contained in a seal, that is\nnot in a sign: Some think that it is a distinction without a difference.\nThe principal ground which most divines proceed upon, when they\ndistinguish between them is, what we read in Rom. iv. 11. in which the\napostle, speaking concerning Abraham, says, _he received the sign of\ncircumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith_[53]. But the same\nthing might have been affirmed concerning it, or any other significant\nordinance, if the words sign and seal were supposed to be of the like\nimport; for it is not said he received the ordinance of circumcision,\nwhich is not only a sign, but a seal; but he received that which was a\nsign, or a seal of the blessing about which his faith was conversant.\nHowever, that we may explain this matter, without laying aside those\nwords that are commonly used and distinguished in treating on this\nsubject, it may be observed, that a sign is generally understood as\nimporting any thing that hath a tendency to signify or confirm something\nthat is transacted, or designed to be published, and made visible:\nAccordingly some signs have a natural tendency to signify the things\nintended by them; as the regular beating of the pulse is a sign of\nhealth, smoke the sign of fire. And other things not only signify, but\nrepresent that which they give us an idea of, by some similitude that\nthere is therein, as the picture doth its original. Other things only\nsignify as they are ordained or designed for that use, by custom or\nappointment; thus, in civil matters, a staff is a sign of power to\nexercise an office; the seal of a bond, or conveyance, is the sign of a\nright that is therein conveyed, or made over to another to possess: It\nis in this respect that the sacraments are signs of the covenant of\ngrace: They do not naturally represent Christ and his benefits; but they\nsignify them, by divine appointment.\nBut, on the other hand, a seal, according to the most common acceptation\nof the word, imports a confirming sign[54]: Yet we must take heed that\nwe do not, in compliance with custom, contain more in our ideas of this\nword, than is agreeable to the analogy of faith: Therefore, let it be\nconsidered, that the principal method God hath taken for the confirming\nour faith in the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption, is, his own truth and\nfaithfulness, whereby the heirs of salvation _have strong consolation_,\nHeb. iv. 17, 18. or else the internal testimony of the Spirit of God in\nour hearts. The former is an objective means of confirmation, and the\nlatter a subjective; and this the apostle calls our _being established\nin Christ, and sealed, having the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts_,\nThis is not the sense in which we are to understand the word as applied\nto the sacraments; since if we call them confirming seals, we intend\nnothing else hereby, but that God has, to the promises that are given to\nus in his word, added these ordinances; not only to bring to mind this\ngreat doctrine, that Christ has redeemed his people by his blood; but to\nassure them, that they who believe in him, shall be made partakers of\nthis blessing; so that these ordinances are a pledge thereof to them, in\nwhich respect God has set his seal, whereby, in an objective way, he\ngives believers to understand, that Christ, and his benefits, are\ntheirs; and they are obliged, at the same time, by faith, as well as in\nan external and visible manner, to signify their compliance with his\ncovenant, which we may call their setting to their seal that God is\ntrue; as we may allude to that expression of our Saviour, _He that hath\nreceived his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true_, John\niii. 33. The sacraments are God\u2019s seals, as they are ordinances given by\nhim for the confirmation of our faith, that he would be our\ncovenant-God; and they are our seals, or we set our seal thereunto, when\nwe visibly profess, which ought to be done also by faith, that we give\nup ourselves to him, to be his people, and desire to be made partakers\nof the benefits which Christ hath purchased, in his own way. Thus\nconcerning the sacraments, as being signs and seals of the covenant of\ngrace.\nThere is another expression, used in this answer, that needs a little\nexplication; namely, when the sacraments are said, not only to signify\nand seal, but to exhibit the benefits of Christ\u2019s mediation. _To\nexhibit_, sometimes signifies to shew, or present to our view; which\nword, if it be so understood in this place, imports the same as when it\nis said, that the sacraments are signs or seals thereof, or significant\nordinances for the directing and exciting our faith, as conversant about\nwhat we are to understand thereby. Again, _to exhibit_, sometimes\nsignifies to give, communicate, or convey; and because it is not only\ndistinguished from signifying and sealing in the definition which we\nhave of a sacrament in the Shorter Catechism; but is described as that\nby which Christ and his benefits are applied unto believers; therefore,\nI am inclined to think, that it is in this latter sense that the word is\nto be taken in the answer which we are explaining; and if so, we must\ndistinguish between Christ\u2019s benefits being conveyed, made over,\nexhibited, or applied, by the gift of divine grace, through the\neffectual working of the Spirit; and this being done by an ordinance, as\nan external means of grace; accordingly I am bound to conclude, that as\nthe Spirit of God gives these blessings to believers, who engage in a\nright manner therein; so this grace is represented, and God\u2019s people\nhave ground to expect, as far as an ordinance can be the means thereof,\nthat they shall be made partakers of these benefits.\nWe may also observe, that, though the sacraments are appointed to\nsignify to all that partake of them, that Christ has purchased salvation\nfor his people; or, that the work of redemption is brought to\nperfection: Yet it is they alone that engage herein by faith, who can\nlook upon them as signs or seals to confirm their faith, that they have\na right to the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption, as not only signified,\nbut exhibited or applied to them: In this sense the sacraments are signs\nto them that believe, in such a way as they are to no others.\n4. We are now to consider the persons to whom the sacraments are given;\nand these are described as those who are within the covenant of grace.\nTo be within the covenant of grace, implies in it, either a being\nexternally in covenant with God, or a being internally and spiritually\nso, as interested in the saving blessings thereof.\n(1.) They who are externally in covenant, are such as are visibly so;\nwho are called by his name, professedly devote themselves to him, and\nlay claim to him as their God: These, if they are no otherwise in\ncovenant, are said to be in Christ, as the branch which beareth no\nfruit, is said to be in the vine, John xv. 2. like those whom the\nprophet speaks of, when he says, _Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which\nare called by the name of Israel, which swear by the name of the Lord,\nand make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in\nrighteousness_, Isa. xlviii. 1. they have, indeed, the ordinances which\nmust be reckoned a very great privilege; they have the external\novertures of divine grace, the convictions and strivings of the Spirit;\nand accordingly they are, in God\u2019s way, in which he is sometimes pleased\nto work special grace, which, when he does, they may conclude themselves\nto have more than the external blessings of the covenant, which is what\nwe are next to consider: Therefore,\n(2.) Others are internally or spiritually in covenant, children of God\nby faith: These are such as are true and real members of Jesus Christ,\nby a federal or conjugal union with him: They have the same mind as was\nin him, and receive vital influences from him, being made partakers of\nthe Spirit. They have, not only professedly, but by faith, embraced him\nin all his offices, surrendered up themselves unto him, to be entirely\nhis; their understandings to be guided and directed, their wills and\naffections to be governed by him, and are desirous to be disposed of by\nhim, in the whole conduct of their lives. And, as to the privileges\nwhich they partake of, they have not merely a supposed, but a real\ninterest in all the benefits which Christ hath purchased, have a right\nto his special care and love, which will render them safe and happy,\nboth here and hereafter.\nNow, with respect to both these; they are, each of them, supposed to\nattend on the sacraments: The former, indeed, have not a right to the\nsaving blessings signified thereby, and therefore, if they know\nthemselves to be strangers to the covenant of promise, they profess, by\nengaging in this ordinance, to lay claim to that which they have no\nright to: However, if this be not discernible in their conversation,\nwhich is blameless in the eye of the world, men, who are not judges of\ntheir hearts, have no warrant to exclude them from the sacraments. But,\non the other hand, they who are savingly, or internally in covenant,\nhave not only a right to those ordinances in common with others; but\nChrist and his benefits, as was before observed, are exhibited and\napplied to them, as they have ground to conclude, by faith, that they\nhave an interest in all the blessings which he has purchased.\n5. We are now to consider, what those benefits are that Christ\ncommunicates to his people in the sacraments, which are signified\nthereby: These are either,\n(1.) Such as are common to the whole church, which are relative and\nexternal, rather than internal, as hereby they are distinguished from\nthose that are without. These are advantages, though not of a saving\nnature: Thus the apostle says, _What advantage hath the Jew, or, what\nprofit is there in circumcision_, Rom. iii. 1, 2. To which he replies,\n_much every way_, or in many respects, _q. d._ it is an honour which God\nhas put on the church, as taking them into a visible relation to\nhimself, and giving them the means of grace, in which they are more\nfavoured than the rest of the world: Or,\n(2.) There are those benefits of Christ\u2019s mediation, which are more\nespecially applicable to believers; and, in this respect, God makes\nevery ordinance, and the sacraments in particular, subservient to the\nincrease of their faith, and all other graces. As faith is wrought under\nthe word, it is farther established and increased by the Lord\u2019s supper,\nas will be considered under a following answer; and as they have herein\nan occasion to exercise their mutual love to one another, so they have\ncommunion with Christ, which has a tendency to carry on the work of\ngrace begun in the soul, and farther to enhance their love to Christ,\nwho is eminently set forth and signified herein; and, from the view they\nhave of their interest in him, arises a stronger motive and inducement\nto hate all sin, that tends to dishonour him, in the whole course of\ntheir lives. We are now to consider,\nII. How the sacraments become effectual means of salvation; or from\nwhence their efficacy is derived, to answer that great end.\n1. Negatively. They do not become effectual means of salvation by any\npower in themselves to answer this end; for we are not to suppose, that\nthey are more than ordinances, by which God works those graces which we\nreceive under them; which it is his prerogative alone to confer. Again,\nit is farther observed, that this privilege is not derived from the\npiety or intention of them by whom the sacraments are administered; who,\nthough they are styled _stewards of the mysteries of God_, 1 Cor. iv. 1.\nas persons to whom the administration thereof is committed; yet they\nhave not the least power to confer that grace which is Christ\u2019s gift and\nwork: Thus the apostle says, _Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but\nministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave unto every man_,\nchap. iii. 5.[55]\nThis is contrary to what the Papists maintain, who suppose that the\nefficacy of the sacraments arises, partly from an internal virtue which\nthere is in them, to confer grace, (which they illustrate by a\nfar-fetched similitude, taken from the virtue which there is in food, to\nnourish the body, which is nothing to the purpose, since no external act\nof religion can have a tendency to nourish the soul, without the\ninternal efficacious grace of the Spirit accompanying it;) and partly\nfrom the design or intention of the priest that administers them, as\nthey are consecrated and designed, by him, for that end.\nThere is also an absurd notion which is maintained by some Protestants,\nas well as the Papists, _viz._ that the sacrament of baptism,\nadministered to infants, washes away the guilt of original sin, and\ngives them a right and title to heaven, so that by virtue thereof they\nare saved, if they happen to die before they commit actual sin: But this\naccount of the manner in which the sacraments become effectual to\nsalvation, is absurd to the last degree; for it puts a sanctifying and\nsaving virtue into that which is no more than an outward and ordinary\nmeans of grace. And as to what respects the efficacy of the sacraments,\narising from the intention of him that administers them; that is, to lay\nthe whole stress of our salvation on the secret design of men, in whose\npower it is supposed to be, to render or prevent these ordinances from\nbeing means of grace; which is in the highest degree derogatory to the\nglory of God.\n2. Positively. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation only\nby the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom\nthey were instituted. As, _without Christ we can do nothing_, John xv.\n5. so without his blessing we can receive nothing. Ordinances are only\nthe channel through which grace is conveyed; but Christ is the author\nand finisher of faith; and this he does by his Spirit, when he brings\nthe heart into a good frame, and excites suitable acts of faith and love\nin those who are engaged in those ordinances, and maintains the lively\nimpressions thereof, which have a tendency to promote the work of grace\nin the whole conduct of their lives.\nIII. We proceed to consider, what sacraments Christ has instituted under\nthe New Testament-dispensation. It hath pleased God, in every age of the\nworld, to instruct his people by sacramental signs, as an addition to\nthose other ways, in which he communicates his mind and will to them.\nEven our first parents, in their state of innocency, had the tree of\nlife; which was a sacrament or ordinance for their faith, that if they\nretained their integrity, and performed the conditions of the covenant\nwhich they were under, they might hereby be led into a farther\nconviction that they should certainly attain the blessings promised\ntherein: And, some think, that the tree of knowledge, of good and evil,\nwas another sacramental sign, whereby they were given to understand,\nthat if they sinned, they should die. And paradise, in which they were\nplaced, was a sacrament, or a kind of type of the heavenly state;\ninasmuch as there is an allusion to it in that promise, _to him that\novercometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, that is in the midst\nof the paradise of God_, Rev. ii. 7. and heaven is, in another place\ncalled paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. Others think the Sabbath was a\nsacramental sign to our first parents, of that eternal sabbatism which\nthey should celebrate in a better world, in case they yielded perfect\nobedience as being the condition of the covenant they were under.\nHowever, I desire not to be too peremptory as to this matter; it is\nenough to my present purpose, to consider the tree of life as a\nsacrament; whereby it appears, that God instituted such signs from the\nbeginning of the world: But this having been insisted on elsewhere[56],\nwe pass it over, and proceed to consider,\nThat, after the fall of man, there were sacramental signs, instituted as\nordinances for the faith of the church in the promised Messiah;\nespecially sacrifices, which signified their expectation that he would\nmake atonement for sin, by the shedding of his blood. Under the\nceremonial law there was a large body of sacramental ordinances, or\ninstitutions, otherwise called, types of Christ, and the way of\nsalvation by him; some of which were occasional; as manna, the water of\nthe rock, and the brazen serpent in the wilderness, _&c._ others were\nstanding ordinances in the church, as long as the ceremonial law\ncontinued; as circumcision, the passover, and many things contained in\nthe temple-service. These were the sacraments under the Old Testament:\nBut, having taken occasion to speak something concerning them\nelsewhere[57], I shall confine myself to those sacraments which Christ\nhas instituted under the New Testament; which are only two, baptism, and\nthe Lord\u2019s supper.\nThe Papists, indeed, have added five more to them, though without a\ndivine warrant; to give countenance to which, they pervert the sense of\nsome scriptures, occasionally brought for that purpose. One of the\nsacraments which they have added, is, what they call _holy orders_;\nwhereby they authorize persons to perform the office of priests, or\ndeacons: This they do by the imposition of hands, and at the same time\npretend to confer the Holy Ghost: The former, they suppose to be the\nsign, the latter the thing signified; but this was not designed to be a\nsacrament given to the church; for the sacraments are ordinances that\nbelong to all believers, and not only ministers. And, as for the\nimposition of hands, whether it be considered as an ancient form of\npraying for a blessing on persons, or as used in setting others apart to\nan office; it seems principally to have respect to these extraordinary\ngifts, which they expected to qualify them for the discharge thereof;\nwhich gifts being now ceased, the imposition of hands cannot be reckoned\na sacramental sign; and the blessing conferred, to wit, the Holy Ghost,\nfrom whom they received those extraordinary gifts, is no longer to be\nsignified thereby.\nAnother sacrament which the Papists add, is that of _confirmation_; by\nwhich they pretend, that children, who, in baptism, were made members of\nChrist, are strengthened and confirmed in the faith; and receive the\nHoly Ghost, in order to their performing their baptismal vow: But,\nwhatever engagement they are laid under, by this ordinance, it is God\nalone that can confirm or strengthen, and enable them to walk answerable\nthereunto; which is a grace not in the power of man to bestow, nor can\nit be by any ordinance.\nAnother sacrament they speak of, is _pennance_; in which, after\nauricular confession made to the priest, and some external marks of\nsorrow expressed by the penitent, he is to perform some difficult\nservice enjoined, which they call pennance; whereby he makes\nsatisfaction for his sins, upon which, he is absolved from them. But\nthis is an abominable practice, by which persons are rather hardened in\nsin, than delivered from it. It is derogatory to Christ\u2019s satisfaction,\nand has not the least appearance of a sacrament, or ordinance of God\u2019s\nappointment.\nAnother sacrament that they have added, is _extreme unction_; taken from\nJames v. 14, 15. where the apostle speaks of sick persons being\n_anointed with oil in the name of the Lord_; and it is said, _the prayer\nof faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up_; and, if\nhe has committed _sins_, they shall be _forgiven him_. But to this it\nmay be replied, that though this practice of anointing the sick with\noil, was observed in the first age of the church, while the miraculous\ngift of healing was continued; yet it is now ceased; therefore no such\nsignificant sign is to be used. And, as for forgiveness of sins,\nmentioned by the apostle that seems not to have been conferred by the\nuse of that sign; but it was humbly expected and hoped for, as an answer\nof prayer: It is therefore a very preposterous thing to reckon this\namong the sacraments, under the gospel dispensation.\nAnother Sacrament that the Papists add, is that of _matrimony_; for\nwhich, they have very little shadow of reason; but, because, they\nsuppose, the apostle calls it _a great mystery_, Eph. v. 32. which word,\nthe Greek church used to signify a sacrament: But he does not intend\nhereby, that marriage is a mystery; but the union between Christ and his\nchurch, which is illustrated by the conjugal union, is so called[58];\nand, indeed, it is not an ordinance given to the church, but to mankind\nin general, heathens as well as Christians. Therefore nothing can be\nmore absurd than to suppose, that it is one of the sacraments Christ\nhath instituted in the gospel-church; and, according to their opinion,\nthe priests are excluded from this sacrament, inasmuch as they are\nforbidden to marry, as the laity are excluded from the sacrament of holy\norders; so that when they pretend to add to those institutions, which\nChrist hath given to the church, or invent sacraments, which he hath not\nordained, they betray not only their own folly, but bold presumption;\ntherefore we must conclude, that there are only two sacraments that\nChrist hath given to his church, to wit, baptism, and the Lord\u2019s supper;\nwhich are particularly considered in some following answers.\nFootnote 52:\n  Sacrament is the word used by the Vulgate for mystery, and this is a\n  much more probable meaning of the term as used by the early\n  christians.\nFootnote 53:\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u1f77\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\nFootnote 54:\n  _When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally\n  called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the\n  former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare._\nFootnote 55:\n  It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally\n  honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have\n  wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the\n  rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the\n  gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel\n  ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have\n  been episcopally vested with holy orders.\n  In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an\n  unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred\n  writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not\n  implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to\n  leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be\n  dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it,\n  to call that an \u201cappointment of Christ,\u201d and an \u201cessentially\n  necessary\u201d one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with\n  such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may\n  readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their\n  sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They\n  scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their\n  cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as\n  though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this\n  controversy to an issue.\n  In order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS\n  with that honour which is due to the scriptures, the episcopalian plea\n  is, that they consider these fathers, not as _judges_, but _witnesses_\n  only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that\n  episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to\n  in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as\n  good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign\n  testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect.\n  Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the practice in their\n  day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the\n  episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of\n  FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous\n  testimony, even from the first days of Christianity, it appears, that\n  GOVERNING and ordaining AUTHORITY was exercised by Bishops ONLY, in\n  distinction from Presbyters, and as an order in the church above them,\n  it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to\n  dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused,\n  however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring ourselves to\n  think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles\u2019 days,\n  however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution\n  of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not\n  clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those\n  inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his\n  will: nor can we believe the great Author of christianity would have\n  put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of\n  them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their\n  salvation from the voluminous records of antiquity. We are rather\n  persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in\n  point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the\n  sacred penman, as that there should be no need of having recourse to\n  the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain\n  his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction,\n  substitute TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the\n  SCRIPTURES, which were \u201cgiven by inspiration of God;\u201d or, at least\n  make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter,\n  without it, would not be sufficiently complete. Such dishonour ought\n  not to be cast on the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.\n  The Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not\n  related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only,\n  with one or more Presbyters belonging to it; but his charge is a\n  diocess, consisting of a number of congregations, greater or less,\n  with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it\n  be an UNIVERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episcopacy, in this sense, took\n  place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a\n  number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church\n  of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation;\n  though he should be called Bishop, as being the HEAD-PRESBYTER, or\n  vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be\n  particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice\n  of the specified antiquity in its favour. It is willingly left with\n  every man of common understanding, after he has gone over the\n  following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after\n  the DIOCESAN-MODE, were known in the first ages of the church?\n  The Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an\n  officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and\n  as distinct from it as the order of Presbyters is from that of\n  Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to\n  have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar\n  work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the\n  peculiar work of Presbyters. The question therefore is, Whether it\n  will appear from the following evidence, to be at all a FACT, much\n  less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attested one, that there were\n  Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian\n  world, within the two first centuries?\n  The Bishop, in whose favour the ancient Fathers are said universally\n  to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT has been\n  committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles as\n  commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the\n  government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above\n  appropriated sense, \u201cAnd here\u2014I think I may say, that we have as\n  universal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians\n  from the apostles\u2019 days, as could reasonably be expected or desired:\n  every one, who speaks of the government of the church, in any place,\n  witnessing, that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one, who\n  hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the\n  apostles\u2019 days, and fixing it upon their decree.\u2014Were there only\n  testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church\n  in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical\n  institution;\u2014but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only\n  that it was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and\n  delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the\n  matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to\n  which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in\n  their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these\n  there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself\n  traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their\n  institution.\u201d\u2014He adds, \u201cAll churches and christians, as far as we\n  know, seem to have been agreed, in this point, amidst all their other\n  differences, as universally as can well be imagined.\u201d One would\n  suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is\n  expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to\n  leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while\n  to look over the _testimonies_ brought to view, in the following\n  pages, will perhaps, by critically observing their real and just\n  import, be surprized, that any man of learning, who professes a regard\n  to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as\n  the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that\n  episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the \u201cform of government in the\n  church in their day,\u201d and that it was by \u201capostolical institution;\u201d\n  especially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they\n  will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, whose\n  evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either\n  that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was\n  ever instituted by Christ, or his apostles: so far is it from the\n  truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO,\n  even from the beginning, and through all ages.\n  The Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to,\n  is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch,\n  that he only can convey holy orders conformably to the appointment of\n  Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would\n  take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons\n  have to baptise, or administer the Lord\u2019s supper. This part of the\n  UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concerning the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops\n  deserves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is\n  particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for\n  his own satisfaction; or to others, for their information, any one\n  among all the testimonies he will have placed before his view, that\n  plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to\n  Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them; or\n  that this right was ever thus exercised by them. If he should not be\n  able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that\n  affirmation appear, which says in the most positive terms, not only\n  that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to\n  by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.\n  The Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the\n  power of CONFIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England;\n  and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all\n  others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find\n  it a FACT, within the two first ages, that Bishops were either vested\n  with, or ever exercised this power. For he must come down below these\n  ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to\n  this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it;\n  and he mentions likewise some other corruptions, which had got mingled\n  with christianity in that day.\n  In short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is,\n  not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the\n  name of Bishops in the apostolic age, and down along through the two\n  first centuries? We join with the episcopalians in affirming this to\n  be a truth universally testified to in those times: but the proper\n  question is, what is FACT with reference to the ORDER of these\n  Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by\n  them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed\n  for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the\n  name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore should be\n  heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences\n  that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and\n  satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all\n  an attested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE,\n  from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as\n  well as after ones, that Bishops were vested with, and did actually\n  exercise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed\n  for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine\n  appointment?\n  CHAUNCY\u2019S VIEW OF EPISCOPACY.\nFootnote 56:\n  _See vol. II. page 86._\nFootnote 57:\n  _See vol. III. page 424-426. and vol. II. page 205._\nFootnote 58:\n  _See Vol. III. p. 12._\n    QUEST. CLXV. _What is baptism?_\n    ANSW. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ\n    hath ordained the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and\n    of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of\n    ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and\n    regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption and resurrection unto\n    everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly\n    admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and\n    professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lord\u2019s.\nThe method in which we shall endeavour to explain this answer shall be,\nI. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted\nby Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application\nof water.\nII. That this is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost. And,\nIII. What is signified therein, and what engagements are laid upon the\nperson baptized.\nI. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted\nby Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application\nof water. Here let it be considered,\n1. That there must be the application of water; and that either by\ndipping the person that is to be baptized into the water, or by pouring\nor sprinkling water upon him; otherwise it doth not answer the proper\nand literal sense of the word _baptize_.[59] It is true, we sometimes\nfind the word used in a metaphorical sense; as when our Saviour speaks\nof the _baptism_ that he _was to be baptized with_, Matt. xx. 22. Luke\nxii. 50. whereby he intends the sufferings he was to endure in shedding\nhis blood upon the cross: And it is elsewhere taken, by a metonymy, for\nthe conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which they\nwere given to expect after Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven, and the\napostles were first made partakers of at the day of Pentecost, which\nimmediately followed it; wherein there appeared unto them cloven\ntongues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them, as a sign that\nthey should be filled with the Holy Ghost, and speak with other tongues,\nand be enflamed with a holy zeal for Christ\u2019s glory and interest; which\nwas accordingly fulfilled, and seems to be the sense of the word\nbaptism, as taken in this figurative sense; but we understand the word\nin the most proper sense thereof; and therefore suppose that it must be\nperformed with water.\nAs to what respects the mode of baptism, or the application of water,\nwhether the water is to be applied to the person baptized, or he put\ninto it, that, I purposely wave the consideration of, till we are led to\nspeak concerning the subjects of baptism, that we may insist on the\nseveral matters in controversy, between those that maintain, and others\nthat deny infant baptism, together, which we shall have occasion to do\nunder the next answer: Whereas, I am ready to persuade myself, that what\nI shall advance under this, together with that which respects the\nimprovement of baptism, will not be much contested by those who are in a\ndifferent way of thinking, with respect to the subjects of baptism, and\nthe mode of administering it.\n2. We are now to consider, that baptism is a sacrament of the New\nTestament; and therefore it differs from those baptisms, or washings,\nthat were frequently practised under the Old Testament dispensation;\nconcerning which, the apostle says, that it _stood in meats and drinks,\nand divers washings_, Heb. ix. 10. or _baptisms_[60]. Thus we read of\nmany instances in which persons were washed under the ceremonial law:\nThis was an ordinance used in the consecration of persons to holy\noffices; as it is said, that _Aaron and his sons_ were to be _brought to\nthe door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and washed with water_,\nExod. xxix. 4. and Lev. viii. 6. when they were consecrated to be\npriests. Again, when they ministered in holy things, or came near unto\nthe altar, it is said, they _washed, as the Lord commanded Moses_, Exod.\nxl. 32. for this reason the laver was set between the tent of the\ncongregation and the altar, and water put therein to wash in; and they\nwashed their hands and their feet therein, ver. 30, 31. And this\nceremony was used by them, when they were subject to divers\nuncleannesses; thus, in the method of cleansing the leper, he was to\n_wash himself_, and, _after that_ might _come into the camp_, Lev. xvi.\n8, 9. The same thing was to be done by those who were liable to\nuncleannesses of another nature, Deut. xxii. 10, 11.\nThese ceremonial washings, when applied to persons, seem to be ordained\nto signify their consecration, or dedication, to God, in some of the\ninstances before mentioned; and in others, they signified the means\nwhich God had ordained to cleanse the soul from moral impurity; which\nwas denoted by the ceremonial uncleannesses which they desired to be\npurified from. These ordinances, indeed, expired together with the rest\nof the ceremonial law: Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the\ninstitution of gospel-baptism, that the sign is retained; though there\nare some circumstances in the thing signified thereby, in which it\ndiffers from those baptisms which were formerly used by the Jewish\nchurch. They were hereby devoted to God, to observe that peculiar mode\nof worship which he prescribed by the hand of his servant Moses; we are\ndevoted to God, as those who hereby signify our obligation to walk\naccording to the rules prescribed by Christ in the gospel. They also\nused this ordinance, to signify the cleansing virtue of the blood of\nJesus, who was to come, and the Spirit that was to be poured forth, as\nconsequent thereupon; we use it to signify or express our faith in what\nChrist has accomplished, and in the grace which the Spirit works\npursuant thereunto; therefore we call it an ordinance of the New\nTestament.\n3. Baptism was instituted by Christ. This is evident from the commission\nhe gave to his apostles, not only to preach the gospel to all nations,\nbut to _baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost_, Matt. xxviii. 19.[61] and this he appointed to be a\nstanding ordinance in the church, throughout all the ages thereof; on\nwhich account he promises, in the following words, that he will _be\nwith_ his ministers, in fulfilling the commission that he gave them to\nexecute, _unto the end of the world_: Therefore, we must conclude, that\nit is a standing ordinance in the church, and not designed to be\nobserved only during the first age thereof, till Christianity\nuniversally obtained. This we assert in opposition to the Socinians, who\nsuppose, that baptism was, indeed, instituted by Christ; but the design\nhereof, was only to be an external badge, or sign, of the heathens\nembracing the Christian religion, as they were formerly initiated into\nthe Jewish church by that ceremonial washing that was then in use: But\nthe contrary to this will appear from what we shall have occasion to\nspeak to, under a following head, when we consider what baptism was a\nsign and seal of; which is equally applicable to the church in our day,\nas it was to those who lived in the first planting thereof.\nII. It is farther observed, that baptism is to be performed in the name\nof the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This contains in it a\nprofessed acknowledgment, in this solemn act of dedication of the divine\nTrinity; and accordingly it is an act of religious worship, in which\nGod\u2019s right to the persons baptized, is publicly owned, and an\nintimation given, that all saving blessings, which are desired or\nexpected in this ordinance, are given by the Father, through a Mediator,\npurchased by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. This includes in\nit much more than a being baptized by the authority of these divine\npersons; which is all that some of the Antitrinitarians will allow to be\nmeant by, in their name: For though no ordinance can be rightly\nperformed but by a divine warrant, yet this warrant is equally extended\nto the administering, or engaging in any other ordinance; and therefore,\na being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nsignifies more than this; namely, a person\u2019s being dedicated to them; in\nwhich dedication, a solemn profession is made, that they have a right to\nall religious worship, which we are obliged to perform as well as that\nall our hope of salvation is from them: Therefore, some think, that this\nidea, which is principally intended in the form of baptism, would be\nbetter expressed, if the words of institution[62] were rendered _into\nthe name_ of the Father, &c. as it is rendered elsewhere, Gal. iii. 27.\nwhere the apostle is speaking of a person\u2019s being _baptized into\nChrist_[63], and explains it as denoting a _putting on Christ_; or a\nprofessing, as it is said, ver. 29. that _we are Christ\u2019s_. Thus they\nwho are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are\ndenoted hereby, to be professedly their servants and subjects; under an\nindispensible obligation to put their trust in, and hope for, all saving\nblessings from them, according to the tenor of the gospel.\nIt is enquired, by some, whether it be absolutely necessary, in the\nadministration of this ordinance, explicitly to make mention of the name\nof the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? and some assert, that it is not;\nbecause we read of persons being _baptized in the name of Jesus_, in\nActs xix. 5. without any mention of the name of the Father, or Holy\nGhost; and in chap. viii. 16. the same thing is mentioned, as it is\nsaid, _They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_. But to this it\nmay be replied, that it does not appear, that this was the express form\nof words used in baptizing those that are here mentioned; but it only\nargues, that the ordinance was administered, and that Christ\u2019s name and\nglory was proclaimed therein: So that, though the other divine persons\nare not particularly mentioned, it does not follow from thence, that\nthey did not adhere to the express words of institution, which were\ngiven to the apostles; it might as well be argued, that John did not\nbaptize in the name of any of the Divine persons; since when we read of\nhis baptism, it is said, _I baptize you with water_; but it does not\nthence follow, that he did not baptize them in the name of God; inasmuch\nas he plainly confesses that _God sent him to baptize with water_, John\nBut, that this matter may be set in a just light, we must distinguish\nbetween a person\u2019s omitting to mention the Son or Holy Ghost, in the\nform of baptism, as denying them to be divine persons, (in which case\nthe ordinance is invalid;) and his doing this for no other reason, but\nbecause he thinks that we are not to be tied up to a particular form of\nwords, but may sometimes baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost; and, at other times, in the name of Jesus: In this case, I\nwill not say that the ordinance is invalid; but yet, his manner of\nadministering it, will be highly offensive to many serious Christians,\nand can hardly be reckoned an instance of faithfulness to Christ; who\nhas, by an express command, intimated what words are to be used therein.\nIII. We are now to consider, what is signified in baptism, and what\nengagements are laid on the person baptized. There are some, especially\namong the Socinians, who maintain, that it is only an external, or\nvisible badge of Christianity in general, signifying a person\u2019s right to\nbe called a Christian, or a professor of that religion, which was\ninstituted by our Saviour; and their design herein seems to be, that\nthey might evade the force of the argument which we bring to prove the\ndivinity of the Son and Spirit, from their being the object of that\nreligious worship, which according to our explication thereof, is\ncontained in it. Did they intend, by being a Christian, the same thing\nas we do, namely, a subjection to Christ, as a divine person, or a\nprofessed obligation which we are laid under, to worship God the Father,\nthrough the Son, by the Spirit, we should have no contention with them\nabout this matter: But since we are not agreed as to the meaning of\nbeing a Christian, especially, since they intend no more hereby than our\nbeing obliged to adhere to a certain scheme of religious worship\nprescribed by Christ, of what kind soever it be, in like manner as a\nperson is called a Mahometan, because he embraces Mahomet\u2019s Alcoran as a\nrule of faith, we cannot think this general account of baptism, as an\nexternal badge of Christianity, to be a sufficient explication of what\nis intended by it as a sign, or significant ordinance.\nThere are several things mentioned in this answer, of which, it is said,\nto be a sign and seal, _viz._ of our engrafting into Christ, and\nobtaining remission of sins by his blood, of our regeneration by his\nSpirit, our adoption, and resurrection unto eternal life, which include\nin them all the benefits of Christ\u2019s mediation; which have been\nparticularly explained under some foregoing answers: But there is one\nthat contains in it all the rest; and accordingly it is generally\nexpressed, by divines, as that which is a sign and seal of the covenant\nof grace, and all the duties, obligations, and privileges that are\neither enjoined or bestowed therein. What this covenant is, together\nwith the blessings thereof, and how the grace of God is manifested\ntherein, has been likewise considered under some foregoing answers[65].\nTherefore all that I shall now add concerning it, is, that it contains\nall the promises in which our salvation is included, of which there is\none that comprehends all the rest, whereby it is often expressed,\nnamely, that God will be a God unto his people, Gen. xiv. 1. _their\nshield, and exceeding great reward_, chap. xvii. And elsewhere that he\nwill _put his laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and\nwill be to them a God; and they shall be to him a people_, Heb. viii.\n10. There are very great privileges contained in this relation, namely,\nour being under the special care and protection of Christ, having a\nright to what he has purchased, and that inheritance which he has laid\nup in heaven for his children, their enjoying communion with him here,\nand being made happy with him hereafter.\nNow the main thing to be considered, is, how baptism is a sign and seal\nthereof? To this it may be answered, that we are not to suppose that\nthis, or any other ordinance, confers the grace of the covenant, as the\nPapists pretend[66]; for it is, at most, but a significant sign or seal\nthereof; whereas, the grace of the covenant is the thing signified\nthereby. There are, as has been before observed two ways, by which\npersons may be said to be in covenant with God, namely, professedly, or\nvisibly, which is the immediate intent and design of this ordinance; and\nthere is a being in covenant, as laying hold on the grace of the\ncovenant, when we give up ourselves to Christ, by faith; and, as the\nconsequence thereof, lay claim to the blessings of his redemption. Now\nbaptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in both these\nsenses, though in different respects. The ordinance itself is a\nprofessed dedication to God, or an acknowledgment that the person\nbaptized is obliged to be the Lord\u2019s; and signifies his right to the\nexternal blessings of the covenant of grace, which are contained in the\ngospel-dispensation. There is also more than this contained in a\nperson\u2019s being given to God in baptism, whether it be by himself as in\nthose who are baptized when adult; or by his parents, as in the case of\ninfants, in that the person who dedicates, expresses his faith in\nChrist, the Mediator of the covenant, and hopes for the saving blessings\nwhich he has purchased for his people. It is one thing, for this\nordinance to confer these blessings, and another, for it to be an\ninstituted means, in which we express our faith and hope, that these\nblessings shall be bestowed, the person being devoted to God with that\nview.\nThere are other two things that are more especially signified in\nbaptism, namely, privileges expected, and obligations acknowledged.\n1. The privileges expected are such as accompany salvation, which are\nthe special gift of the Holy Ghost, _viz._ the taking away the guilt and\npollution of sin, and our being made partakers of all the blessings that\nChrist hath purchased, and God the Father, in him, has promised to the\nheirs of salvation. I do not say, that all who are baptized are made\npartakers of these privileges; but they are given up to God, or give up\nthemselves to him in this ordinance, in hope of obtaining them.\n2. Here is a public profession, or acknowledgment of our obligation to\nbe the Lord\u2019s. This is, from the nature of the thing, implied in its\nbeing a dedication to God. When we make a surrender of ourselves to him,\nwe do hereby declare, that we are willing to be his servants and\nsubjects, and entirely at his disposal: This is contained in a fiducial\nact of self-dedication to God, and cannot be done by one in the behalf\nof another: And, it is to be feared, that many, who give up themselves\nto God in this ordinance, when adult, though they make a profession of\ntheir faith, yet do not give up themselves by faith; but that is only\nknown to the heart-searching God: Nevertheless, as we express our faith\nand hope, in this ordinance, concerning the privileges but now\nmentioned; so we, in this act of dedication, confess, that God has a\nright to us, and that it is our indispensible duty to be his, so that\nhereby we are, either by our own consent, as in self-dedication,\nprofessedly the Lord\u2019s; or this is acknowledged by those who have a\nright to dedicate, and thereby to signify this obligation; which,\nbecause it is highly just and reasonable, the persons devoted are\nobliged to stand to, or else are brought under a great degree of guilt,\nin not being stedfast in God\u2019s covenant.\nThere is one thing more mentioned in this answer, namely, that the\nperson baptized, is solemnly admitted into the visible church, which I\nrather choose to pass over; since it is hard to understand what some\nmean by the visible church, and a person\u2019s becoming a member thereof by\nbaptism. We have elsewhere considered the difficulties that are\ncontained in the description of the visible church; together with the\nqualifications for, and admission of persons into church-communion.[67]\nIf, by being admitted into the visible church, we are to understand that\na person has a right to all the ordinances of the church by baptism,\nwithout being admitted afterwards into it by mutual consent; this is\ncontrary to the faith and practice of most of the reformed churches. And\nif, on the other hand, they mean hereby, that here is a public\ndeclaration of our hope, that the person baptized shall be made partaker\nof those privileges which Christ has purchased for, and given to his\nchurch: This is no more than what has been already explained in our\nconsidering the baptismal expectations and obligations; but, whether\nthis can be properly called an admission into the church, I rather leave\nto be determined by those who better understand what they mean, when\nthey say that this is done in baptism, than I do.[68]\nFootnote 59:\n  \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, has been said to signify immergo and _exclusively_ when\n  applied to sacred baptism. And this is necessary to establish\n  immersion as the only mode. The question is not, therefore, whether\n  \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, sometimes signifies to immerse, but _whether it never\n  signifies any thing else_. This can be proved, it is presumed, by no\n  Lexicographer, and no version of the New Testament. In the New\n  Testament it is taken in different senses, for example we read of a\n  Baptism with _the Holy Ghost and with fire_. It is therefore a\n  _generic_ term and not _specific_, as _immerse_ cannot be substituted\n  for it in all places. If a specific Greek term signifying to _plunge_\n  had occasionally been used for it, in the New Testament, yet baptism\n  being in our Saviour\u2019s commission to his disciples, should not have\n  been confined to one mode, but this is never the case. The numerous\n  admissions of our divines, that \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, primarily signifies to\n  _immerse_, and which are disingenuously collected to impose on the\n  ignorant; do not weaken our cause, as they did neither influence the\n  practice nor sentiments of those who used them.\n  If \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, signifies to _immerse totally_, or _partially_; to dip, to\n  cleanse, or purify, &c. it leaves the mode to our convenience or\n  choice; and reason also accords, that the mode is unimportant with\n  respect to moral defilement.\u2014Porphery has \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2.\u201d\n  The oracle said \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7 _him as a bottle_\u201d (of leather, which could\n  swim) \u201c_but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under water_.\u201d\n  Strabo says, \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd _up to the waist_.\u201d Aristotle says\n  \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1,\u201d _it stains and renders florid the hand_.\n  Aristophanes says, \u201c\u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\u201d _stained with tawny\n  colours_. Homer says, \u201c\u00a8\u0395\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1fbd\u1fbd \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9,\u201d _And the fountain\n  was tinged with blood_. Rev. xix. 13. \u201c\u0399\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0392\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\u201d\n  Isaiah xxi. 4. \u201c_Fearfulness_ \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 _me_.\u201d\nFootnote 60:\n  \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\nFootnote 61:\n  The promulgation of this command marks a new and important era in the\n  history of the church and of the world. These words may be considered\n  as the public and formal abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and the\n  authoritative annunciation of the new order of things under the\n  gospel.\n  The first communications of divine truth, through Adam and Noah, were\n  made indiscriminately to the human family; but, in both instances, the\n  precious deposit was generally adulterated, and nearly lost. The\n  wisdom of God, therefore, saw it to be necessary to select and\n  separate from the idolatrous world, a particular family which might\n  serve as a repository of the divine oracles and institutions; until\n  that \u2018_Seed of the woman_\u2019 should come, of whom it was predicted, that\n  he should \u2018_bruise the serpent\u2019s head_:\u2019 and that _\u2018seed of Abraham\u2019\n  in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed_.\n  But when JESUS CHRIST, _our great high-priest of good things to come,\n  had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,\n  to bear the sins of many_; and had _by this one offering of his own\n  body, perfected them that are sanctified_, the service of the first\n  tabernacle was set aside, and as to any utility, or divine authority,\n  ceased forever; as an emblem of which, the veil of the temple was rent\n  in twain from the top to the bottom, at the very moment of expiation;\n  when Christ our high-priest, by sheding his vital blood and pouring\n  out his soul unto death, _offered his one great sacrifice for sins_.\n  So great, however, was the power of early and national prejudice, that\n  the apostles did not, for some time, understand the extent of their\n  commission. They had, before, been sent on a short mission, on which\n  occasion it was ordered, that they should not go _into the way of the\n  Gentiles_, nor even _enter into any city of the Samaritans_; and they\n  seem to have thought, that by going _into all the world_, and\n  _preaching to every creature_, no more was intended, than that they\n  should go to the seed of Abraham now widely dispersed among the\n  nations. But this veil was soon removed, by a particular revelation\n  made to Peter in a vision; and by the calling of Paul to the\n  apostleship, who, from the beginning, received commission to go to the\n  Gentiles, and was, in a peculiar manner, designated and directed, _to\n  preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ_.\n  DR. ALEXANDER\u2019S MISSIONARY SERMON.\nFootnote 62:\n  \u0395\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f41\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1.\nFootnote 63:\n  \u0395\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bd.\nFootnote 65:\n  _See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185._\nFootnote 66:\n  _There is a common aphorism among them, that the sacraments, and\n  baptism in particular, confer grace, ex opere operato._\nFootnote 67:\n  _See vol. II. page 166-216._\nFootnote 68:\n  The Gospel is glad tidings of great joy, not a system of new and\n  terrifying restrictions and exclusions; so far from retracting\n  formerly conceded privileges, and confining the church within narrower\n  limits, it publishes peace and salvation, and invites the whole human\n  family to participate in these blessings. It must either be referred\n  to the impressions it has made, or to uninterrupted usage that females\n  have, by a general consent, been deemed to possess an unquestionable\n  right to approach the holy communion, though neither precept for it is\n  found, nor an example of it recorded in the Scriptures. This baptism\n  of infants was still less necessary to be enjoined by, and less likely\n  to have been noticed in the short history given us of apostolical\n  transactions.\n  He who gave parental affection, and is the Lord of his church under\n  every dispensation, conferred on children at an early age of the world\n  the privilege of sharing with their parents in the seals of grace, and\n  bearing the tokens of his covenant. Jewish christians having\n  themselves experienced such benignity, and been given to the same God,\n  whom they now served under brighter displays of his eternal and\n  unchangeable love, could not have expected, that, an entrance into the\n  milder gospel-church would have been denied to the seed whom God had\n  given them, and whom they had devoted to him not only in prayer, but\n  in that ordinance which he had appointed for the purpose. An ordinance\n  which being now obsolete was supplied by another, apparently as proper\n  for their children as themselves. Because infants are incapable of\n  repenting and believing, these duties were not required nor expected\n  of them, either under the old, or new dispensation; but though\n  incapable of actual sin, and therefore free from obligations of\n  obedience unto the law, yet their nature is not pure, and consequently\n  needs the sanctifying influence of divine grace, which can correct the\n  latent enmity, and renew the soul. They are capable, therefore, of\n  spiritual blessings, and may consequently be members of the invisible\n  church, and received into the church triumphant. The obvious\n  reasonableness of the privilege of being received with their parents\n  into the society of the worshippers of God, a privilege publicly known\n  to have been conferred by the great Head of the church, equally\n  prevented the supposition of an implied repeal, and the necessity of a\n  renewal of the right.\n  If indeed there had been a different religion introduced; if\n  christians were not engrafted into the old stock; if they worshipped\n  some other than the God of Israel; if there was another moral law,\n  another Christ than he whose day the fathers anticipated, and another\n  faith; this privilege of receiving infants into the church might have\n  been interrupted; and in that case unless expressly again enjoined, it\n  ought not to have been regarded in practice. But if the christian\n  religion is founded upon the prophets; if the peculiarities of the\n  Jewish worship were but shadows of gospel things; if both were\n  directed to the same glory of God and salvation of men; if they both\n  enjoined the same holiness and presented the same object of faith; if\n  those who were saved under the Old Testament shall be associated with\n  those who are saved under the New; the privileges formerly granted to\n  children will remain the same; and it is not wonderful that the first\n  christian should obey the dictates of parental tenderness; and that\n  desiring the salvation of their children as well as their own, should\n  cause their households to be baptized as well as themselves. To have\n  affirmed in the gospel history expressly, that children were a part of\n  the household, could have answered no purpose in the first days of\n  christianity, but would have been thought repetitions and unmeaning\n  until modern times. In the fifth, in the third and even so early as in\n  the second century, the baptism of infants was the established usage\n  of the church, and it was then thought, and not disputed, to have been\n  the practice of the apostles themselves.\n    QUEST. CLXVI. _Unto whom is baptism to be administered?_\n    _Answ._ Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the\n    visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till\n    they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but\n    infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them,\n    professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that\n    respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.\nIn this answer, which principally respects the subjects of baptism, we\nhave,\nI. An account of those who are excluded from this privilege, _viz._ such\nas are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of\npromise. The visible church is here considered in the most large and\nless proper acceptation of the word, as denoting all who profess the\ntrue religion; and in this respect is opposed to the Jews and heathen,\nand those who, though they live in a Christian nation, are grossly\nignorant of the gospel, and act as though they thought that it did not\nbelong to them, not seeing themselves obliged to make any profession\nthereof: These may be ranked among infidels, as much as the heathen\nthemselves; and, according to this sense of the word, are not members of\nthe visible church; and, consequently, while they remain so, are not to\nbe admitted to baptism. This is agreeable to the sentiments and practice\nof most of the reformed churches; and it cannot but be reckoned highly\nreasonable, by all who consider baptism as an ordinance in which a\npublic profession is made of the person\u2019s being devoted to God the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, if he be considered as adult (and of\nsuch we are now speaking) there is a signification, and thereby a\nprofession made, that he gives up himself to God; and, if the ordinance\nbe rightly applied, there must be an harmony between the inward design\nof the person dedicating, and the true intent and meaning of the\nexternal sign thereof; which, by divine appointment, is a visible\ndeclaration of his adhering by faith, to the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, and embracing that salvation which takes its rise from them. This\ntherefore must be done by faith; or else the ordinance is engaged in\nafter an hypocritical manner; which will tend to God\u2019s dishonour, and\nthe prejudice rather than the advantage of him, to whom it is\nadministered.\nII. We are now to consider the necessity of their making a profession of\ntheir faith in Christ, and obedience to him, who being adult, are\nadmitted to baptism. It was supposed, under the last head, that if there\nbe not an harmony between the internal frame of spirit, in the person\nbaptized, and the intent of the external sign thereof, the ordinance is\nnot rightly applied to him, inasmuch as he pretends to dedicate himself\nto God; but, in reality does not do this by faith: And now it may be\nfarther considered, that it is necessary that he should make it appear,\nthat he is a believer, by a profession of his faith; otherwise, he that\nadministers the ordinance, together with the assembly, who are present\nat the same time, cannot conclude that they are performing a service\nthat is acceptable to God; therefore, for their sakes, as well as his\nown, the person to be baptized, ought to make a profession of his\nsubjection to Christ, as what is signified in this ordinance.\nThis is agreeable to the words of institution, in Matt. xxviii. 19. _Go\nye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them_, &c. and in Mark\nxvi. 15. _Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every\ncreature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved_, &c. I am\nsensible that some, who have defended infant-baptism, or rather\nattempted to answer objection taken from this, and such like scriptures\nagainst it, have endeavoured to prove the Greek word[69] signifies,\n_make_ persons _disciples_; and accordingly it is a metaphor taken from\nthe practice of a person\u2019s being put under the care of one who is\nqualified to instruct him, whose disciple he is said to be, in order to\nhis being taught by him; and therefore they suppose, that we are made\ndisciples by baptism, and afterwards to be _taught to observe all things\nwhatsoever Christ hath commanded_; and this is taken notice of in the\nmarginal reading of our Bibles; which supposes that the word may be\nrendered, _make disciples of all nations_: But, I cannot think this\nsense of the word so defensible, or agreeable to the design of our\nSaviour, as that of our translation, _viz._ _Go teach all nations_;\nwhich agrees with the words of the other evangelist, _Go preach the\ngospel to every creature_: And besides, while we have recourse to this\nsense to defend infant-baptism, we do not rightly consider that this\ncannot be well applied to adult-baptism, which the apostles were first\nto practise; for it cannot be said concerning the heathen, that they are\nfirst to be taken under Christ\u2019s care by baptism, and then instructed in\nthe doctrines of the gospel, by his ministers[70].[71]\nMoreover, a profession of faith in those who are baptized when adult, is\nagreeable to the practice of the Christian church in the first planting\nthereof: Thus it is said, in Acts ii. 41. _They that gladly received the\nword were baptized_: And this might also be observed in the account we\nhave of the jailor and the Eunuch\u2019s being first converted, and then\nbaptized, in Acts xvi. 31-33. chap. viii. 37, 38. But, if it be retorted\nupon us, as though we were giving up the cause of infant-baptism, it\nmust be observed, that this does not, in the least, affect it; for when\nour Saviour gave forth his commission to the apostles, to teach or\npreach the gospel to all nations, and baptize them, it is to be\nsupposed, that their ministry was to be exercised among the adult, and\nthat these then were utter strangers to Christ and his gospel; therefore\nit would have been a preposterous thing to put them upon devoting\nthemselves to him, before they were persuaded to believe in him: neither\ncould they devote their children till they had first dedicated\nthemselves to him, and this leads us to consider,\nIII. The right of infants to baptism, provided they, who are required to\ndedicate them to God therein, are believers; and particularly, that such\nmay be baptized who descend from parents of whom only one is a believer.\nThis will appear,\n1. If we consider baptism as an ordinance of dedication: Accordingly,\nlet it be observed,\n(1.) That it is the indispensible duty of believers, to devote\nthemselves and all they have, to God, which is founded in the law of\nnature, and is the result of God\u2019s right to us and ours. Whatever we\nhave received from him, is to be surrendered or given up to him; whereby\nwe own him to be the proprietor of all things, and our dependence upon\nhim for them, and that they are to be improved to his glory. This is, in\na particular manner, to be applied to our infant-seed, whom it is our\nduty to devote to the Lord, as we receive them from him: However, there\nis this difference between the dedication of persons, from that of\nthings, to God, that we are to devote them to him, in hope of their\nobtaining the blessings which they are capable of, at present, or shall\nstand in need of from him, hereafter. This, I think, is allowed, by all\nChristians. Nothing is more common, than for some who cannot see that it\nis their duty to baptize their children, to dedicate or devote them to\nGod, by faith and prayer; which they do in a very solemn manner; and\nthat with expectation of spiritual blessings, as an encouragement of\ntheir faith, so far as they apprehend them capable of receiving them.\n(2.) We shall now consider, that baptism, in the general idea thereof,\nis an ordinance of dedication or consecration of persons to God. If this\nbe not allowed of, I cannot see how it can be performed by faith, in the\nname of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or how this can be a visible\nputting on of Christ, as the apostle styles it, Gal. iii. 27.\n_Object._ This proposition would not be denied, if baptism were to be\nconsidered as an ordinance of self-dedication, but then it would\neffectually overthrow the doctrine of infant-baptism; for since infants\ncannot devote themselves to God in this ordinance, therefore it is not\nto be applied to them.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that as there is no other medium,\nwhich, I apprehend, can be made use of to prove that the solemn acts of\nconsecration or dedication to God in baptism, is to be made only by\nourselves, but what is taken from a supposition of the matter in\ncontroversy, by those who assert that infants are not to be baptized: So\nif this method of reasoning be allowed of, we might as well say, on the\nother hand; infants are to be baptized; therefore baptism is not an\nordinance of self-dedication, since they cannot devote themselves to\nGod; and that would militate against what, I think, is allowed of by\nall, that baptism, when applied to the adult, is an ordinance of\nself-dedication. That which I would therefore more directly assert, in\nanswer to this objection is, that baptism is an ordinance of dedication,\neither of ourselves, or others; provided the person who dedicates, has a\nright to that which he devotes to God, and can do it by faith. When I\ndo, as it were, pass over my right to another, there is nothing required\nin order hereunto, but that I can lawfully do it, considering it as my\nproperty; and this is no less to be doubted concerning the infant-seed\nof believers than I can question, whether an adult person has a right to\nhimself, when he gives up himself to God in this ordinance.[72]\n(3.) It follows, from the last head, that parents, who have a right to\ntheir infant-seed, may devote them to God in baptism, provided they can\ndo it by faith; and therefore a profession of faith, is only necessary\nin those who are active, in this ordinance, not in them that are merely\npassive. This we are obliged to maintain against those who often\nintimate that children are not to be baptized, because they are not\ncapable of believing: Or when it is replied hereunto, that they are\ncapable of having the seeds of faith, though not the acts thereof; this\nis generally reckoned insufficient to support our argument, by those who\nare on the other side of the question; inasmuch as it cannot well be\ndetermined, what infants have the seeds of faith, and what not; and, I\nthink those arguments which are generally brought to prove that the\ninfants of believing parents, as such, have the seeds of faith, on the\naccount whereof they are to be baptized can hardly be defended; because\nmany good men have wicked children.\nTherefore what we insist on in this argument, is, that believing parents\nmay give up their children to God in baptism, in hope of their obtaining\nthe blessings of the covenant,[73] whether they are able to conclude\nthat they have the seeds of grace or no; they may devote them to God in\nhope of regeneration; though they cannot know them to be regenerate, as\nall ordinances are to be performed with this view, that they may be\nrendered effectual means of grace. And from hence it may be inferred, as\nis observed in this answer, that infants descending from parents, either\nboth, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, are to be\nbaptized; since one parent has as much a right to the child as the\nother: Therefore, the unbelief of one does not exclude the other from\ngiving it up to God by faith, in hope of its obtaining the saving\nblessings of the covenant of grace. 1 Cor. vii. 14.\n2. The right of the infant-seed of believers to baptism, may be farther\nproved, from their being capable of the privileges signified therein;\nand under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties which they,\nwho dedicate them to God, make a public profession of, as agreeable to\nthe design of this ordinance. None are to be excluded from any of those\nordinances, which Christ has given to the church, but they who are\neither in a natural or a moral sense, to be deemed incapable subjects\nthereof. Some, indeed, are incapable of engaging in ordinances, by\nreason of a natural unmeetness for them, as infants are not to be\nadmitted to the Lord\u2019s supper, as being under a natural incapacity; and,\nignorant and profane persons are not to be admitted to it, as being\nunder a moral incapacity; and, for the same reason, a wicked man, when\nadult, is not a proper subject of baptism: But if there be neither of\nthese bars to exclude persons, they are not to be denied the advantage\nof any ordinance. This, I think will be allowed by all; and therefore,\nthe only thing I need prove is, that infants are not incapable of the\nprincipal things signified in baptism. That they are not incapable of\nbeing dedicated to God, has been proved under the last head; and now we\nshall consider several privileges that are signified therein, which they\nare equally capable of; as,\n(1.) Baptism is an external sign of that faith and hope which he has,\nthat dedicates a person to God, that the person dedicated, shall obtain\nthe saving blessings of the covenant of grace; Now, that infants are\ncapable of these blessings, none will deny, who suppose them capable of\nsalvation. If we suppose infants not to have regenerating grace, which\nis neither to be affirmed or denied, it being a matter, at present,\nunknown to us; yet they are capable of having it, for the reason but now\nassigned; and though they cannot at present, put forth any acts of\ngrace, they will be capable thereof, as soon as they are able to discern\nbetween good and evil.\nThey are not excluded by their infant-state, from being under Christ\u2019s\nspecial care; which is, doubtless, to be extended to elect infants as\nwell as others; and they are capable of being discharged from the guilt\nof original sin, though not of laying claim to this privilege, which\nthey may be enabled to do afterwards. Now, if infants are capable of\nthese privileges, certainly the person who dedicates them to God, (who\nhas a right to do it, inasmuch as they are his property, and he is able\nto do it by faith) may devote them to him, with the exercise of this\ngrace, and a fiducial expectation that they shall obtain these\nprivileges: And, indeed, when we engage in this ordinance, we ought to\nexpect some saving blessings, as the consequence hereof, as much as when\nwe engage in any other ordinance of divine appointment.\n_Object._ It is objected to this, that though a person may devote his\nchild to God in hope of his obtaining saving blessings; yet he cannot\nexercise any act of faith, that he shall obtain them: Therefore though\nhe may perform this duty with a degree of hope, or, at least, with a\ndesire hereof; yet he cannot do it by faith: Therefore, if children are\nto be devoted to God by faith, they are not the subjects of this\nordinance.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that some things may be said to be\ndone by faith, when we have not a certain ground to expect the saving\nfruits and effects thereof. Suppose an infant was expiring and the\ntender parent concerned about its salvation, whether he has a certain\nexpectation that it shall be saved or no; yet he may, and ought to be\nearnest with God by faith and prayer, that the child may be happy when\ntaken out of the world; and, if he finds that he has the lively exercise\nof faith, with respect to this matter, this will afford him some degree\nof hope, that God, who excited this grace in him, will own it by giving\nthe blessings which he desires; which is the only comfort that a parent\ncan take in the loss of his infant-seed: And, may there not be this act\nof faith, when he dedicates him to God in baptism? Did we assert that\ngiving up our children to God by faith, necessarily infers their\nobtaining saving blessings, the objection would have some force in it;\nor if there could be no faith exercised, without our being certainly\npersuaded that this should have a saving effect; then it might be\nargued, that because we are not certain that infants shall be saved,\ntherefore we cannot give them up to God by faith: But if there may be\nfaith, where there is not this certain persuasion, or any ground by\nwhich this matter may be determined, then, I think, it will follow, that\ninfants may be devoted to God by faith, as well as with a desire of\ntheir obtaining saving blessings, and, consequently, this objection does\nnot take away the force of our argument. We are far from supposing that\nbaptismal dedication necessarily infers these saving blessings, or is\ninseparably connected with them, so that the one cannot be without the\nother. Therefore, it is sufficient to our purpose, to suppose that they\nare capable of those blessings which faith desires, and, it may be,\nhopes for; and, consequently, of those things which are principally\nsignified in baptism.\n(2.) Infants are under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties\nwhich are incumbent on those who are given up to God in baptism, and\nsignified thereby. This respects some things future, (they being, at\npresent, incapable of performing any duty) and, indeed, obligations to\nperform duties may respect the time to come, as well as the time\npresent; as when a person is bound to pay a just debt, this obligation\nis valid though it is not expected that it should be immediately paid.\nThus infants are professedly bound, when given up to God, to be the\nLord\u2019s: Whether ever they will give up themselves to him by faith, or\nno, is unknown to us, nevertheless, the obligation will take place as\nsoon as they are capable of doing good or evil. Therefore it follows,\nthat the parent may bind his child to be the Lord\u2019s, inasmuch as the\nobligation is just, as being founded in God\u2019s right to obedience, and\nwhen he has laid his child under it in this ordinance, he ought\nafterwards strictly to charge him to stand to it, as he would not\ncontract double guilt; not only in neglecting to perform an\nindispensable duty, but to pay that debt of obedience which has been so\nsolemnly acknowledged in this ordinance. These arguments taken from the\nnature and design of the ordinance of baptism, give me the fullest\nconviction concerning our warrant to apply it to infants: But there is\none more which is not wholly to be passed over, _viz._\n(3). It appears, that the infant-seed of believers, are to be\nconsecrated or devoted to God in baptism, because they are included in\nthe covenant wherein God has promised that he will be a God to his\npeople, and to their seed; who are, upon this account, styled _holy_\nEzra. ix. 2. And it is said concerning Israel, that _they are the seed\nof the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them_, Isa. lxv.\n23. the _branch_ is said to be _holy_, together with _the root_, Rom.\nxi. 16. and _the children of the promise are counted for the seed_,\nchap. ix. 8. that is included in that covenant in which God promised\nthat he would be a God to children, together with their parents, as he\nsays to Abraham; _I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and\nto thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after\nthee_, Gen. xvii. 7. And, in this sense, I think, we are to understand\nthe apostle\u2019s words, in 1 Cor. vii. 14.[74] _The unbelieving husband is\nsanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the\nbelieving husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they\nholy._ By these, and other expressions of the like-nature, we are not to\nunderstand the special saving grace of regeneration and sanctification;\nfor that is not a privilege that descends from parents to children by\nbirth, as our Saviour says, _We are born not of blood, nor of the will\nof the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_, John i. 13.\nTherefore, when some, who are on the other side of the question, think\nthat we intend hereby the saving blessings of the covenant, or that\nholiness which is an internal qualification or meetness for heaven, they\ndo not rightly understand our meaning. Some, indeed, may have given\noccasion to conclude that they intend this, who speak of the grace of\nregeneration as conferred in baptism; and assert, that it intitles\npersons to salvation, if they happen to die before they are adult:\nWhereas, if afterward they appear to be in an unconverted state, by the\nwickedness of their conversation, they are said to fall from that grace.\nThis is what I do not well understand; nor do I intend, when I speak of\nthe infants of believers as an holy seed, that they are all internally\nregenerate or sanctified from the womb; but they are included in the\nexternal dispensation of the covenant of grace; which must be reckoned a\ngreater advantage than if they had descended from Indians, who are\nstrangers to it.\nI am sensible, indeed, that they who deny infant-baptism, suppose that\nthe holiness of the children spoken of by the apostle in the scripture\nbut now referred to, who descended from parents, of whom one only was a\nbeliever, implies nothing else but their being legitimate: But that does\nnot seem to be his meaning; inasmuch as marriage is an ordinance of the\nlaw of nature, which all, without distinction, have a right to, heathens\nas much as Christians; and the children of the one, are as legitimate as\nthose of the other. Therefore, there is something else intended by their\nbeing holy, namely, the same thing that is meant in those other\nscriptures that we but now referred to, as taken for an external\nrelative holiness, whereby God must be supposed to have a greater regard\nto them than to others who are styled unclean; and, if this does not\ninfer, as was before observed, their being internally regenerate or\nsanctified: yet it is not a word without an idea affixed to it:\nTherefore we must understand thereby, an holiness in the lowest sense of\nthe word; as children, are said to be _an heritage of the Lord, and the\nfruit of the womb his reward_, Psal. cxxxvii. 7. or, it denotes the\nobligation they are laid under, by the privilege of their descending\nfrom believing parents, to adhere to their fathers\u2019 God; which\nobligation is professed or acknowledged, when they are dedicated to him\nin baptism, as has been before observed; and this is the use which I\nwould make of this account which we have of them in scripture, to prove\ntheir right to be devoted to God in this ordinance.\nAnd, I think, we do not assert this without some warrant from scripture;\nfor when God told Abraham, in the promise but now mentioned, that he\nwould be _a God unto him, and to his seed_, which is the foundation of\ntheir federal holiness; this is assigned as a reason why they should be\ndevoted to God in circumcision, Gen. xvii. 10. for we cannot but\nconclude circumcision, as we do baptism, to have been an ordinance of\ndedication or separation to God: And, in Acts ii. 39. when the apostle\nhad been pressing those Jews, amongst the mixed multitude, to whom he\nhad preached, to _repent and be baptized_; and encouraged them to hope\nfor the _gift of the Holy Ghost_; he assigns this as a reason, namely,\nthat _the promise was to them and to their children_, which refers to\nthe promise of the covenant made with Abraham, and his seed; and it\nimmediately follows, _and to them that are afar off_, that is, the\nGentiles, who might claim this promise, when they believed, whom the\napostle calls elsewhere, _children of the promise, as Isaac was_, Gal.\niv. 28. These who are styled, before conversion, a people _afar off_,\nwere after it reckoned the spiritual seed of Abraham, and so had a right\nto the blessings of the covenant, that God would be a God to them; and,\nby a parity of reason, in the same sense in which the seed of Abraham\nwere children of the promise, the seed of all other believers are to be\nreckoned so, till by their own act and deed, they renounce this external\ncovenant relation: Now, from hence it may be inferred, that if they\nstand in this relation, to God, this is publicly to be owned; and\naccordingly they are to be given up to him in baptism, as there is\ntherein a professed declaration thereof.\nAs to what was but now inferred from the infant-seed of believers under\nthe Old Testament having a right to circumcision, because they were\nincluded in the covenant which God made with their fathers, that\ntherefore they have a right to baptism; this is not to be wholly passed\nover; though, I am sensible, they who deny infant-baptism, will not\nallow of the consequence. Some have argued, in opposition to it, that\ncircumcision was ordained to be a sign and seal of that covenant of\npeculiarity, which God made with the Jewish church, or of those\nblessings which they were made partakers of, as a nation excelling\nothers, in name, honour, and glory: But this, I think, comes far short\nof what the apostle says on that subject, _viz_. that it was _a seal of\nthe righteousness of faith_, Rom. iv. 11. And, indeed, when we call that\ndispensation a covenant of peculiarity, we intend nothing else thereby,\nbut some external privileges annexed to the saving blessings of the\ncovenant of grace; and therefore, Abraham\u2019s faith was conversant on both\nof them; the righteousness of faith, which respected his own salvation,\nand that of his spiritual seed; and those privileges of a lower nature,\nwhich they who were, in other respects, his seed, were made partakers\nof, by virtue of the covenant, in which God promised that he would be a\nGod to him, and to his seed. Moreover, it is generally denied, by those\nwho are on the other side of the question, that baptism comes in the\nroom of circumcision. This therefore remains to be proved, in order to\nour establishing the consequence, that since children were to be devoted\nunto God by circumcision under the law, they are to be devoted unto him\nby baptism, under the gospel-dispensation.\nNow, that this may appear, let it be considered, that God has\nsubstituted some ordinances, under the gospel-dispensation, in the room\nof others, which were formerly observed under the ceremonial law. Thus\nthe Lord\u2019s supper is instituted in the room of the passover; otherwise\nthe apostle would never have alluded to one when he speaks of the other,\nand says, _Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us\nkeep the feast_, &c. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. And we have as much ground to\nconclude, that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, as we have\nthat any gospel-ordinance comes in the room of another, that belonged to\nthe ceremonial law, from what the apostle says, _in whom ye are\ncircumcised by the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in\nbaptism_, Col. ii. 11, 12. where he speaks of the thing signified by\ncircumcision and baptism, as being the same, namely, our communion with\nChrist in his death; so that the thing signified by baptism, is styled,\nas it were, a spiritual circumcision: Therefore, since these two\nordinances, signify the same thing for substance, and are set one\nagainst the other in this scripture, we may, I think, infer from thence,\nthat baptism comes in the room of circumcision.\nAnd, it is farther argued, that baptism being the only initiating\nordinance, at present, as circumcision was of old; so that the first\nvisible profession that was made, especially by any significant\nordinance, that they were the Lord\u2019s, was made therein, which is what we\nunderstand by an initiating ordinance under the gospel, as circumcision\nwas under the law, then it follows, that it comes in the room thereof;\nor else no other ordinance does: But if it be said, that no ordinance\ncomes in the room of circumcision, then the privileges of the church\nunder this present dispensation, would be, in a very disadvantageous\ncircumstance, less than they were under the former; and if infants\nreceived any advantage by being devoted to God by circumcision of old,\nbut are not to be devoted to him by baptism now, their condition is much\nworse than that of those who were the children of such as lived under\nthe legal dispensation; whereas, on the other hand, God has not, under\nthis present dispensation, abridged the church of its privileges, but\nrather increased them.\n_Obj._ 1. It is objected, that infants have no right to baptism, because\nthey cannot believe and repent, since these graces are often mentioned\nin scripture, as a necessary qualification of those who have a right to\nthis ordinance, as might be sufficiently proved from those scriptures in\nwhich persons are said first to believe and repent, and then to be\nbaptized; and, in order thereunto, _the gospel_ was first to be\n_preached_, according to our Saviour\u2019s direction, Mark xvi. 15, 16. And\nwe read of persons _gladly receiving_ it, and _then_ being _baptized_,\nActs. ii. 41. therefore Philip would not baptize the Eunuch till he\nprofessed his faith in Christ, chap. viii. 37, 38. Moreover, this is\ncalled an ordinance of repentance, as none have a right to it, but those\nwho repent: Thus it is said, _John preached the baptism of repentance\nfor the remission of sins_, Mark i. 4. and elsewhere, that he _baptized\nwith the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should\nbelieve on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus_,\nActs. xix. 4.\n_Answ._ We do not deny the necessity of faith and repentance to baptism,\nin them who are adult, as appears by those concessions which have been\nmade under a foregoing head; in which we considered, that none are to be\nbaptized if adult, till they profess faith in Christ and obedience to\nhim; and this ought to be accompanied with repentance, otherwise it is\nnot true and genuine; therefore we freely owned also, that the gospel\nwas to be preached by the apostles, to those who were immediately\nconcerned in their ministry, before they were either to be baptized\nthemselves, or their infant-seed. Nevertheless this does not overthrow\nthe doctrine of infant-baptism, since that, as has been before proved,\ndepends upon different qualifications. Faith is, no doubt, necessary in\nthe person that dedicates, or devotes to God: But, if what has been said\nconcerning the obligation which every one that is able to dedicate his\nchild to God by faith, is under, to do it, (as much as he that is able\nto dedicate himself to him by faith, when adult, is bound to do it,) be\ntrue; then we are to have regard only to the faith of him that\ndedicates, and to hope for the saving privileges of faith and\nrepentance, and all other graces, as divine blessings to be bestowed on\nthe person devoted to God, as the great end which we have in view in\nthis solemn action.[75]\n_Obj._ 2. There is another objection which is concluded, by some, to be\nunanswerable, _viz._ that there is neither precept, nor example in the\nNew Testament, that gives the least countenance to our baptizing\ninfants; therefore it cannot be reckoned a scripture doctrine, and\nconsequently is not from heaven, but of men.[76]\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that consequences justly deduced from\nscripture, are equally binding with the words or examples contained\ntherein. If this be not allowed of, we shall hardly be able to prove\nmany doctrines which we reckon not only to be true, but of great\nimportance. It would be endless to enter into a detail of particulars,\nto illustrate and confirm this matter; and I cannot but think it\nunnecessary, since they who deny infant-baptism, do not deny the\nvalidity of just scripture-consequences.[77]\nTherefore, all that I need say to this is, that if the method we have\ntaken to prove infant-baptism, appears to be just; and if the premises\nbe true, the conclusion deduced from them, must be allowed of; namely,\nthat the infants of believing parents are to be baptized, though this be\nnot contained in so many express words in scripture: And, I cannot but\nthink that the objection would equally hold good against Christ\u2019s dying\nfor infants, as well as others, or of their being capable of\njustification, regeneration, and the saving blessings of the covenant of\ngrace; and it might as well be inferred from hence, that they are not to\nbe devoted to God in other instances, besides that of baptism; or that\nwe have not the least ground to expect their salvation; for it would be\nas hard a matter to find this contained in express words of scripture,\nas that which is the matter in controversy, to wit, that they are to be\nbaptized.\nHere I cannot but take notice of the method which the learned Dr.\nLightfoot takes to account for the silence of scripture, as to this\nmatter[78], which is, for substance, as follows, _viz._ that baptism was\nwell enough known to the Jews, as practised by them under the ceremonial\nlaw; by which he means the ordinance in general, as including in it a\nconsecration to God, to worship him in that way which he then\ninstituted; and accordingly they are said to have been _baptized into\nMoses_. He also adds, that the apostle speaking concerning this matter,\nas referring to what was done _in the cloud, and the sea_, 1 Cor. x. 2.\nsupposes that the whole congregation, of which the infants which they\nhad in their arms, were a part, were solemnly devoted to God at that\ntime; which, I cannot but conclude to be more agreeable to the sense of\nthe word _baptize_, than that which some critics give, who suppose that\nnothing is intended by it, but their being wet, or sprinkled with the\nwater of the sea, as they passed through it; for that was only an\noccasional baptism, which could not be well avoided. But, if I may be\nallowed a little to alter or improve on his method of reasoning, I\nrather think, that the apostle\u2019s meaning is, that the whole congregation\nwas _baptized into Moses_, soon after they were delivered from the\nEgyptians, while they were encamped at the sea-shore; at which time,\nGod, for their security, spread a cloud for a covering to them; and\nthen, as the kind hand of Providence had led the way, and brought them\nunder a renewed engagement, they hereupon expressed their gratitude and\nobligation to be God\u2019s people, by this universal dedication to him in\nbaptism. But to return to the author but now mentioned; he adds, that\nwhen Jacob was delivered from Laban, and set about the work of reforming\nhis household, he ordered them, not only to _put away the strange gods\nthat were among them_, but _to be clean_, Gen. xxxv. 2. by which, as he\nobserves, the Jews confess, that baptism, or a dedication to God by\nwashing, is intended. He also observes, that the ordinance of baptism in\ngeneral, before Christ instituted gospel-baptism, was so well known by\nthe Jewish church, that they no sooner heard that John baptized, but\nthey came to his baptism; and they did not ask him, why dost thou make\nuse of this rite of baptizing? but, what is thy warrant, or, _who sent\nthee to baptize_? He further adds, that both John and Christ took up\nbaptism as they found it in the Jewish church; by which he means the\nordinance in general, without regard to some circumstances, in which\nChrist\u2019s baptism differed from that which was practised under the\nceremonial law; and this was, as he observes, applied by the Jewish\nchurch to infants as well as grown persons; therefore, our Saviour had\nno occasion, (when he instituted this ordinance with those\ncircumstances, agreeable to the gospel-state, in which it differs from\nthe baptism which was before practised,) to command them to baptize all\nnations, that is, all who were the subjects of baptism, and infants in\nparticular.\n_Obj._ 3. It is further objected, that our Saviour was not baptized in\nhis infancy; therefore his example is to be followed, and, consequently,\nno one is to be baptized till he be adult.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that every circumstance or action in\nthe life of Christ, is not designed to be an example to us; and, indeed,\nthere were some things signified in his baptism, that are not in ours,\ninasmuch as in its application to him, it did not signify his being\ncleansed from the guilt and power of sin. The only thing wherein that\nwhich was signified in his baptism, agrees with ours, is in that he\ndevoted himself unto God, not as expecting salvation through a Mediator\nas we do, but as denoting his consent to engage in the work that he came\ninto the world about; which he now began to perform in a public manner,\nwhich he fulfilled in the course of his ministry, while he went about\ndoing good. Now it was not convenient that this should be done in his\ninfancy; for though the work of redemption began from that time; yet his\nproving himself to be the Messiah, especially his doing this in a public\nmanner, did not take place till he was thirty years of age, and then he\nwas baptized, that this might be an ordinance for the faith of his\nchurch, that he was engaged in the work of our redemption. Moreover, it\nmust be considered, that John\u2019s baptism, which circumstantially differed\nfrom that which was practised in the Jewish church, as well as our\nSaviour\u2019s, was not instituted till the year before Christ was baptized;\ntherefore he could not be baptized agreeably to the alteration that was\nmade in baptism at this time, had he been baptized in his infancy.\n_Obj._ 4. It is further objected, that infant baptism is a novelty, and\nnot practised by the church in the earliest ages thereof from the\napostles\u2019 time.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that if this could be proved to be\ntrue, I should regard arguments deduced from scripture-consequences,\nmuch more than the sense of antiquity to determine this matter. The\nprincipal use of the writings of the Fathers, in my opinion, is to lead\nus into the knowledge of what relates to the historical account of the\naffairs of the church in their respective ages. The main thing supposed\nin this objection is, that infant-baptism was not practised in the early\nages of the church; the contrary to which will appear, if we consider\nsome things mentioned by the Fathers concerning this matter: Thus Justin\nMartyr says, we have not received the carnal but circumcision by\nspiritual baptism; and all persons are, in like manner, enjoined to\nreceive it, as they were to receive circumcision of old, wherein he\nrefers to that of the apostle, in Coloss. ii. 11, 12. _We are\ncircumcised with the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in\nbaptism_; and, consequently, he supposes that baptism comes in the room\nof circumcision, as has been observed elsewhere; and he likewise speaks\nof their being brought to the water, and there regenerated; by which he\nmeans, baptized, in the same manner as we are, in the name of the\nFather, our Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Ghost[79]. And Cyprian, in a\ncouncil, wherein there were sixty-six bishops convened, delivered it not\nonly as his opinion, but supposes it to have been received by them all,\nthat infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day, in answer to a\nquestion under debate, whether the time in which this ordinance was to\nbe performed ought to be the same with that in which children were\ncircumcised under the law[80]. And, Iren\u00e6us[81], speaks of Christ\u2019s\nsanctifying and saving persons of every age, infants not excepted; and\ntherefore they are to be regenerated; by which he means, baptized; as\nthe Fathers often put the thing signified for the sign: And Gregory\nNazianzen speaks to the same purpose[82], that baptism may be performed\nas circumcision was, on the eighth day; but that it ought not to be\nomitted any longer, than till the children are two, or three years old.\nAnd to this I might add, the testimony of Augustin; who asserts, that it\nhad been practised by the church, in foregoing ages, from our Saviour\u2019s\ntime; which, had it not been matter of fact, he would, doubtless, have\nbeen disproved by Pelagius, and his other antagonists[83].\nIt is further objected, by those who deny infant-baptism, that the\npractice of many in the ancient church, who deferred baptism till they\nwere adult, argues, that they did not think it lawful for any to be\nbaptized in infancy. Thus Constantine the great, as Eusebius observes,\nwas not baptized till a little before his death: And, it is well known,\nthat Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, and others of\nthe Fathers, were not baptized till they came to a state of manhood; and\nTertullian, who lived in the second century, exhorts persons to defer\nbaptism, and adds, that it is the safest way to delay the baptism of\ninfants, till they are capable of engaging for themselves, being arrived\nto years of discretion[84].[85] But to this it may be answered, that\nparticular instances, or the sentiments of some of the Fathers are not\nsufficient to prove that infant-baptism was not practised by the ancient\nchurch. As to what is alleged concerning Constantine\u2019s not being\nbaptized till a little before his death, and Gregory Nazianzen,\nChrysostom, _&c._ not till they were adult: This may be accounted for,\nby supposing that their parents did not embrace the Christian religion\nwhile they were infants: and, if that were true, they ought not to be\nbaptized till they could give up themselves to God by faith: This a late\nlearned writer attempts to prove[86]. Moreover, some who have been\nconverted, have neglected baptism, out of a scruple they have had of\ntheir unfitness for it, as many, in our day, do the Lord\u2019s supper; and\nothers, it may he, might have neglected to baptize their infants, or to\nbe baptized themselves, till they apprehended themselves near to death,\nas being misled by a false supposition, which was imbibed by several,\nthat baptism washed away sin; therefore, the nearer they were to their\nend, the more prepared they would be, by this ordinance, for a better\nworld. However, whether it was neglected for this, or any other reason,\nit does not much affect the argument we are maintaining, our design\nbeing principally to prove, that it was practised in the early ages of\nthe church; and, in what instances soever it was omitted, it was not\nbecause they denied that the infants of believing parents had a right to\nit. As to several things mentioned by the authors before cited, and\nothers that treat on that subject, whereby they seem to maintain the\nabsolute necessity thereof, to wash away the pollution of sin; or, when\nthey assert, that it is as necessary to salvation as regenerating grace,\nwe have nothing to say as to this method of reasoning: However, whatever\nthey speak in defence of it, is a sufficient evidence that it is not a\npractice of late invention.\nAs to what respects Tertullian\u2019s advice to defer baptism till persons\nwere capable to engage for themselves; this caution argues, that it was\npractised by some, which is the principal thing designed to be proved.\nAnd the reason assigned by him for the neglect of baptism, being this,\nbecause the sureties, who undertook to instruct them in the doctrines of\nreligion, often promised more than they made conscience of performing,\nand so brought themselves into a snare thereby; therefore, for their\nsakes, infant-baptism, which could not be administered without sureties,\nhad better be delayed; this only proves that he was against\ninfant-baptism for some prudential reasons, as it was attended with this\ninconvenience, not that he thought it was in itself unlawful to be\npractised by them. From hence we may conclude, that the objection taken\nfrom infant-baptism, being supposed to be a novelty, does not weaken the\ncause we are maintaining[87]. Thus concerning the subjects of baptism.\nWe are now to consider the mode thereof, or what we are to understand by\nthe word baptism. It is said, in the foregoing answer, to be the washing\nwith water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost. There has been a great dispute in the world, concerning the\nmeaning of the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, by which this ordinance is expressed; from\nwhence arises the different mode of the administration thereof. Some\nthink, that it only signifies the putting a person, or thing, into the\nwater, whereby it is covered, or, as it were, buried in it; which is\notherwise expressed by the word dipping. Others (whose opinion I cannot\nbut acquiesce in) conclude that it may as well be performed by the\napplication of water, though it be in a different manner, either by\npouring or sprinkling; and accordingly, that it signifies the using the\nmeans of cleansing by the application of water, whatever be the form or\nmode thereof. This argument depends very much upon the sense in which\nthe word is applied to the action intended thereby, either in scripture\nor other writers. And, inasmuch as the sense thereof, as used in\nscripture, and other writings, is well explained by the learned and\njudicious Dr. Owen, agreeably to the sense we have given of the word; I\nhave no occasion to make any other critical remarks upon it, by\nreferring to those writings in which the word is found[88].\nBut, since the greatest number of christians are not so well versed in\nthe Greek language, as to be able to judge whether those methods of\nreasoning that are taken from the use of the word which we render\n_baptize_, are sufficiently conclusive: And, when it is asserted, that\nmany who are undoubtedly very good masters of the Greek tongue, have\ndetermined that it signifies all manner of washing with water, as well\nas dipping into it, this will be reckoned, by them, a very fruitless and\nunprofitable subject; however, we are obliged to mention it, because\ngreat stress is usually laid on the sense of this word, to establish\nthat mode of baptism which is always used by those who are on the other\nside of the question.\nI shall take leave to add, to what that learned author, but now quoted,\nrefers to, has observed on this subject; that it does not appear to me\nthat the word \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 always signifies to wash, by dipping into water,\nbut by the application of water some other way; because it is sometimes\napplied to those things which were too large and cumbersome, and\ntherefore could not well be cleansed that way. Thus it is said, in Mark\nvii. 4. that _the Pharisees_ not only _held the washing_, or, as it is\nin the Greek, _the baptism of cups and pots, and brazen vessels_, which\nmight, indeed, be washed by immersion, but of _tables_, or, as it may be\nrendered, of _beds_, or those seats on which the Jews, according to the\ncustom of the eastern nations, lay at their ease, when they eat their\nmeals. These, I conceive were washed some other way, different from that\nof dipping or plunging in water; And if it was possible that they might\nbe washed that way, yet the word may be applied to innumerable things,\nthat cannot be baptized by immersion: Therefore, the general sense that\nwe have given of it, that it signifies to wash, whether by dipping into\nthe water, or by the application of water to the thing washed, may\njustify our practice, with respect to the mode of baptism, commonly used\nby us.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected hereunto, that the mode used by us, is not\nproperly baptism, but rantism; or, that to sprinkle, or pour, is not to\nbaptize.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that this method of begging the\nquestion in controversy, is never reckoned a fair way of arguing. If\nbaptism be a using the means of cleansing, by the application of water,\nwhich is the thing we contend for, then the word _baptize_ may as well\nbe applied to it as to any other mode of washing. That which may be\nfurther replied to this objection is, that if the thing signified by the\naction of baptizing, namely, the blood of Jesus, together with those\ngifts and graces of the Spirit, which are applied to those to whom God\nmakes this a saving ordinance, be sometimes set forth by sprinkling or\npouring clean water upon a person, then it cannot be well concluded,\nthat sprinkling, or pouring, is not baptizing, though it differ very\nmuch from that which they who contend with us about this matter\ngenerally call baptizing. That sprinkling or pouring, is sometimes used\nin scripture, to signify the conferring of those spiritual gifts and\ngraces which are signified in baptism, is very evident; inasmuch as it\nis said in John i. 17. _The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us\nfrom all sin_; and this is called _the blood of sprinkling_, in Heb.\nxii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. Therefore, in a spiritual sense, sprinkling is\ncalled cleansing from sin; and the graces of the Spirit conferred in\nregeneration, are represented in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. by _sprinkling\nclean water_; which mode of speaking would never be used, were not\nsprinkling a means of cleansing. And, some think, that the apostle when\nhe speaks of our _drawing near to God, having our bodies washed with\npure water_, Heb. x. 22, intends the ordinance of baptism; yet it\nalludes to the ceremonial cleansings that were under the law, which were\noften done by sprinkling: Therefore we cannot but assert, that\nsprinkling water in baptism, is as much cleansing as any other mode used\ntherein.\nMoreover, sometimes the thing signified in baptism, is represented by a\nmetaphor taken from pouring; which, if our mode of baptizing be just,\nwill not seem disagreeable to it; and, it may be, the explication is\ntaken from it, as the conferring the Holy Ghost, which they who were\nbaptized were given to expect, is often called _pouring out the Spirit_,\nActs ii. 17, 18. chap. viii. 38.\n_Obj._ There is another objection which is concluded by many, to be\nunanswerable, viz. that when we read of baptism in the New Testament,\nthe person baptized is said to _go down into the water_. Thus the Eunich\ndid, chap. viii. 38. and immediately after this, he is said to _come up\nout of the water_; which can be applied, as is supposed, to no other\nmode of baptism but that of immersion.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that the whole strength of this\nobjection depends upon the sense that is given of the Greek particles,\nwhich we often render _into_, and _out of_[90]. But this will have no\nweight with any but those who are unacquainted with the Greek language,\nsince it is so well known to all that understand it, that the former of\nthese particles often signifies _to_, as well as _into_; and the latter\n_from_, as well as _out of_; as innumerable instances might easily be\ngiven, was it needful, from scripture, and other Greek authors, in which\nthe words are applied to those things, that according to the natural\nsignification thereof, cannot be understood as denoting _into_, or _out\nof_. There is one scripture which no one can suppose is to be taken in\nany other sense but what is agreeable to our present purpose, _viz._\nMat. xvii. 27. wherein our Saviour bids Peter _Go to the sea[91], and\ncast an hook, and take the fish that first cometh thence_, &c. where, by\n_go to the sea_, we can understand nothing else, but go to the\nsea-shore; and yet the word is the same with that which is, in some\nother places, rendered _into_. There are other scriptures in which\npersons are said to _go to the mountain_, or some other places, wherein\nit would be very improper to say, that they went into the place; though\nthe word be the same with that which in other instances we render\n_into_. And the word[92] which is sometimes rendered _out of_, is\nfrequently rendered _from_, and can be understood in no other sense: As\nwhen it is said, in Luke xi. 31. _The queen of the south came from the\nutmost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon_; which cannot\nbe understood of her coming _out of_, but _from_ thence. But, this\nmatter being so well known to all that read the New Testament in the\noriginal, it is needless for me to give any other instances.[93]\nAs to what concerns the Eunuch\u2019s _going into the water_, I cannot think\nany thing else is intended by it, but that he descended or lighted down\nfrom his chariot, to the water, that is, by a metonymy, to the\nwater-side, in order to his being baptized by Philip. It is no uncommon\nmode of speaking, to say, that a person goes down to the river-side, to\ntake water, or to the well, to draw it; therefore, this is no strain on\nthe sense of the word; and I am the rather inclined to give into this\nopinion, because some modern travellers, taking notice of the place\nwhere this was done, intimate, that it was only a spring of water; and\ntherefore without sufficient depth to plunge the body in: And some\nancient writers, who lived between three and four hundred years after\nour Saviour\u2019s time, as Jerom and Eusebius, intimate the same thing. If\nit be said, that these may be mistaken as to the place, inasmuch as the\nparticular spot of ground in which this water was, is not mentioned in\nscripture: I will not lay much stress upon it; however, I cannot but\nobserve, that it is represented by a diminutive expression, as it is\nsaid, they _came to a certain water_, that is, probably, a brook, which\nwas by the way-side; not a river, or a great collection of water. And it\nis further observed, that Philip, as well as the Eunuch, _went down into\nthe water_; though none suppose that he was plunged in the water;\ntherefore it does not certainly appear, from the sense of the word, that\nthe Eunuch was, unless the matter in controversy be taken for granted,\nthat baptism can be performed in no other way, but by plunging.\nMoreover, _to go down to the water_, does not always signify in other\nscriptures, going down to the bottom of the water; as when the Psalmist,\nin Psal. cvii. 23. speaks of them that _go down to the sea in ships_, he\ndoes not mean them that go down to the bottom of it; therefore, going\ndown to the water does not always signify being plunged in it. As for\nwhat is said concerning Philip and the eunuch\u2019s _coming up out of the\nwater_, it may very fairly be understood of their returning from the\nwater-side, and the eunuch\u2019s going up again into his chariot. Moreover,\nI cannot but think, that in this, and all other places, where persons\nare said to _come up out of the water_, it denotes an action performed\nwith design, and the perfect exercise of the understanding in him that\ndoes it; which seems not agreeable to one who is at the bottom of the\nwater, and cannot well come up from thence, unless by the help of him\nthat baptized him. The sense of the words, _coming out of the water_, is\nagreeable to what is said concerning our Saviour at his baptism, in\nMatt. iii. 16. _Jesus went up straightway out of the water_; which seems\nto be a mistake in our translation; where the words \u03b1\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, have\nbeen rendered, _from the water_; which is of the same import with the\nsense of the Greek particle \u1f10\u03ba when a person is said to _come up out of\nthe water_.\n_Obj._ 3. It seems very evident, that John the Baptist used no other\nmode but that of immersion; because he chose those places to exercise\nthis part of his ministry in, that were well supplied with water,\nsufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, we first read of his removing\nfrom the _wilderness of Judea_, in which he _preached the doctrine of\nrepentance_; and told the people, that _the kingdom of heaven_, that is,\nthe gospel-state, which was to begin with the appearing of the Messiah,\n_was at hand_; and then we read of his removing to the banks of the\nriver Jordan, for the conveniency of baptizing those who came to him for\nthat purpose: And, after that, we read of another station in which he\nresided, _viz._ _Enon, near to Salim_; and this reason is assigned;\n_because there was much water there_, John iii. 23. Now, if he had\nbaptized by sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face, he had no\nneed to remove out of the _wilderness of Judea_: For, whatever scarcity\nof water there might be there, it was no difficult matter for him to be\nsupplied with enough to serve his occasion, had this been his mode of\nbaptizing.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though John removed to Jordan\nand \u00c6non, that he might be well supplied with water, as he daily wanted\nlarge quantities thereof; yet it doth not necessarily follow from hence,\nthat this was done for the sake of immersion therein: And it doth not\nsufficiently appear to me, that \u00c6non afforded water deep enough for a\nperson to be baptized in it after this manner; for it seems to be but a\nsmall tract of land, in which it is hardly probable, that there were\nmany lakes, or rivers of water contained; which is as much as can be\nsaid concerning a well watered country. Therefore, I think, the\nwords[94] ought to have been rendered _many waters_; by which we are to\nunderstand, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that it was a place of\nsprings[95], or small brooks of water. This place John chose, that he\nmight be supplied with water for his use; but it doth not, I think,\nnecessarily, follow from hence, that he baptized by immersion; Besides,\nif there had been a great collection of waters there, there would have\nbeen some indications thereof at this day; which, I believe, it would be\nhard to prove that there are.\nAs to the other part of the objection, that it was a very easy matter\nfor him to have been supplied with water in the wilderness of Judea, to\nbaptize by sprinkling or pouring, by his having it brought to him in\nvessels for that purpose: It may be replied, that if he had only poured\nwater on the head or face, there is no need to suppose that he was so\nsparing of it, as not to use above a spoonful, especially when it was so\neasy a matter for him, by his removing to another station, to be better\nsupplied. If there was but a little water poured on every one that came\nto be baptized by him, it would require a very great quantity of water\nto baptize the vast multitudes that came to him; inasmuch as it is said,\nthat _Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan,\nwere baptized of him_: It is one thing for a little water to be brought\nin a bason to baptize a person or two, and another thing for this to be\ndone in the case under our present consideration. Moreover, it is\ncertain, that in hot countries, and particularly in Judea; and more\nespecially in the wilderness thereof, there was a very great scarcity of\nwater; accordingly we read, sometimes, that water was so valuable a\nthing, that it was reckoned a very considerable part of a man\u2019s estate:\nThus Isaac was envied by the Philistines, for all the wells his father\u2019s\nservants had digged; and then we read of their stopping them up, and his\ndigging other wells; and also of the strife between the herdsmen of\nGerar, and his herdsmen, for the possession thereof, Gen. xxvi. 14,-20.\nAnd we read, in Gen. xxi. 14,-16. that when Abraham sent Hagar away from\nhim with Ishmael, he gave her _bread_, and a _bottle of water_; and\n_when the water was spent in the bottle, she cast the child under one of\nthe shrubs_, despairing of his life; which she need not have done, if\nwater was so easy to come by as it is supposed in this objection. It is\ncertain, that a person may travel many miles without finding water to\nquench his thirst, in those desert places. This farther appears from\nSamson\u2019s being _ready to die for thirst_, after the great victory he had\nobtained over the Philistines, on which occasion God wrought a miracle\nto supply him, Judges xv. 18, 19, which can hardly be accounted for, if\nthere had been so great plenty of water in that country, as there is in\nours; this then, I apprehend to be the reason of John\u2019s removal to\nJordan and \u00c6non; therefore it doth not necessarily prove that his design\nwas to baptize in that way that is pleaded for by those on the other\nside of the question.\nMoreover, as it doth not sufficiently appear to me, from any thing\ncontained in the objection, that John used immersion in baptism, so it\nseems most agreeable, to some circumstances that attended it, to\nconclude that he did not; inasmuch as there was no conveniency for the\nchange of their garments, nor servants appointed to help them therein;\nwhich seems necessary to answer this occasion. And some have supposed,\nthat it might endanger the health of those who were infirm among them,\nand John\u2019s much more, who was obliged to stand many days together in the\nwater, or, at least, the greatest part thereof, while he was\nadministering this ordinance. And they who were baptized must\nimmediately retire when the ordinance was over, or it would endanger\ntheir health; unless we have recourse to a dispensation of providence,\nthat is next to miraculous: Though I am sensible, some say, that none\never suffered hereby in our day; which, if the observation be true, is a\nkind providence that they ought to be thankful for.\nBut if, after all that has been said on this matter, it will not be\nallowed that baptism signifies any thing else but dipping in water: Then\nI might farther allege, that this might be done by dipping the face,\nwhich is the principal part of the body, without plunging the whole\nbody; and this might answer the design of the ordinance as well as the\nother; since it is not the quantity used in a sacramental sign that is\nso much to be regarded, as the action performed, together with the\nmatter of it; if the smallest piece of bread, and a spoonful of wine are\nused in the Lord\u2019s supper, this is generally reckoned as well adapted to\nanswer the design of the ordinance, as if a great quantity of each were\nreceived by every one that partakes of it. Now, as to what concerns our\npresent argument, the washing a part of the body is deemed sufficient to\nsignify the thing intended, as much as though the whole body had been\nwashed. Thus when our Saviour washed his disciples\u2019 feet, and told\nPeter, _If_ he _washed him not, he had no part in him_, John xiii. 5.\nwherein (by the way) we may observe, that he calls washing his feet,\nwashing him, by a synecdoche, for a part of the whole; upon which\noccasion Peter replies, _not my feet only, but also my hands and my\nhead_; and Jesus answered, _He that is washed needeth not, save to wash\nhis feet, but is clean every whit_, ver. 10. by which, I think, he\nintends, that this signifies that cleansing, which is the spiritual\nmeaning thereof, as much as though the whole body had been washed with\nwater; for though one design hereof might be to teach them humility, and\nbrotherly kindness; yet it also signifies their being washed or cleansed\nby his blood and Spirit.\n_Obj._ 4. There is another objection on which very much stress is\ngenerally laid, which I should not do justice to the cause I am\nmaintaining, if I should wholly pass it over, taken from what the\napostle says, in Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. _so many of us as were baptized into\nChrist Jesus, were baptized into his death: Therefore we were buried\nwith him by baptism[96] into death; that, like as Christ was raised up\nfrom the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in\nnewness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of\nhis death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection._ From\nwhence it is argued, that there ought to be a similitude between the\nsign and the thing signified; and, consequently, that baptism should be\nperformed in such a way, that, by being covered with water, there might\nbe a resemblance of Christ\u2019s burial; and by being lifted up out of the\nwater, a resemblance of his resurrection: Therefore this ordinance doth\nnot only signify the using the means of cleansing with water, but the\nmode, namely, being plunged, or, as it were, buried in water.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not agreeable to the\nnature of a sacramental sign, in any other instance; that there should\nbe an analogy between the thing done, and what is signified thereby, any\notherwise than by divine appointment. Accordingly we observed, in the\nforegoing answer, that a sacrament has not a natural tendency to signify\nChrist, and his benefits; as the eating bread and drinking wine doth not\nsignify the body and blood of Christ, any otherwise than as this\nsignification is annexed by our Saviour, to the action performed; the\nsame, I think, may be applied to baptism; especially our consecration,\nand dedication to God therein; and if any other external sign had been\ninstituted, to signify the blessings of the covenant of grace, we should\nhave been as much obliged to make use of it as we were of water.\nTherefore, I conceive, the apostle, in this scripture, mentioned in the\nobjection, doth not refer to our being buried in water, or taken out of\nit, as a natural sign of Christ\u2019s burial and resurrection; but our\nhaving communion with him in his burial and resurrection. This, I think,\nwould hardly be denied by many, on the other side of the question, did\nnot the objection, but now mentioned, and the cause they maintain,\nrender it expedient for them to understand the words in another sense.\nThis is all that I shall say with respect to this matter in controversy,\nas to the subjects and mode of baptism; in which, as I should have been\nunfaithful, had I said less to it; so I have not the least inclination\nto treat those that differ from me in an unfriendly way, as having a\njust sense of their harmony with us, especially a great part of them, in\nthose doctrines that have a more immediate reference to our salvation.\nWe shall now proceed to consider, that as there are some who appear to\nbe grossly ignorant of the thing signified in baptism, who seem to\nengage in it, as though it were not a divine institution, concluding it\nto be little more than an external rite or form to be used in giving the\nchild a name, being induced hereto rather by custom, than a sense of the\nobligation they are under, to give up their children to God by faith\ntherein; so there are others who attribute too much to it, when they\nassert, that infants are hereby regenerated; and that if they die before\nthey commit actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved, inasmuch as they are\nhereby made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom\nof heaven: This seems to be an ascribing that to the ordinance, which is\nrather expected or desired, than conferred thereby.\nAs for the child\u2019s being signed with the sign of the cross, signifying\nhereby that he should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ\ncrucified, but manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the\nworld, and the devil; how much soever this may be a branch of that\nbaptismal obligation, which he is professedly under; yet I cannot see\nwhat warrant persons have to make use of this external sign and symbol,\nwhich can be reckoned no other than an ordinance for their faith, though\ndestitute of a divine institution.\nThere is also another thing practised by some in baptism, that is\ngreatly abused, namely, the requiring that some should be appointed as\nsureties for the child, by whom it is personated; and they engage, in a\nsolemn manner, in its behalf, that it shall fulfil the obligation that\nit is laid under, which is not only more than what is in their power to\nperform; but it is to be feared, that the greatest part of these\nsureties hardly think themselves obliged to shew any concern about them\nafterward. And that which is farther exceptionable in this matter, is\nthat the parents, who are more immediately obliged to give up their\nchildren to God, seem to be, as it were, excluded from having any hand\nin this matter.\nI have nothing to except against the first rise of this practice; which\nwas in the second century, when the church was under persecution; and\nthe design thereof was laudable and good, namely, that if the parents\nshould die before the child came of age; whereby it would be in danger\nof being seized on by the Heathen, and trained up in their superstitious\nand idolatrous mode of worship, the sureties promised, that, in this\ncase, they would deal with it as though it were their own child, and,\nbring it up in the Christian religion; which kind and pious concern for\nits welfare, might have been better expressed at some other time than in\nbaptism, lest this should be thought an appendix to that ordinance:\nHowever, through the goodness of God, the children of believing parents\nare not reduced to those hazardous circumstances; and therefore the\nobligation to do this, is less needful; but to vow, and not perform, is\nnot only useless to the child, but renders that only a matter of form,\nwhich they promise to do in this sacred ordinance.\nThe only thing that I shall add under this answer, is, that if we have\nbeen baptized, either in our infancy, or when adult, we are obliged, in\nfaithfulness, as we value our own souls, to improve it to the glory of\nGod, and our spiritual welfare in the whole conduct of our lives. And\nthis leads us to what is contained in the following answer.\nFootnote 69:\n  \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5.\nFootnote 70:\n  _Vid Whitby in Loc._\nFootnote 71:\n  This then is a repetition; go, _teach_, baptize, _teach_. This\n  commission was to _disciple_ the world, baptizing and teaching are the\n  specification, and are participles agreeing with the nomination.\n  It is no inference from the position of baptizing before teaching are\n  that adults might be first baptized. This was the institution of the\n  ordinance of baptism as well as the apostolic commission; yet it\n  neither contains any direction either as to the mode or subjects;\n  because Christ spoke to Jews, who knew that adult proselytes were\n  carefully examined, whilst infants were circumcised with their parents\n  without such examination. They also knew the various modes of\n  religious purifications among the Jews; both John the Baptist, and\n  they having under that dispensation baptized. Neither is faith\n  essential to the validity of baptism, nor is the profession of it\n  required of such as are incapable of making it.\nFootnote 72:\n  To be brought into the visible church, is a high privilege, of which\n  infants are as capable now, as under the former dispensation. Consent\n  is not necessary; for infants receive inheritances. _This is by force\n  of municipal laws._ But are not the laws of God of equal\n  force?\u2014_Baptism implies obligations, which can be founded only on\n  consent._ Then it will follow that infants are not bound by human\n  laws, for they have not assented to the social compact; they are under\n  no obligation to obey parents, guardians, or masters, because they\n  either did not choose them, or were incompetent to make such choice;\n  they are not bound by the laws of God himself, which is this very\n  case, because they have not consented to his authority; and if they\n  never consent, they will be always free equally from all obligations,\n  and all sin. Such are the consequences of the above objection.\nFootnote 73:\n  The dictates of nature, uncontrouled by revelation, are the will of\n  Christ, and our rule of duty. The _will of Christ_, expressed in these\n  dictates, requires us to benefit our children as they are capable.\n  _Baptism_, as the initiatory seal of God\u2019s covenant, is a _benefit_ of\n  which infants are _capable_.\u2014This evidence is not _eclipsed_, but\n  _brightened_, by scripture authority, as we shall see in the sequel of\n  this chapter.\n  Let the reader carefully notice, that we do not suppose, by insisting\n  on this argument, the insufficiency of _direct scripture_ evidence:\n  for _this_ has been frequently urged with advantage, to satisfy\n  persons of the best dispositions and abilities. That is, reader, \u201csome\n  of the most eminent P\u0153dobaptists that ever filled the Professor\u2019s\n  chair, or that ever yet adorned the Protestant pulpit.\u201d But since our\n  opponents insist, that what has been so often urged, is not\n  conclusive; and _modestly_ affirm, it is only calculated to catch \u201cthe\n  eye of a _superficial_ observer;\u201d they are desired once more\n  impartially to weigh this reasoning, and then, if they are able, to\n  refute it. Let them know, however, that hackneyed phrases without\n  meaning\u2014principles taken upon trust\u2014and empty declamation\u2014must not be\n  palmed on us instead of solid arguments.\n  Were it necessary, it would be easy to shew, that the principles above\n  urged are no _novelty_; but are perfectly agreeable to experience,\u2014and\n  to the practical judgment of the most serious P\u0153dobaptists, both\n  illiterate and learned. But waving this, we proceed next to another\n  corroborating proof of the main proposition.\n  What we contend for is. That it is the _will of Christ_ we should\n  _baptize_ our infant children. In proof of this we have shewn, first,\n  that the _dictates of right reason_ require us to _benefit_ them, and\n  consequently to _baptize_ them; as baptism is always a benefit when\n  administered to _capable_ subjects. We come, secondly, to shew\u2014That\n  God has constantly approved of _this principle_, in all _preceding_\n  dispensations. In other words\u2014That the _principle_ of the last\n  argument is so far from being _weakened_ by scripture evidence, that\n  the Lord\u2019s _approbation_ of _it_, in his conduct towards the offspring\n  of his professing people, in all the dispensations of true religion,\n  is abundantly _illustrated_ and _confirmed_.\n  Mr. B\u2019s misapplied but favourite maxim\u2014\u201cPositive laws imply their\n  negative,\u201d has no force in the baptismal controversy, until he\n  demonstrates, in opposition to what is advanced, that the dictates of\n  right reason must be _smothered_, or else, that revelation\n  countermands their influence. But to _demonstrate_ the former, in\n  matters about which, on the supposition, scripture is silent, is no\n  easy task. And the difficulty will be _increased_ in proportion as the\n  sacred oracles corroborate reason\u2019s verdict. Let us now appeal to\n  these oracles.\n  We appeal to that period of the church, and dispensation of grace,\n  which extended from Adam to Noah. The inspired narrative of this long\n  space of time is very short: on which we make the following remarks.\n  We then assert,\n  Whatever exhibition of grace was made to antediluvian _parents_, was\n  constantly made to their _offspring_; and consequently whatever seals\n  of grace were granted to the former, must equally appertain to the\n  latter if not voluntary _rejectors_ of them. Therefore, all such\n  parents had a _revealed_ warrant to regard their offspring as entitled\n  to the _seals_ of the covenant, in _like manner_ as themselves,\n  according to their capacity. For,\n  All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains the promulgation of gospel\n  grace; nor are we authorised to question the interest of _children_\n  therein with their parents, without an express contravention. For, it\n  were _unnatural_ for a parent to _confine_ such a _benefit_ to his own\n  person to the exclusion of his children, who are not only parts of his\n  family but of _himself_. To which we may add, that the phrase _thy\n  seed_, though principally referring to the Messiah, respected Eve\u2019s\n  _natural seed_ as sharers in common with herself in the exhibition of\n  mercy; and we suppose not less so than her _husband_. For this\n  application of the phrase _thy seed_, compare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal.\n  iii. 16. Again,\n  It is generally agreed, that not only the institution of _sacrifices_,\n  but also the _coats_ of skin, (Gen. iii. 21.) were _emblematic_ of\n  covenant blessings; and not only so, in common with mere types, but\n  _seals_ of the covenant, as earnests and pledges of exhibited favour.\n  \u201cWho will deny,\u201d says Witsius, \u201cthat God\u2019s cloathing our first parents\n  was a _symbolical_ act? Do not Christ\u2019s own words (Rev. iii. 18.) very\n  clearly allude to this?\u201d As for _sacrifices_, they were slain at God\u2019s\n  command after the promulgation of the covenant. For, if Abel _offered\n  by faith_, (Heb xi. 4.) it presupposes the divine _institution_ of\n  them. And this institution, most probably, took place when God\u2014taking\n  occasion from the insufficiency of the aprons of fig-leaves, which the\n  fallen pair sewed together, to cover the shame of their\n  nakedness\u2014himself cloathed them with coats of skins. And most divines\n  agree, that it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts\n  which were slain for _sacrifices_. However, God gave testimony to\n  these oblations of the ancient patriarchs, that they were _acceptable_\n  to him; but this cannot be supposed without admitting them to be\n  _divinely instituted_. Besides, a distinction of _clean_ and _unclean_\n  animals was observed before the deluge; which was not from _nature_,\n  but the mere divine pleasure; and may we not add, with a particular\n  respect to _sacrifices_? Now,\n  If, according to Witsius and others, these _skins of beasts_, and\n  _sacrifices_, were appointed _seals of the righteousness of faith_; I\n  would ask\u2014Was the _covenant_ directed for the use of their _seed in\n  common_ with the parents, and not the _seal_ in like manner? For, if\n  the seals be affixed to the covenant for _confirmation_ of its\n  contents, as well as, in another view, for signification; I would fain\n  know, by what rule of construction we can infer, that the covenant\n  _itself_ belongs to the parents and their seed _in common_, while the\n  _confirmation_ of it belongs _exclusively_ to the former? Is it not\n  contrary to _custom_ and _unreasonable_ to conclude, that a charter of\n  privileges, or a testamentary instrument, (which by the way express\n  the nature of the covenant) belongs to a man and his heirs _alike_,\n  but the confirming seal respects the former _only_; while on the\n  supposition, the sovereign, or the testator, has given _no ground_ for\n  such partiality? Besides,\n  If the covenant itself be a benefit to the persons to whom it is\n  directed, as it certainly is in _every_ dispensation of it, it follows\n  that the _confirmation_ of it is so; for parents, therefore, to _deny_\n  their offspring all the share in such common benefits they are capable\n  of, without a divine warrant, is _unnatural_, and an act of\n  _injustice_. We may therefore conclude\u2014that from Adam to Noah, the\n  _covenant_ and its _seals_ appertained to _infants_ in common with\n  their parents.\n  We appeal next to that period of the church which extended from Noah\n  to Abraham: On which we observe,\n  Whatever benefits and privileges belonged to the former dispensation,\n  continue to flow on to the present, if not _expressly_ repealed; for\n  the change of a dispensation _of itself_, is no adequate cause of\n  their abrogation. That would be as unreasonable as to suppose that the\n  bare change from night to day was, _of itself_, an adequate cause of a\n  man\u2019s being disinherited. Or we may as well say, that the abstract\n  notion of an epoch in chronology has a real influence on the sequence\n  of events. Whatever covenant privileges, therefore, belonged to Noah\n  and his family _before_ the deluge, if not expressly repealed, must\n  belong to them _after_ the deluge. But,\n  So far were these privileges from being abridged at this period, that\n  they were greatly enlarged and confirmed, by additional discoveries.\n  For thus we read, Gen. vi. 18. _But with thee will I establish my\n  covenant; and thou shall come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and\n  thy wife, and thy sons\u2019 wives with thee._ Again, chap. vii. 1. _And\n  the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy house into the ark;\n  for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation._ And\n  again, chap. viii. 20. _And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and\n  took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered\n  burnt-offerings on the altar._ Once more, chap. ix. 8, 9, 12, 13. _And\n  God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold,\n  I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And\n  God said, This is the token of the covenant I do set my bow in the\n  cloud._ Hence we further learn,\n  That the covenant or divine charter, first given to Noah, _included_\n  the preceding; it was the _same covenant_ with _additional grants_:\n  for the Lord says, \u201cI will _establish_ my covenant.\u201d Lest Noah should\n  infer that the drowning of the world in wrath disannulled the well\n  known covenant, God dissipates his fears, by saying, \u201cI will\n  _establish_ my covenant.\u201d\n  On Noah\u2019s _account_, or _as belonging_ to him, _all his house_ or\n  family was privileged. The privilege is,\u2014\u201cCome thou, and _all thy\n  house_ into the ark.\u201d The ground and reason of that privilege\u2014\u201c_for\n  thee have I seen righteous_.\u201d It is true, the natural dictates of\n  reason and affection, whereby a _father pitieth his children_, and\n  whereby an infidel _careth for his own, especially those of his own\n  house_, would have prompted this righteous person to bring _all his\n  family_, (except any adults _refused_ compliance) into the ark, (_the\n  like figure whereunto is baptism_, as an inspired teacher assures us,\n  1 Pet. iii. 21.) yet the Lord was pleased to brighten his evidence and\n  strengthen his obligations of duty by express revelation.\n  After the flood the institution of _sacrifices_ continued as the seal\n  of the _first_ part of the covenant; and the _rainbow_ was instituted\n  as the seal of the _additional_ part, or, as Pareus calls it,\n  \u201c_appendix_ of the covenant of grace.\u201d And here it is worthy of\n  notice, that as the first exhibition of the covenant and its seals\n  respected the offspring of _f\u0153derati_, and the _renewal_ or\n  _establishment_ of it to Noah retained that privilege in full force:\n  so also the _appendix_ of the covenant comprehended his _seed_.\n  Respecting this appendix of the covenant of which the rainbow was the\n  seal, though we suppose, with Witsius, it was not formally and\n  precisely the covenant of grace; yet we observe, with the same\n  excellent author, \u201cit does not seem consistent with the divine\n  perfections, to make such a covenant with every living creature, but\n  on _supposition_ of a covenant of grace, and having a _respect_ to\n  it.\u201d And as this covenant, in its universality, implied the covenant\n  of grace, we are not to deny, but the promises of it were also\n  _sealed_ to Noah and his seed by the rainbow. See Rev. iv. 3. x. 8.\n  It is observable, finally, that Noah his _sons_, and _their seed_ were\n  _f\u0153derati_, in this ratification of the covenant; consequently\n  whatever _seals_ of the covenant belonged to Noah, belonged to _his\n  sons_, and _their seed_, while non-dissentients.\n  Appeal we next to a very important period of sacred history, viz. From\n  Abraham to Moses. On this also we make the following remarks.\n  The Abrahamic covenant _included_ the preceding dispensations, on the\n  general principle\u2014that grants and privileges continue in force until\n  _repealed_. Which repealing, if it be not either _express_, or arise\n  from the nature of the case, in itself _plain_, can have no binding\n  influence, that is to say, no existence at all: except we maintain,\n  that we are _bound_ to resign an important good without an assignable\n  cause; which is in fact to maintain that we ought to _deny_ that to\n  be, which is.\n  I suppose it will be granted, that the _principal blessing_ exhibited\n  in the foregoing dispensations was _the righteousness of faith_; the\n  great importance of which to the human race, in every age of the\n  world, no one will deny who considers things _as they are_. This\n  covenant, therefore, was in force to Abraham _prior_ to what is called\n  the Abrahamic dispensation; and in this connexion we might mention Lot\n  and his family. But, behold,\n  A most explicit ratification of it, with _superadded_ favours, Gen.\n  xii. 3.\u2014_In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And I\n  will_ establish my covenant _between me and thee, and thy_ seed _after\n  thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant_; To be a God\n  unto thee and to thy seed after thee. _ver._ 10. _This is my covenant\n  which ye shall keep between me and you_, and thy seed _after thee_:\n  every man-_child among you shall be_ circumcised, _ver._ 12. _He that\n  is_ eight days old _shall be circumcised among you, every_ man-_child\n  in your generations; he that is born in the house_, or bought with\n  money of any stranger, _which is not of thy seed_. _ver._ 24-27. _And\n  Abraham was_ ninety years old and nine, _when he was circumcised in\n  the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was_ thirteen years\n  old, _when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the_\n  self-same day _was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And_ all\n  the men of his house, _born in the house, and_ bought with money of\n  the stranger, _were circumcised with him_. Hence we learn,\n  The _nature_ and _extent_ of the _Abrahamic covenant or promise_.\n  Whatever _blessings_ are _promised_ to ruined man, must be _in virtue_\n  of the covenant of grace. All promised blessings, therefore, must\n  _imply_ an _exhibition_ of _gospel grace_. And the glad tidings of\n  salvation through Christ preached to the _gentile world_, is expressly\n  called\u2014_The blessing of Abraham_ (Gal. iii. 14.) Not that this _link_\n  is the _first_ in the chain of exhibited mercy to the fallen race _in\n  general_, or with an universal and unlimited aspect, if the reasoning\n  in the last sections be just: but for its _explicitness_, and\n  _precious_ (because expressly diffusive) intendment, it may be justly\n  termed a _golden link_. In this respect Abraham may well be\n  styled\u2014_The Father of us all_; not to the disavowal of Noah, with whom\n  the covenant was before ratified, or Eve, who received the _first_\n  intimation of it, and who in _this_ respect eminently may be\n  called\u2014_The mother of all living_. The _covenant_ of grace, in its\n  external manifestation, containing _an exhibition of exceeding great\n  and precious promises_ to every human being on the face of the globe,\n  to whom providence directs the joyful news, may be compared to a\n  flowing stream: it proceeds ultimately from the immense ocean of\n  sovereign grace in Christ; its _first_ visible source we trace to\n  paradise, where it rises in a small spring, and glides on to Noah.\n  During this part of its progress, there were but few comparatively who\n  participated of its cleansing and healing virtues, though none were\n  debarred from it. This continuing to glide along, without\n  interruption, (notwithstanding God\u2019s awful visitation of a corrupt\n  world by the deluge) we discern through the person of Noah _another_\n  source, whence is poured forth a second stream which empties itself\n  into the former channel. The streams thus _united_ become a river,\n  which flows on to Abraham\u2014a river to which _all_ are invited, but\n  _few_ come, and these made willing by the omnipotent energy of _divine\n  influence_ which observes the laws of another\u2014a _hidden_ dispensation,\n  running parallel as it were with the former; which was also the case\n  in the preceding period. Then, through the highly honoured person of\n  Abraham we behold another mighty spring copiously pouring forth the\n  waters of salvation, and again uniting itself to the former river; and\n  from him to Christ, with a wide majestic flow, it proceeds along the\n  consecrated channel of the Jewish nation; gradually increasing by the\n  accession of other streams, till it arrives at the Saviour\u2019s finished\n  work; where, impatient of confinement, it breaks over its banks on\n  every side, and the healing waters flow to the most distant\n  regions\u2014_That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles_.\n  (Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.)\n  Paul expressly says, that \u201cthe _Gospel_\u201d (even the very same as the\n  New Testament contains\u2014_salvation by Grace_) \u201cwas preached to\n  Abraham:\u201d And (Heb. iv. 2.) it was preached to his unbelieving\n  descendants in the wilderness.\n  As it is _natural_ to expect, that whatever exhibition of privileges\n  the parents enjoyed should be extended to their children, in common\n  with themselves; so we find that _in fact_ they are _expressly\n  included_ in _this_ dispensation as well as the preceding. The\n  covenant is established between God and Abraham\u2019s _seed, in the very\n  same sense_ as with Abraham _himself_; the essence of which is\u2014_to be\n  a God to him and his seed_. And lest it should be objected that the\n  term _seed_ refers to his _adult posterity_ who should tread in his\n  steps, to the exclusion of infants, all doubt is dissipated by the\n  appointment of applying the _seal_ of the covenant in early infancy.\n  _Sacrifices_ continuing in full force to _seal_ the covenant, till the\n  divine oblation should be made; and the _bow_ of the covenant\n  continuing as a token and _seal_ of it, until the Messiah\u2019s _second_\n  coming; at the commencement of this period is given an _additional_\n  seal\u2014_circumcision_. The very _nature_ of the rite shews that all\n  _females_ are excluded from being the subjects of it; as well as the\n  discriminating specification\u2014_every man-child_. Here observe in\n  general, that children, in this rite, have the same privileges as\n  their parents. The males are treated as Abraham, and the females as\n  Sarah: _These_ therefore, had the covenant sealed in the same manner\n  as their honoured mother. Again: though Sarah and her sex were not the\n  _subjects_ of this rite, they were constant _witnesses_ to the\n  institution; and therefore there was an important sense in which\n  circumcision was a seal to Sarah and her daughters; a sense analagous\n  to that in which sacrifices were.\n  Every domestic head being, in truth, a prophet, priest, and king, in\n  his own family; a question must arise, Whether the covenant and its\n  seals are restricted to the parent head of the family, and his\n  children, or else extended to the _other domestics_? Nor would the\n  question be unimportant; for his _instructions_, his _prayers_, and\n  _commands_, answerable to his three-fold office, must be directed\n  accordingly. To this question right reason replies: If the covenant\n  and its seals are _beneficial_ to all capable subjects, benevolence\n  requires that they should be extended to the other _non-dissenting_\n  members\u2014except forbidden by indisputable authority. This is the voice\n  of reason; and we find that this is the voice of God. The privilege is\n  common to the seed, and _to him that is born in the house, or bought\n  with money of any stranger_, which is not of the seed, Gen. xvii. 12.\n  It has been objected, \u201cthat the covenant with Abraham was a covenant\n  of _peculiarity_ only, and that circumcision was no more than a token\n  of _that_ covenant;\u201d but if so, as Mr. Henry observes, \u201chow came it\n  that all _proselytes_, of what nation soever, even _the strangers_,\n  were to be circumcised; though not being of any of the tribes, they\n  had no part or lot in the land of Canaan? The extending the seal of\n  circumcision to _proselyted strangers_, and to _their seed_, was a\n  plain indication, that the New Testament administration of the\n  covenant of grace would reach, not to the covenanters only, but their\n  _seed_.\u201d But it has been proved that circumcision _sealed_ to Abraham\n  and his seed _the righteousness of faith_; and therefore it does not\n  affect the point in debate to contend that temporal promises were\n  sealed _also_.\n  We next appeal to the long and interesting period from Moses to\n  Christ, On which let the following observations be considered.\n  Whatever appertained to the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled by\n  the Mosaic dispensation. This St. Paul asserts in plain terms, Gal.\n  It may not be amiss to take notice, before we proceed, of Job\u2019s\n  family; who, being as is generally supposed, cotemporary with Moses,\n  and unconnected with his history, deserves a previous regard. Of him\n  it is said, that \u201che _sanctified_ his children, and rose up early in\n  the morning, and _offered burnt-offerings_, according to the _number\n  of them all_\u2014Thus did Job _continually_,\u201d or, all the days. (Job i.\n  5.) On this I would only observe, let the _sanctifying_ be what it\n  may, the _sacrifices_ must have been of divine institution; and used\n  by Job, being an eminently righteous man, as the _seals_ of the\n  covenant of grace; with respect to his children _separately_.\n  Superadded to the foregoing seals of the covenant, is the _passover_;\n  a divine rite of the nature of a sacrifice, instituted in memory of\n  Israel\u2019s deliverance out of Egypt, representing and sealing spiritual\n  blessings. \u201cAs to the _guests_, says Witsius, they were, first, all\n  native _Israelites_, who were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For\n  _all the congregation of Israel_ is commanded to solemnize the\n  passover. And, next, the _Proselytes_ circumcised and become Jews;\n  whether bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii.\n  48. _When a_ stranger _will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover\n  to the Lord, let_ all his males _be circumcised, and then let him come\n  near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land_.\u201d\n  On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things;\n  \u201c_First_, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, _all his males_\n  were to be circumcised _as well as himself_, whereby his _children_\n  were admitted into the visible church of God, _in his right_, as their\n  father. _Secondly_, That upon this, he should be _entitled to all the\n  privileges_ and immunities of the Jewish church and nation as well as\n  be subject to the whole law: He should be as one born in the land.\u201d In\n  short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this\n  ordinance, _as soon as they were capable_ of answering the revealed\n  design of it, for\u2014no _positive_ rule was given them on this head, like\n  that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction\n  respected not only individuals of such a description, but also\n  families _as such_, every member without exception had a _legal right_\n  to the ordinance; and nothing prevented _infants_ from a\n  participation, but what lay in the _natural_ incapacity to answer the\n  design of it.\n  \u201cBesides the _ordinary_ and _universal_ sacraments of _circumcision_\n  and the _passover_, some _extraordinary_ symbols of divine grace were\n  granted to the Israelites in the wilderness, which in the New\n  Testament are applied to Christ and his benefits, and said to have the\n  same signification with our sacraments. And they are in order\n  these\u2014The _passage_ in the cloud _through the Red Sea_\u2014the _manna_\n  which was rained from heaven\u2014The _water_ issuing out of the _rock_\u2014and\n  the _brazen serpent_ erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites.\u201d\n  To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred\n  to\u2014the clear and familiar display of the _divine majesty_\u2014and the\n  adumbration of divine mysteries daily _sealed_ by religious\n  _ceremonies_. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these\n  particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for\n  which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly\n  corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the\n  Mosaic in particular\u2014That it is a common dictate of right reason,\n  children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents\u2019\n  privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority\n  contravenes it.\n  From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children\n  being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we\n  conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say,\n  _from the creation to Christ_, it was a rule _universally_ incumbent\n  on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges\n  _equally_ with themselves, according to their capacity.\u2014And as a\n  counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in\n  virtue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were\n  punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were\n  included with them. As might be instanced in\u2014the deluge\u2014the\n  destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah\u2014the case of Achan the Son of Zerah\n  (Josh. vii. 24.)\u2014the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram\u2014the case of\n  the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)\u2014and many more instances,\n  down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to suppose,\n  that the parents\u2019 crimes and impenitence made their suffering children\n  incapable of _mercy_\u2014that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan,\n  and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children,\n  during their _dependence_ on their parents, should share equally with\n  them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise\n  constitution coeval with mankind.\n  DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.\nFootnote 74:\n  Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were\n  christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early\n  baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul.\n  For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be\n  divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be\n  unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to\n  God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers\n  to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of\n  such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy,\n  that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not\n  treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no\n  other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt,\n  that this was the case when both parents were believers.\u2014\u0391\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 &\n  \u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 never mean _illegitimate_ and _legitimate_; and if they did,\n  this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to\n  God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.\nFootnote 75:\n  All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible\n  profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to\n  those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These\n  scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the\n  church-membership of their parents, by which they are not \u201c_unclean_,\u201d\n  1 Cor. vii. 14. but _holy_, entitled to the promises made to the seed\n  of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple _all\n  nations_, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents;\n  and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal\n  baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four\n  hundred years.\nFootnote 76:\n  It may be objected, \u201cIf the preceding account be true, that baptism is\n  not an institution _merely positive_, as much so as any enacted under\n  the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions\n  at all of that kind.\u201d This objection supposes,\n  1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation,\n  were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any\n  thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the\n  discharge of the duty enjoined.\u2014But if these things were so, if the\n  Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by\n  inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many _Targums_\n  and _Talmuds_, so many voluminous works intended to explain and\n  illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of\n  these _positive duties_ among others. Are not these _unprescribed\n  circumstances_ of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what\n  in a great degree swell the interpretations of the _Rabbins_?\u2014The\n  truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy\n  positive in a _considerable degree_, relative to the _subject_ as well\n  as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was\n  sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but\n  it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as\n  not to take some things for _granted_ respecting the circumstances of\n  the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and\n  reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of\n  nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of\n  the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a\n  _sensible manner_, which qualification was to be determined by the\n  same sort of evidence as any _facts_ in common life; but the\n  administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed\n  on; his commission is of a _discretionary_ nature, arising from the\n  nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.\n  2. The objection again supposes, that there is some _excellency_ in an\n  institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of\n  a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what\n  conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on\n  account of its _positiveness_? Were there any force in the objection,\n  it would imply that the Christian dispensation is _less excellent_\n  than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion\n  of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the\n  reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of\n  nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were _less\n  excellent_ than baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper; and it would follow,\n  that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature\n  _less excellent_ than those of the church militant; which are\n  consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and\n  absurd. Our Lord\u2019s answer respecting the first and great commandment,\n  shews at once that what is the most _important_ duty, is also the most\n  _natural_, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive;\n  and that is the _love of God_. This matter has been fully shewn\n  before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.\n  Some may perhaps object, \u201cthat this has been always admitted as true,\n  that baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper are positive institutions of the\n  New Testament; and that many p\u00e6dobaptists have availed themselves of\n  this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of\n  the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship\u2019s\n  principle, in his _Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\n  Supper_, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and\n  others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.\u201d To\n  this I reply,\n  That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn\n  sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the\n  other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester\u2019s positions, taken\n  in a sound sense, nay, the _only_ consistent sense in which they can\n  be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all\n  positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend\n  entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or\n  ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and\n  consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly\n  true, _in the degree that any duties are positive_, but no further.\n  And to denominate a precept or duty _positive_, though but _partially_\n  so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such\n  as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of\n  things. \u201cExcept we observe this caution,\u201d as bishop Butler observes,\n  \u201cwe shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.\u201d\n  It may be said, \u201cIf we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or\n  duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a\n  door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary\n  barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.\u201d In reply to this\n  specious objection let it be observed,\n  1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is\n  a very _insufficient_ barrier for the defence of truth, if the\n  objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against\n  error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that\n  there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the\n  distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not\n  barricadoed by this very maxim. If _Protestants_ use it against\n  Papists, _Papists_ in their turn use it against Protestants. If the\n  Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort,\n  they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching\n  themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious.\n  Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to\n  all _forensic_ swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers\u2019\n  nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful?\n  Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of\n  conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the\n  observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd\n  figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme\n  unction? &c.\u2014On the contrary,\n  2. Not to distinguish between the _positiveness_ and _morality_ of a\n  precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective\n  _degrees_; and to deny that the _latter_ distinction admits of moral\n  reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to _bigotry_, and\n  numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the\n  analogy of faith and the _design_ of scripture herein, we give the\n  most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is\n  still more remarkable is, that the _more firmly_ any one adheres to\n  the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian\n  ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest\n  of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the\n  unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, _essential_ to the rite\n  itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which\n  the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the\n  antip\u00e6dobaptist\u2019s cause, will be further considered.\u2014The doctrine that\n  teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions\n  _as such_, or in the _degree_ they are so, is just and proper, as\n  founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the\n  Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service\n  in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the\n  principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into\n  the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and\n  uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. \u201cFor who are\n  most likely to put weapons into the hands of _infidels_; they, who\n  seem to discard _reason_ in the investigation of truth, or they, whose\n  researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most\n  rational decisions?\u2014They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived\n  notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common\n  sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a _coalition_ of\n  scripture and right reason?\u201d Once more,\n  3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.\u2019s favourite maxim, and tends\n  to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence\n  with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to\n  discard, do our opponents retain _some_ of the positive rites of the\n  New Testament and reject _others_? Why regard _baptism_ and the\n  _eucharist_ as of standing obligation; while the _pedilavium_ and\n  _feasts of charity_ (the _former_ enjoined expressly by our Lord, and\n  _both_ practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii.\n  14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance?\n  Why receive _females_ to communion, or adopt the _first_ day of the\n  week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in\n  these matters, these circumstances of _positive_ institutions, without\n  undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath,\n  indeed, the antip\u00e6dobaptists are divided among themselves; while some\n  are content with the _first_ day of the week, others observe the\n  _seventh_. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr.\n  Addington appeals to an objecting antip\u00e6dobaptist, \u201cwhether he does\n  not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian\n  sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, _Remember\n  the first day of the week to keep it holy_?\u201d To this the Dr. replies,\n  \u201cThere is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can\n  say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New\n  Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment,\n  and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think\n  myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.\u201d If\n  the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is\n  consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the\n  christian world; if _not_, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy\n  and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system,\n  which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse\n  consequences.\n  Another objection much insisted on is, \u201cIf our Lord has left any thing\n  to be _inferred_ relative to the _subject_ and _mode_ of baptism,\n  being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself\n  _expressly_ and _clearly_ in every thing, respecting the question\n  _who_ are to be baptized, and the manner _how_; it implies a reflexion\n  on his wisdom and goodness.\u201d But this objection is impertinent on\n  different accounts. For,\n  1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was\n  somehow _obliged_ to make his will known to men by _one_ method only.\n  But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely\n  dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having\n  to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with\n  the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of\n  information to _one_ source only, to the exclusion of all others? That\n  his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of\n  _sense_, to the exclusion of _reason_ and _analogy_? Or what should we\n  say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a\n  miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because\n  he did not appeal to _one_ sense only of his dependent and unworthy\n  creatures, that of _seeing_, for instance, to the exclusion of that of\n  _hearing_? The answer is plain, and the application easy.\n  2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to\n  the former: it unreasonably requires _positive_ evidence for what is\n  discoverable by _other_ means. It is demonstrable, and I think has\n  been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism\n  (the _mode_ also will be examined in its place) is what cannot\n  possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must\n  be resolved to the _discretionary_ nature of the commission, or the\n  supposed _wisdom_ and _prudence_ of the administrators, in common with\n  other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an\n  _audience_, the choice of a concionatory _subject_, &c. Preach the\n  _gospel_ to _every creature_, is a part of the commission, but the\n  execution has no _positive_ rule. Nor does this commission of\n  preaching the _gospel_ prohibit preaching the _law_, for a lawful use,\n  or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.\u2019s excluding\n  standard, that \u201cpositive laws imply their negatives.\u201d In like manner,\n  the commission to baptize _believers_, and the _taught_, we contend\n  and prove, does not mean to include _all sorts_ of believers and\n  taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit,\n  according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we\n  further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms\n  of the commission, _believers_ and _taught_, stand _opposed_, not to\n  _non-believers_ and _untaught_, but to _unbelievers_ and persons\n  _perversely ignorant_. What, therefore, falls _necessarily_ to the\n  province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a\n  positive standard.\n  3. The objection implies an _ungrateful_ reflexion on the Institutor\u2019s\n  wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this\n  it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of\n  reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent\n  Creator has given us\u2014his _goodness_, in not suspending their\n  operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances\n  of positive duties\u2014his _wisdom_, in grafting what is positive of his\n  laws on these common principles\u2014and finally, the favourable\n  circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New\n  Testament institutions, as well as their number.\n  Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter\u2014From an\n  investigation of the _nature_ of positive precepts and duties, as\n  distinguished from _moral_ ones, together with their _comparative_\n  obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of\n  supposed competition, the _latter_ claims an undoubted _preference_.\n  We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, _discernible\n  authority_ can turn the scale in favor of the _former_, or, indeed,\n  place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been\n  shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible _moral\n  relation_, must needs be classed among _moral duties_; that some\n  things appertaining to the very _essence_ of baptism, on our\n  opponents\u2019 own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly\n  the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is\n  an ordinance of a _mixed nature_, partly positive and partly moral. Of\n  all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents\u2019 outcry\n  against all _moral_ and _analogical reasons_ in our enquiries\n  respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and\n  absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed\n  principles.\n  DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.\nFootnote 77:\n   The commission to disciples _baptizing all nations_ is both a\n  positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such\n  as are themselves discipled.\nFootnote 78:\nFootnote 79:\n  _Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II._\nFootnote 80:\n  _Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii._\nFootnote 81:\n  _Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix._\nFootnote 82:\n  _Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl._\nFootnote 83:\n  _Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii.\n  parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem univers\u00e6\n  ecclesi\u00e6 proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non\n  possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning\n  infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc\n  ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit:\n  hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit._\nFootnote 84:\n  _Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii._\nFootnote 85:\n  It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, _where_ the\n  _mode_ of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, _there\n  infant-baptism_ has been the most generally practised, and _there_ the\n  _mode_ of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore,\n  of finding _all_ these people Baptists, but _very few, if any_, of\n  that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was\n  himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, \u201cthat all christians in the\n  world, _who never owned the pope\u2019s authority_, do now, and ever did,\n  dip their infants, in the ordinary use.\u201d They always baptized their\n  infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they,\n  occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use;\n  but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who _were never\n  under the influence of popery_, appears to have been _universal_, both\n  in ancient and modern times.\n  We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants\u2019 right to baptism upon\n  historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in\n  this respect. However, if it should appear, that the churches, soon\n  after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents\n  to baptism\u2014if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected\n  them\u2014if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice\n  was unlawful, or an innovation\u2014these facts will certainly furnish a\n  very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.\n  Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those\n  christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the\n  apostles, must have known what _their_ practice was, with reference to\n  the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient\n  writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of\n  fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It\n  is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of\n  infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago,\n  by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is\n  highly approved and recommended by the best judges, being a work of\n  great merit, candour and impartiality.\n  On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general\n  convention, \u201c_ordered_, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr.\n  Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he\n  hath lately written concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be\n  appointed to acquaint him with the same.\u201d Dr. Atterbury, a leading\n  member in said convention, says, \u201cthat the history of infant-baptism\n  was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not of the\n  English clergy alone, but of all the Christian churches.\u201d Mr. Whiston\n  also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the\n  Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his\n  address to the people of that denomination, declares to them, \u201cthat\n  Dr. Wall\u2019s history of _infant-baptism_, as to facts, appeared to him\n  most accurately done, and might be depended on by the Baptists\n  themselves.\u201d _Mem. of his life_, part 2, page 461.\n  The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author\n  has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two\n  former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In\n  these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings\n  of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which\n  I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.\n  Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age,\n  says, \u201cWe have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by\n  baptism. And it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same\n  way.\u201d He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of\n  circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for\n  infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the\n  christians, he observes, \u201cSeveral persons among us, of sixty or\n  seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their\n  childhood, do continue uncorrupt.\u201d\u2014_Who were made disciples._\u2014Take\n  notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the\n  commission given to the apostles. _Disciple all nations, baptizing\n  them_, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were\n  undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension\n  of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and\n  consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.\n  Iren\u00e6us, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was\n  then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, \u201che came to save all\n  persons who by him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, _infants_,\n  little ones, youths and elderly persons.\u201d He speaks of _infants_ and\n  _little ones_ as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words\n  that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, \u201cWhen Christ\n  gave his apostles the command of _regenerating_ unto God, he said, go\n  and teach all nations _baptizing_ them.\u201d The ancient Fathers as\n  customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of\n  England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and\n  testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular\n  persons who had been baptized, says, \u201cthey are regenerated in the same\n  way of regeneration, in which we have been regenerated, for they are\n  _washed with water in the_ name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\n  _the Holy Ghost_.\u201d In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or\n  regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times.\n  It is a matter of _no_ importance in the present dispute, whether the\n  primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We\n  certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the\n  information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz.\n  that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for\n  the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic\n  covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and\n  circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the\n  covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and\n  regeneration, for baptism.\n  We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing\n  the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ.\n  They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the\n  children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by\n  regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular\n  occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus,\n  _except one be born again\u2014except he be born of water and of the\n  Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God_. By this new birth, Christ\n  evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing\n  of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, _the washing of\n  regeneration_. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by\n  regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of\n  internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Iren\u00e6us expressly\n  calls baptism regeneration, and says that _infants_ were\n  _regenerated_, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and\n  cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and\n  writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths,\n  but also little ones, and even infants. This Iren\u00e6us was bishop of\n  Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the\n  death of St. John\u2014was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived\n  and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years,\n  had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John\u2019s disciple, had been\n  chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna\u2014and probably that angel of the\n  church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Iren\u00e6us, and\n  those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a\n  place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be\n  ignorant\u2014they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with\n  respect to infant-baptism\u2014a matter of the most notorious and public\n  nature.\n  Dr. Lathrop observes, \u201cthat Tertullian, who flourished about one\n  hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the\n  church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises\n  to _delay_ their baptism; not because it was _unlawful_, for he allows\n  of it in cases of necessity; but because the _sponsors_ were often\n  brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed\n  _after baptism_, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises\n  that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either\n  marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay,\n  supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would\n  have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an\n  _innovation_, which he would certainly have done, had it _begun_ to\n  have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary.\n  His speaking of _sponsors_, who engaged for the education of the\n  infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom.\n  And his asking, \u2018why that innocent age _made such haste_ to baptism,\u2019\n  supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their\n  birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the _fact_, that it had\n  been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to\n  delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of\n  those odd and singular notions for which this father was very\n  remarkable.\u201d\n  This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by\n  Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of\n  abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His\n  integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted,\n  he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed\n  perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm\n  imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different\n  subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that\n  was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended\n  that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not\n  disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of\n  invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.\n  Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who _mentions_\n  infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come\n  into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies,\n  \u201cSo he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of\n  unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as\n  earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past;\n  till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow,\n  that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the\n  church till Tertullian\u2019s time? Or that it then first began to be in\n  use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion,\n  as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice\n  against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common\n  practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against\n  infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more\n  profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and\n  were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he\n  does not like the anti-p\u00e6dobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he\n  would have done, if it had been a novel practice\u2014an innovation,\n  contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or\n  direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of\n  necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of\n  saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned\n  infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was\n  the _only man_, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us,\n  who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing\n  infants.\u201d The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that\n  infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that\n  the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the\n  apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of\n  delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered,\n  are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient\n  fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and\n  incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in\n  his times.\n  Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was\n  for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on\n  Levit. 12, observes, \u201cDavid, speaking concerning the pollution of\n  infants, says, _I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother\n  bring me forth_. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas\n  the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by\n  the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in\n  infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism\n  would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the\n  remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can\n  any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that\n  sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life\n  be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason\n  that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our\n  pollution is taken away.\u201d In another treatise, he says, \u201cthe church\n  had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to\n  infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew\n  that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which\n  ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which\n  pollution, the body itself is also called _the body of sin_, &c. &c.\u201d\n  These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the\n  matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be\n  given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited.\n  It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in\n  the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and\n  authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by\n  Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers.\n  None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.\n  I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have made\n  an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from the apostles,\n  mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more policy and popularity\n  in your remarks, than real weight. It will not do for us to turn those\n  weapons against the ancient Fathers and holy apostles, which the\n  protestants have used with so much success, in their disputes with the\n  Papists.\n  Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2 Thess.\n  ii. 15. \u201cTherefore, brethren, _stand fast, and hold the traditions_\n  which ye have been taught, whether _by word_, or our epistle.\u201d And in\n  the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, \u201cNow we _command_ you, brethren, in\n  the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from\n  every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the _tradition_\n  which he received of us.\u201d So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse.\n  \u201cNow I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and\n  keep the _ordinances_ (the _traditions_, paradoseis) as I delivered\n  them to you.\u201d The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances,\n  which he calls _traditions_. The original word signifies _traditions_,\n  and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited\n  passages.\n  Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner\u2014_in the name of Christ_,\n  the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, _to hold and keep\n  the_ traditions\u2014not merely such as had been written by the pen of\n  inspiration, but also those which were delivered to them _by word_, or\n  in an oral and verbal manner, and with particular reference to the\n  rules and ordinances of the gospel. The traditions and commandments of\n  mere men, which pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But\n  those traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which\n  were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians\u2014recorded\n  and authenticated by the ancient Fathers\u2014and transmitted down to us,\n  by the faithful historian.\n  Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was practised in\n  his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen was certainly a\n  competent witness; and he had every opportunity, and advantage for\n  knowing what had been the practice of his predecessors and even of the\n  apostles. Many of the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended\n  from heathen parents; and being the first of their family who embraced\n  christianity, must have been baptized when adults. But Origen was one\n  of the most learned men of the age. He was born and educated at\n  Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled into Rome, and Greece, and\n  Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided for some time in several of the most\n  eminent churches, and spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and\n  Palestine. His ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his\n  forefathers had been christians, for several generations. His father\n  was martyred, in the persecution under Severus.\n  It is very remarkable, that his pedigree should have been so\n  accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a great enemy\n  to christianity, had represented the christians as being an ignorant\n  people, destitute of science; but not being able to conceal the repute\n  of Origen, for his uncommon skill in human literature, pretended that\n  he had been at first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In\n  order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry,\n  and set forth his christian descent.\n  Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-five\n  years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when his father\n  suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly, been baptized in his\n  infancy; and must have been informed concerning the practice of the\n  apostles, respecting the baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or\n  at least his great-grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they\n  both were christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared,\n  that infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was\n  directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize them.\n  His circumstances were such as afforded him all the necessary and\n  suitable means for obtaining information. We have no reason to suspect\n  his credibility as a witness; and nothing can be more unreasonable,\n  than to reject or treat his testimony with contempt. It is a\n  circumstance worthy of our _very particular notice_, that Origen and\n  the other ancient Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a\n  practice that was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a\n  practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of\n  illustrating and confirming other points that were then disputed.\n  I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr Cyprian, who\n  was for some time contemporary with Origen; and next to him, the most\n  noted Christian writer of that age. Cyprian was constituted bishop or\n  minister of Carthage, in the year 248, and Origen died in the year\n  252. The testimony of this ancient saint, to which I now have an\n  immediate reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by\n  one Fidus, a _presbyter_, or minister in the country, viz. Whether _an\n  infant might be baptized before he was eight days old_? The reason of\n  his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law respecting\n  circumcision, which, under the Old Testament dispensation, required\n  that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day from their birth.\n  Pursuant to the aforesaid question, an ecclesiastical council of\n  sixty-six bishops, having convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian\n  proposed a resolution of the following import, viz. \u201cthat an infant\n  might be baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its\n  birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite, had\n  something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the\n  circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at\n  the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual\n  circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus restricted, with\n  respect to the age or time of administration.\u201d To this resolution the\n  council agreed unanimously; as it appears from the testimony of\n  Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus, from which I shall extract a few\n  paragraphs, in order to show the sentiments of those venerable and\n  ancient saints relative to infant-baptism.\u2014The inscription is as\n  follows:\n  \u201cCyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in council,\n  in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,\n  \u201cGreeting.\n  \u201cAs to the case of infants, whereas _you judge that they must not be\n  baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the\n  law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed; so that you think\n  none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth day after\n  their birth_; we were all in our assembly of a quite different\n  opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that which you thought\n  fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind. But all of us\n  rather judged, that the grace and mercy of God is not to be denied to\n  any person born. For whereas our Lord in his gospel, _the Son of Man\n  came not to destroy men\u2019s souls_ (or lives) _but to save them_.\u2014That\n  the eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish circumcision,\n  was a type going before in a shadow, or resemblance, but on Christ\u2019s\n  coming was fulfilled in the substance; for because the eighth day,\n  that is the next after the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the\n  Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the\n  spiritual circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the\n  Sabbath, or the Lord\u2019s day, went before in the type, which type ceased\n  when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to\n  us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered from obtaining the\n  grace, (that is _of baptism_) by the law which is now established; and\n  that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained by the\n  circumcision which was according to the flesh; but that all are to be\n  admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of\n  the apostles, says, _the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be\n  called common or unclean_. This, therefore, dear brother, was our\n  opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person\n  from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind,\n  and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think\n  it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants, and\n  those that are newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is\n  rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their\n  first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as\n  that they implore compassion,\u201d &c.\n  Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares\n  expressly, \u201cthat infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the\n  time of the apostles.\u201d\n  Saint Chrysostom observes, \u201cthat persons may be baptized either in\n  their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.\u201d\u2014He tells us, infants\n  were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the\n  cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.\u2014Saint Hierome says,\n  \u201cif infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid\n  to the parent\u2019s charge.\u201d\u2014Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time,\n  about 280 years after the apostles, speaks \u201cof infant-baptism as one\n  of those practices which was not _instituted by any council_, but had\n  _always_ been in use.\u201d The _whole church of Christ_, he informs us,\n  _had constantly held_ that infants were baptized for the forgiveness\n  of sin.\u2014That he \u201chad _never read or heard_ of _any Christian,\n  Catholic_ or _sectary_, who held otherwise.\u201d\u2014\u201cThat no christian, of\n  any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.\u201d \u201cIf any one,\u201d\n  saith he, \u201cshould ask for divine authority in this matter, though\n  that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been\n  instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very\n  reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we\n  may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism\n  does avail infants, by the circumcision which God\u2019s former people\n  received.\u201d\n  No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or\n  against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings,\n  they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing\n  on some other subject.\u2014They mention it as a general practice of\n  universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to\n  confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that\n  were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from\n  the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would\n  unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will\n  therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and\n  conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the\n  well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which\n  happened about three hundred years after the apostles.\n  Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful\n  defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint\n  Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all\n  their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. \u201c_That\n  infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of\n  baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no\n  other_.\u201d \u201cIf they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according\n  to the rule of the church, _for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they\n  washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?_\u201d\n  Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were\n  extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not\n  how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in\n  greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the\n  supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as\n  a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the\n  slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused\n  falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which\n  Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, \u201c_that baptism ought to be administered\n  to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case\n  of adult persons_.\u201d\u2014He vindicates himself in the strongest terms,\n  saying, \u201c_that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of\n  baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any\n  person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never\n  heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a\n  thing of infants_.\u201d Now these difficulties would have been instantly\n  removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been\n  demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized.\n  But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this\n  doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the\n  incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of\n  infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, \u201cthat infants were to be\n  baptized according to the _rule of the universal church_.\u201d\n  One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in\n  Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world\n  and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at\n  Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of\n  Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or\n  a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the\n  two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned,\n  sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they\n  would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their\n  opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all\n  others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no\n  society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that\n  denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and\n  Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all\n  reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and\n  had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic\n  times.\n  Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with\n  the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject\n  of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both\n  sides, in the following words: \u201cLastly, for the first four hundred\n  years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the _delay_\n  of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did _perhaps_\n  practise such _delay_ in the case of his own children; but no society\n  of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was\n  unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there\n  is not so much as _one_ man to be found, who either spoke for or\n  practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the\n  year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against\n  the baptizing of infants, _as being incapable of salvation_, the main\n  body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held\n  that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no\n  more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the\n  German anti-p\u00e6dobaptists in the year 1522.\u201d\n  REED\u2019S APOLOGY.\nFootnote 86:\n  _See Wall\u2019s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86._\nFootnote 87:\n  _They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de\n  baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v.\n  and Wall\u2019s history of infant-baptism, vol. I._\nFootnote 88:\n  See Dr. Owen\u2019s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of\n  dipping; in which he observes, that \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, when used in these\n  scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to _dip_;\n  and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a _vesture dipped in blood_; it\n  is better rendered _stained_, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all\n  these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not\n  plunging. In other authors, it signifies, _tingo_, _immergo_, _lavo_,\n  _abluo_; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order\n  to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc,\n  rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7b\u03bd\u03c9, _to stain by\n  sprinkling_, or otherwise mostly by \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9: In 2 Kings v. 14. they\n  render it by \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands\n  Naaman to _wash_; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it\n  is said, he _dipped himself seven times_; the word is \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05d1\u05dc; which the\n  LXX. render \u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc is\n  used, which we render _dip_, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch\n  of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9: And, in\n  I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in\n  an honey-comb; the word here is also \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05d1\u05dc, and the LXX. render it\n  \u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by\n  plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said\n  to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the\n  blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.\n  This learned author likewise observes, that \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 signifies to wash;\n  as instances out of all authors may be given; and he particularly\n  mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and Phavorinus and\n  Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first used in the\n  scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same purpose, Acts i.\n  5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the expression is\n  equivocal; _I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with\n  the Holy Ghost_: which is an accomplishment of that promise, that _the\n  Holy Ghost should be poured on them_. As for other places, in Mark\n  vii. 2. 4. \u03bd\u1f77\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, which signifies to _wash_, and is so translated, is\n  explained in the words immediately following, as signifying _to\n  baptize_. And, in Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled\n  that our Saviour had not _washed before dinner_: The word in the Greek\n  is \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, to whom he replies in the following verse, _Ye Pharisees\n  make clean the outside_, &c. so that the word, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 signifies there\n  to _cleanse_, or to use the means of cleansing.\n  He also observes, that though the original and natural signification\n  of the word imports, to _dip_, to _plunge_, to _dye_; yet it also\n  signifies to _wash_ or _cleanse_: Nevertheless, he thinks that it is\n  so far from signifying nothing else but to _dip_ or _plunge_, that\n  when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought to be\n  \u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u1f71\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, or \u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, rather than \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, or \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u1f77\u03b6\u03c9; and also that it\n  no where signifies to _dip_, but as denoting a mode of, and in order\n  to washing; and that it signifies to _wash_, in all good authors. He\n  also refers to Scapula and Stephanus, as translating the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\n  by _lavo_, or _abluo_; and Suidas, as rendering it by _madefacio_,\n  _lavo_, _abluo_, _purgo_, _mundo_: And he speaks of some authors, that\n  he had searched in every place wherein they mention baptism, and that\n  he found not one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he\n  was obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man,\n  who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to\n  _wash_, as well as to _dip_.[89]\nFootnote 89:\n  Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a\n  remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water\n  was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as\n  follows:\u2014St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires\n  thus of the Pharisees; \u201cHow could you think that Elias, when he should\n  come, would _baptize_, who did not in Ahab\u2019s time _baptize_ the wood\n  upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the\n  Lord\u2019s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not\n  once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the\n  second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time.\n  Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then\n  _baptize_, but assigned that work to others, would himself _baptize_,\n  when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear\n  here on earth?\u201d\n  We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by\n  Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and _pour_ it on the wood\n  and on the burnt offering. This _pouring of water_, Origen, that\n  accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well\n  acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls\n  baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word\n  _Baptizo_ four times; twice with express reference to the _Baptism_ of\n  John; and twice with express reference to that _Baptism_ which took\n  place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are\n  expressly told, was not performed by _dipping_ the wood and sacrifice\n  into water, but by _pouring_ water upon them.\n  It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by\n  heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion.\n  Mr. Walker tells us, \u201cthat Porphyrie mentions a river in India, into\n  which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is\n  immediately _baptized_ up to his head:\u201d (_baptizetai mechri\n  Kephales_.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head\n  did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not\n  a total immersion.\n  \u201cHe also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the\n  oracle (viz. _askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti_.\u201d) In which\n  instance, if _dunai_ signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it\n  certainly does, then _baptize_ must signify something less than a\n  total immersion.\u2014\u201c_Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to\n  plunge him wholly under the water._\u201d The baptism here described,\n  resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put\n  into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.\n  The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii\u2019s and\n  Robertson\u2019s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word\n  _bapto_ signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and\n  very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is\n  this. (\u201c_Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote._\u201d) \u201c_He indeed\n  baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid\n  water._\u201d\n  To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem\n  attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in\n  which the lake is said to be _baptized_ by the blood of a frog.\n  (_Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo._) This lake was not _dipped_\n  into the blood of a frog; it was only _bespattered_ and tinged\n  therewith.\n  We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears\n  undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers\n  and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word _baptizo_ has\n  other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.\n  The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have\n  often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz.\n  _baptizo_, _mergo_, _immergo_, _tingo_, _intingo_, _lave_, _abluo_,\n  _madefacio_, _purgo_, _mundo_. No one, I presume, will pretend that\n  all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous\u2014of the\n  same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any\n  thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be\n  baptized in some other mode.\n  Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles,\n  to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and\n  the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have\n  selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and\n  definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the\n  mode of _sprinkling_, they might have used the word _Rantizo_; if the\n  mode of _pouring_, they might have used the word _Ekcheo_; if that\n  mode of _bathing_ or _washing_, which is performed by the application\n  of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word\n  _Louo_; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of\n  _dipping_, they might have used the word _Dupto_ or _Duno_, &c.\n  REED\u2019S APOLOGY.\nFootnote 90:\n  \u1f18\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03ba.\nFootnote 91:\n  \u1f18\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0398\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\nFootnote 92:\n  \u1f18\u03ba.\nFootnote 93:\n  _If any one has a mind to see how these particles \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03ba, are used\n  in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2 and\n  \u1f10\u03ba, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these\n  words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial\n  reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out\n  of; but rather to, or from._\nFootnote 94:\n  \u0393\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ba \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1.\nFootnote 95:\n  _See Lightfoot\u2019s works, Vol. I. Page 500._\nFootnote 96:\n  In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed, in\n  different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse 11. \u201cIn\n  whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision, _made without\n  hands_, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the\n  circumcision of Christ.\u201d That is, in putting off the old man, you are\n  circumcised without hands; the work is effected by the Holy Spirit\u2014You\n  are born again, which is spiritual circumcision. \u201cCircumcision is that\n  of the _heart_.\u201d This renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting\n  off the body of sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we\n  are \u201cburied with him in baptism.\u201d As the burial of Jesus Christ gave\n  evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that he\n  had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual\n  circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves to be\n  really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As Christ,\n  when buried, was dead and separated from the world; so in regeneration\n  we become separate from sin. We are new creatures, having put off the\n  old man. We are buried from the wicked indulgences and pursuits of the\n  world.\n  The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only causes,\n  but types and symbols to represent the death of our sins, our putting\n  off the old man, and becoming new creatures.\n  No reference is made in the text to the water of baptism, any more\n  than to the knife of circumcision in the preceding verse. The writer\n  is speaking of that baptism, and of that alone, in which we \u201care risen\n  with Christ, through the faith, which is the operation of God.\u201d This\n  certainly can be nothing less than _spiritual_ baptism, or\n  regeneration; for the most violent advocate for dipping, or plunging,\n  or burying, will not pretend, that this, necessarily, is connected\n  with \u201cfaith;\u201d he will allow it may be _possible_ for a man to be\n  plunged and buried in _water_, and yet not have \u201cthe faith, which is\n  the operation of God.\u201d If he allow this, and allow this he must and\n  will, then our text is no support of his cause. It cannot be water\n  baptism which is mentioned.\n  Were not this the fact, nothing could be inferred respecting the\n  _mode_ of baptism. It would then only signify that, as Christ was\n  buried and separated from the world; so we in baptism are buried and\n  separated from a world of sin. The zeal for the literal construction\n  of this figure may, perhaps, be extinguished by indulging it in other\n  instances. St. Paul says, \u201cI am crucified with Christ.\u201d Would any\n  person suppose from this, that he had been led to Calvary, nailed to\n  the cross, and pierced by the soldier\u2019s spear? Christians are said to\n  be \u201ccircumcised in Christ.\u201d Does any one infer from this that all\n  Christians experience the bloody rite of the Jews? Or, because\n  Christians \u201care partakers of Christ\u2019s sufferings,\u201d are all christians,\n  therefore, betrayed by Judas, spit upon, buffeted, and crowned with\n  thorns? Or, because St. Paul says the Philippians were his \u201c_crown_,\u201d\n  were they, therefore, formed into a crown of honor, and worn as a\n  badge of future glory? Or, because the sacrament represents the\n  sufferings and death of Christ, are all worthy communicants crucified?\n  Were our baptist brethren consistent with themselves, such would be\n  their explanation of these passages of scripture.\n  It immediately follows our text; \u201cwherein also you were risen with him\n  through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from\n  the dead.\u201d Wherein, or in which baptism \u201cwe are risen,\u201d actually\n  \u201crisen with Christ by the faith\u201d which God gives to the new creature.\n  You, who have this spiritual baptism, rise like Christ above the\n  selfish motives, and sensual pursuits of a fallen world. You seek the\n  kingdom of God; you aspire after divine good.\n  Persons, born again, like Jesus Christ, separate their hearts from the\n  world, and rise to a divine life. That this is the only true\n  construction of the text, may be inferred from a corresponding\n  passage, Rom. vi. 4. \u201cTherefore we are buried with him by baptism into\n  death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of\n  the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.\u201d By\n  spiritual baptism we partake the privileges of Christ\u2019s death. By\n  dying to sin ourselves, as we do in the new birth, we resemble Jesus\n  Christ in his death, who died \u201cto make an end of sin.\u201d As Christ was\n  raised from the grave; so we, not in water baptism, but in\n  regeneration or spiritual baptism, are \u201craised\u201d to walk in newness of\n  life. Old things are done away; _all_ things are become new. If we\n  have experienced this spiritual baptism, we shall have the Spirit of\n  Christ, We shall be separate from the world of sin, as Christ was in\n  the grave, and we shall like him rise to a holy, a new life. We obey a\n  new master, seek a new way of salvation, act from new motives, to\n  accomplish new designs; we choose new companions, experience new\n  sorrows, and new joys. As if buried, we are separate from our former\n  lives.\n  St. John says, \u201cHe [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and\n  with _fire_.\u201d The Selucians and Hermians understood this literally,\n  and maintained that material fire was necessary in the administration\n  of baptism. Valentinus, like our baptists, rebaptized those, who had\n  received baptism out of the sect, and _drew them through the fire_.\n  Herculian, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, says that some applied a red\n  hot iron to the ears of the baptized. St. Paul says, we are buried\n  with Christ in baptism. This also has been understood literally; but\n  such persons forget that to be consistent, on their plan, they should\n  continue \u201cburied\u201d three days and three nights, the time Christ lay in\n  the earth. Should any object that this would drown them, the baptist,\n  in his way of treating figures, would have an easy answer, and readily\n  prove that drowning was the very design of baptism. Rom. vi. 4. \u201cWe\n  are buried with him by baptism into his death.\u201d We are not merely\n  buried, for this is only a part, any more than sprinkling; but we are\n  buried to death, \u201cburied into his death.\u201d Thus he has scripture for\n  drowning all whom he baptizes, and precisely as much scripture for\n  drowning, as for burying. The very same passage, might he say, which\n  commands burying, commands drowning, commands \u201cdeath.\u201d\n  In the present mode of plunging, the resemblance is almost entirely\n  lost. What is the difference between laying a dead body in a rock,\n  covering it with a great stone; sealing it in a solemn manner; all\n  things continuing in this state, three days and three nights, what is\n  the resemblance between this, and suddenly plunging a living body into\n  water, and instantly lifting it out of the water? What possible\n  likeness is there between a _living person_ in the _water_, and a\n  _dead body_ in a _rock_? The similitude is little better than that of\n  the blind man, who supposed the light of the sun was like the noise of\n  a cannon. We have accordingly endeavoured to show in the introduction,\n  that the elegant scholar, the christian orator of Tarsus, had no\n  thought of any such resemblance; his object was to show, that in\n  regeneration or spiritual baptism, which is followed \u201cwith newness of\n  life,\u201d or, a new life, \u201cthrough faith which is the operation of God,\u201d\n  we are dead and buried to sin, and raised or made alive to God, as\n  Christ was. The evident design of the text is to illustrate the\n  preceding verse, which speaks of spiritual circumcision made without\n  hands. This _baptism_ is that by which we are _raised with Christ_;\n  but in water baptism we are not always raised with Christ. If men are\n  plunged they may generally be raised from the water; but this has no\n  necessary connexion with \u201crising with Christ.\u201d This baptism is also\n  effected \u201cthrough faith which is the operation of God;\u201d but a man may\n  be raised out of an ocean of water, every day of his life, and remain\n  destitute of faith; therefore, the text has no reference to water\n  baptism.\n  REV. E. PARISH\u2019S SERMON.\n    QUEST. CLXVII. _How is baptism to be improved by us?_\n    ANSW. The needful, but much neglected duty of improving our baptism,\n    is to be performed by us all our life long; especially in the time\n    of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it\n    to others, by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of\n    it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges\n    and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made\n    therein, by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling\n    short of, and walking contrary to the grace of baptism and our\n    engagements, by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all\n    other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament, by drawing strength\n    from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are\n    baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace, and by\n    endeavouring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness\n    and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names\n    to Christ, and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the\n    same Spirit, into one body.\nIn this answer we may observe,\nI. That our baptism, together with the engagements which we are therein\nlaid under to be the Lord\u2019s, is to be improved by us; though this duty\nbe too much neglected. That it ought to be improved is evident, inasmuch\nas it is an ordinance, or means of grace, for our attaining spiritual\nblessings; therefore we are not only guilty of a sinful neglect, but we\nlose the advantage that might be expected thereby, if we do not improve\nit so as to answer the valuable end thereof; and when we consider it as\na professed dedication to God, as has been before observed, or a bond\nand obligation laid on us, to be entirely, and for ever, his, it cannot\nbut be reckoned the highest affront offered to the divine Majesty, and a\nbeing unstedfast in his covenant, for us practically to disown the\nengagement, or, in effect, to deny his right to us. Now, it is farther\nobserved, that this duty is much neglected, and the reason hereof is,\n1. Because many have very low thoughts of this ordinance, and understand\nnot the spiritual intent or meaning thereof, nor what it is to improve\nit. These reckon it no more than an external rite, established by\ncustom, and commonly observed in a Christian nation, without duly\nweighing the end and design for which it was instituted, or what is\nsignified thereby.\n2. Others suppose, that there is nothing in it but a public declaration,\nthat the person baptized is made a Christian, or has that character put\nupon him; but they know not what it is to be a Christian indeed, being\nutter strangers to the life and power of religion, and the spiritual\nblessings hoped for, or, through the grace of God, consequent upon our\nbaptismal dedication.\n3. Others have, indeed, right apprehensions of the sign and the thing\nsignified thereby, yet through the prevalency of corruption, and the\npride and deceitfulness of their hearts, they do not fiducially give up\nthemselves to God, nor desire the spiritual and saving blessings of the\ncovenant of grace. These therefore do not improve their baptism; and, it\nis to be feared, that this is the condition and character of the\ngreatest number of professors: Which leads us to consider,\nII. How baptism is to be improved by us, and that in several cases,\n1. When we are present, at the administration of it to others. We are\nnot, indeed, at that time, so immediately concerned in the ordinance, as\nthe person who is publicly devoted to God therein. Nevertheless, we are\nnot to behave ourselves as unconcerned spectators; and therefore,\n(1.) We are to join herein with suitable acts of faith and prayer, as\nthe nature of the ordinance calls for them, and to adore the persons of\nthe Godhead whose name and glory is mentioned therein. And we are to\napply ourselves to God, for the grace of the covenant, that is signified\nthereby, that he would be our God, as well as the God of the person who\nis particularly given up to him in baptism. We are also to bewail the\nuniversal depravity of human nature, and that guilt which we bring with\nus into the world, which is signified in infant-baptism; and this,\ntogether with the habits of sin, which we have contracted, is confessed\nby those who are baptized when adult, which we cannot but see a great\ndeal of, in our daily experience. We ought also to entertain becoming\nthoughts of the virtue of the blood of Christ, and of the power of the\nHoly Ghost, which alone can take away the guilt of sin, and render this\nordinance effectual to salvation; which we are not only to desire with\nrespect to the person baptized, but that we ourselves may be made\npartakers of that grace, which we equally stand in need of.\n(2.) We ought to confess before God, with sorrow and shame, how\ndefective we have been, as to the improvement of our baptismal\nengagements; so that, though we have been devoted to him, our hearts and\naffections have been very prone to depart from him; and we ought to\nadore and acknowledge the goodness and faithfulness of God, in that,\nthough we have been unstedfast in his covenant, through the treachery\nand deceitfulness of our hearts; yet he has been ever mindful thereof,\nand made good the promises contained therein, to all his servants who\nhave put their trust in him.\n2. Our baptism is to be improved by us in the time of temptation, in\norder to our resisting it, and preventing our being entangled and\novercome thereby.\n(1.) If the temptation takes its rise from the world, or we are thereby\ninduced to lay aside, or be remiss in our duty to God, from the\nprosperous circumstances in which we are therein, we should consider,\nthat in having been devoted to God in our infancy, or given up ourselves\nprofessedly to him, when adult, it has been intimated and acknowledged,\nthat he is our portion, better to us than all we can enjoy in the world;\nand therefore we ought to acquiesce in him as such, and say, _Whom have\nI in heaven but thee; and there is none_, or nothing, _upon the earth\nthat I desire besides thee_, Psal. lxxiii. 25.\nMoreover, if we are tempted to be uneasy, and repine at the providence\nof God, by reason of the many evils that befal us in the world, we ought\nto consider, that when we were given up to God, this implied in it an\nobligation to be content to be at his disposal, and to be satisfied with\nwhatever he allots for us, as not questioning the care and justice of\nhis providence, in which we were under an indispensable obligation to\nacquiesce. Therefore when God tries us, by bringing us under various\nafflictions, our baptismal engagement obliges us to say, It is the Lord,\nlet him do with us what seemeth good in his sight.\n(2.) If we are exposed to the temptations of Satan, or those inward\nsuggestions, whereby sinful objects are presented to our thoughts, and a\nfalse gloss put upon them, to induce us to a compliance therewith, we\nare to improve our baptismal engagement, by considering that it contains\na solemn acknowledgment of God\u2019s right to us, exclusive of all others:\ntherefore, we cannot but dread the thoughts of submitting to be vassals\nto Satan, which is, in effect, to disown that allegiance which we owe to\nGod, and to say, that other lords shall have dominion over us. This will\nhave a tendency to induce us to adhere stedfastly to God, as the result\nof our having been devoted to him in this ordinance.\nAnd if we are afraid of being ensnared by those wiles and methods of\ndeceit, which Satan often makes use of, that are not always discerned by\nus, we are to consider ourselves as having been devoted to Christ; and,\npursuant thereunto, if we have, in any instance, improved this solemn\ntransaction, we have given up ourselves to him, in hope of being under\nhis protection, and interested in his intercession, so that though we\nare _sifted as wheat_, our _faith_ may _not fail_, Luke xxii. 31, 32.\nMoreover, when we are assaulted, and, as it were, wounded with Satan\u2019s\nfiery darts, whereby great discouragements are thrown in our way, the\nguilt of sin magnified, as though it were unpardonable, and the stain\nand pollution thereof such, as can never be washed away: And when we are\nready to conclude from hence, that our state is hopeless, and the\ncomforts we once enjoyed, irrecoverably lost; this is, indeed, an\nafflictive case. Nevertheless, our baptism is to be improved by us, as\nconsidering that remission of sins was the blessing desired and hoped\nfor, inasmuch as it was signified thereby; so that we are to be sensible\nthat the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin; and that, as we were\ngiven up to him, in hope of obtaining this privilege, and have been\nenabled since then, to give up ourselves to him by faith, and therein to\nimprove our baptismal engagement; we therefore trust, that he will\nappear for us, rebuke the adversary, establish our comforts, and enable\nus to walk as those, who desire to recommend his grace to others, that\nthey may be encouraged to adhere to him, by the comfortable sense which\nwe have of his love shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost.\n3. Our baptismal engagement is to be improved by us, before and after we\nare brought into a converted state.\n(1.) Unregenerate persons are to improve it, as it should afford them\nmatter of deep humiliation, that though they have been devoted to God,\nand thereby were called by his name, and made partakers of the external\nblessings of his covenant; yet they have been alienated from the life of\nGod, and strangers to the internal saving blessings thereof. There was a\nprofession made, in baptism, that they stood in need of Christ\u2019s\nmediation, to deliver them from the guilt of sin, and of being cleansed\nfrom the pollution thereof, which is of a spreading nature; but they\nhave, notwithstanding, given way to it; and, how _pure_ soever they have\nbeen _in their own eyes, are not yet washed from their filthiness_,\nProv. xxx. 12. Now such may take occasion from hence to plead earnestly\nwith God for converting grace; which is the only means whereby they may\nknow that he has accepted of their solemn dedication to him; or that\nthey are not only born of water, but of the Spirit; and are made\npartakers of the thing signified in baptism, without which, the external\nsign will not afford any saving advantage. We may also plead with God,\nthat as we are professedly his, he would assert his own right to us,\novercome us to himself, and make us _willing in the day of his power_,\nPsal. cx. 3.\n(2.) Our baptismal engagement is constantly to be improved by us, if we\nare brought into a state of grace, in order to the growth and increase\nthereof; especially if we are sensible of great declension therein, or\nthat it is not, in all respects with us, as it once was; if we are\nsensible of deadness and stupidity, in holy duties, and stand in need of\nbeing quickened, excited, and brought into a lively frame of spirit, or\nto be restored after great back-slidings; if we would have sin\nmortified, and the secret workings thereof in our heart subdued, we\nought to consider, that having been _baptized into Jesus Christ_, we\nwere _baptized into his death_; and that we are obliged hereby to _walk\nin newness of life_; therefore _sin should not reign in our mortal\nbodies_, Rom. vi. 3, 4, 12. And as we hope and trust, that we are made\npartakers of the saving blessings signified in this ordinance, we desire\nto improve the relation we stand in to Christ, as his people, as a\nmatter of encouragement, that when we are oppressed, he will undertake\nfor us.\nIf we are destitute of assurance of his love, and our interest in him,\nwe are to improve the consideration of our being his, not only by\nprofessed dedication, but by a fiducial adherence to him; this will\nencourage us to hope that he will enable us to walk holily and\ncomfortably before him, and lift up the light of his countenance upon\nus, as our reconciled God and Father.\nAnd, in the whole course of our conversation it will be of use, for the\npromoting the life of faith, which consists in an entire dependance on\nhim, as those who are sensible that we can do nothing without him, to\nconsider, that when we were first devoted to him, it was acknowledged,\nand from the time, wherein we have been enabled to give up ourselves to\nhim by faith, we have been always sensible that we stand in need of\ndaily supplies of grace from him, as all our springs are in him.\nMoreover, our baptismal engagement is to be improved, as it is an\ninducement to us to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness;\nwhereby practical religion will be promoted in all its branches, when we\nconsider that we are not our own, and therefore dare not think of living\nas we list, or serving divers lusts and pleasures, but that we are\nobliged to make his revealed will (whose we are, and whom we desire to\nserve,) the rule of all our actions.\nAnd lastly, we ought to walk in brotherly love, as being _baptized by\nthe Spirit into one body_, 1 Cor. xii. 13. They who are partakers of the\nsaving blessings signified by baptism, have ground to conclude\nthemselves members of Christ\u2019s mystical body, or the invisible church,\nof which he is the head. This is a spiritual baptism, being the effect\nof divine power, and the special work of the Holy Ghost; and certainly\nthis will be an inducement to all who are partakers thereof, to walk\ntogether in brotherly love, as those who are favoured with the same\nprivileges, and hope to enjoy that complete blessedness, in which they,\nwho are before devoted to Christ, shall be for ever with him. Thus\nconcerning the ordinance of baptism.\nAnd now we are led to speak concerning the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, which is considered either absolutely in itself, or as compared\nwith baptism. And accordingly it is enquired; wherein they agree, or\ndiffer. In considering the nature of the Lord\u2019s supper, it is farther\nenquired; how they, who are to partake of it, ought to prepare\nthemselves for it before they engage therein? And there are also two\ncases of conscience answered; the one respecting those who are not\nsatisfied concerning their meetness for it; the other respecting those\nwho ought to be kept from it. We have also an account of the duties of\ncommunicants, while they are engaged in this ordinance; or those that\nare incumbent on them, after they have attended on it. These things are\nparticularly insisted on in several following answers, which we are now\nled to consider.\n                     Quest. CLXVIII., CLXIX., CLXX.\n    QUEST. CLXVIII. _What is the Lord\u2019s Supper?_\n    ANSW. The Lord\u2019s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein\n    by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to the appointment\n    of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily\n    communicate, feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual\n    nourishment and growth in grace, have their union and communion with\n    him confirmed, testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement\n    to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as\n    members of the same mystical body.\n    QUEST. CLXIX. _How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given\n    and received in the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper?_\n    ANSW. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the\n    administration of this sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, to set apart\n    the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution,\n    thanksgiving, and prayer, to take and break the bread, and to give\n    both the bread, and the wine to the communicants, who are, by the\n    same appointment, to take, and eat the bread, and to drink the wine,\n    in thankful remembrance, that the body of Christ was broken and\n    given, and his blood shed for them.\n    QUEST. CLXX. _How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord\u2019s\n    supper, feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?_\n    ANSW. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally\n    present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord\u2019s supper,\n    and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no\n    less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their\n    outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament\n    of the Lord\u2019s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of\n    Christ, not after a corporal, or carnal, but in a spiritual manner,\n    yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto\n    themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.\nThere are several things contained in these answers, _viz._\nI. The general description of this ordinance, as it is called a\nsacrament of the New Testament; in which we shall be led to speak\nconcerning the person by whom it was instituted in common with other\nordinances; and that is our Lord Jesus Christ.\nII. We shall consider the persons by whom it is to be administered,\nnamely, the ministers, or pastors of particular churches; inasmuch as it\nis an ordinance given only to those who are in church-communion.\nIII. We have an account of the matter thereof, or the outward elements,\nto wit, bread and wine.\nIV. We shall consider the ministers act, antecedent to the church\u2019s\npartaking of this ordinance, in setting apart the elements from a common\nto a sacred use; which is to be done by the word and prayer, joined with\nthanksgiving.\nV. We have an account of the actions, both of the minister and people;\nthe one breaks the bread, and pours out the wine. In order to their\nbeing distributed among those who are to receive them; the other, to\nwit, the communicants, partake of them, and join with him in eating the\nbread, and drinking the wine.\nVI. We are to consider what is signified hereby, namely, the body and\nblood of Christ; which are not supposed to be corporally and carnally,\nbut spiritually present to the faith of the receivers, upon which\naccount they may be said to feed upon the body and blood of Christ, and\napply the benefits of his death to themselves.\nVII. We have an account of the persons who hope to enjoy these\nprivileges, and partake of the Lord\u2019s supper in a right manner; these\nare said worthily to communicate; as also the ends which they ought to\nhave in view, namely, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace,\ntheir enjoying communion with Christ; and that love that they are\nobliged to express to each other, as members of the same mystical body.\nI. It is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by our Saviour.\nThat it is an ordinance, is evident, in that it is founded on a divine\ncommand; as appears from the words of institution, in Matt. xxvi. 26,\n27. _Take eat, this is my body; and he took the cup, and gave it to\nthem, saying, Drink ye all of it_, &c. And this is also intimated by the\napostle, when, speaking particularly concerning it, as also the manner\nin which it is to be performed, he says, _I have received of the Lord,\nthat which also I delivered unto you_, 1 Cor. xi. 23. Moreover, there is\na blessing annexed to our partaking of it in a right manner; which may\nplainly be inferred from the apostle\u2019s distinguishing those who receive\nit _worthily_, from others that receive it _unworthily_, or in an\nunbecoming manner; of whom the former are said to _come together for the\nbetter_, the latter _for the worse_, ver. 17. and to partake of the\nLord\u2019s supper for the better, is to partake of it for our spiritual\nadvantage, which supposes, that there are some blessings annexed to it,\nwhich render it not only a duty, but an ordinance, or means of grace.\nAnd, that it is a gospel-ordinance of the New Testament, appears from\nthe time of its being instituted by our Saviour, as well as the end and\ndesign thereof. It is particularly intimated, that Christ instituted\nthis ordinance immediately before his last sufferings, as a memorial of\nhis dying love. Thus the apostle says, _The same night in which he was\nbetrayed, he took bread_, ver. 23. And that it was designed to continue\nas a standing ordinance in the church throughout all ages, appears from\nwhat he farther adds, _As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this\ncup, ye do shew the Lord\u2019s death, till he come_, ver. 26.\nThe contrary to this is maintained by some modern enthusiasts, who\ndeny it to be an ordinance, as they also do baptism; concluding that\nno ceremony, or significant sign, is consistent with the\ngospel-dispensation. And as for what the apostle says concerning our\n_shewing forth the Lord\u2019s death till he come_, they suppose, that\nhereby is meant, till he comes by the effusion of the Spirit; and\ntherefore, if it was an ordinance at first, it ceased to be so when\nthe Spirit was poured forth on the church, in the beginning of the\ngospel-dispensation. To this it may be replied,\n1. That ceremonial institutions are not inconsistent with the\ngospel-dispensation, inasmuch as they may not be designed to signify\nsome benefits to be procured by Christ, as they did, which were\ninstituted under the ceremonial law; but they may be considered as\nrememorative signs of the work of redemption, which has been brought to\nperfection by him.\n2. When the apostle, in the scripture but now mentioned, says, that _we\nshew the Lord\u2019s death till he come_, it cannot be meant concerning his\ncoming in the plentiful effusion of the Spirit; inasmuch as this\nprivilege was conferred on the church in the apostle\u2019s days, at the same\ntime, when he speaks of their shewing forth his death. Therefore,\ndoubtless, he intends thereby Christ\u2019s second coming, when this, and all\nother ordinances, which are now observed in the church, as adapted to\nthe present imperfect state thereof, shall cease; we must therefore\nconclude from hence, that it was designed to be continued in the church\nin all ages, as it is at this day.\nII. We are to consider the persons by whom this ordinance is to be\nadministered; and these are only such as are lawfully called, and set\napart to the pastoral office, whose work is to feed the church, not only\nby the preaching of the word, but by the administration of the\nsacraments, which are ordinances for their faith, in which they are said\nto receive, and spiritually feed upon Christ and his benefits; upon\nwhich account God promises to _give his people pastors according to his\nown heart, who should feed them with knowledge and understanding_, Jer.\niii. 15. Now that none but these are appointed to administer this\nordinance, is evident in that they, who partake of it, are said to have\ncommunion with him, and with one another therein, for their mutual\nedification and spiritual advantage; therefore it doth not belong to\nmankind in general, but the church in particular. And, to prevent\nconfusion therein, Christ has appointed one, or more proper officers in\nhis churches, to whom the management of this work is committed; who are\ncalled hereunto, by the providence of God, and the consent and desire of\nthe church, to whom they are to minister.\nIII. We are now to consider the matter, or the outward elements to be\nused in the Lord\u2019s supper; and these are bread and wine. Thus it is\nsaid, _Jesus took bread_, Matt. xxvi. 26. and _he also took the cup_;\nwhich, by a metonymy, is put for the wine: For, our Saviour referring to\nthis action, speaks of his _drinking the fruit of the vine_, ver. 29. As\nfor the bread that is to be used in this ordinance, there was a very\nwarm debate between the Latin and Greek church concerning it; the\nformer, as the Papists do at this day, concluding it absolutely\nnecessary, that it should be unleavened bread, inasmuch as that kind of\nbread was used by our Lord, when he first instituted it, which was at\nthe time of the passover, when no leaven was to be found in their\nhouses. And they make it also a significant sign of the sincerity and\ntruth with which the Lord\u2019s supper ought to be eaten; for which, they\nrefer to what the apostle says, in 1 Cor. v. 8. _Let as keep the feast,\nnot with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness;\nbut with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth._ But this seems\nonly to be an allusion to the use of unleavened bread in the passover;\nwhich, it may be, might have a typical reference to that sincerity and\ntruth with which all the ordinances of God are to be engaged in; but it\ndoes not sufficiently appear that he intends hereby that the bread used\nin the Lord\u2019s supper should be of this kind, or, that it was designed to\nsignify the frame of spirit with which this ordinance is to be\ncelebrated.\nOn the other hand, the Greek church thought that the bread ought to be\nleavened, according to our common practice at this day, it being the\nsame that was used at other times. And this seems most eligible, as it\nputs a just difference between the bread used in the passover, which was\na part of the ceremonial law, and a gospel-institution, that is distinct\nfrom it. But, I think, there is no need to debate either side of the\nquestion with too much warmth, it being a matter of no great importance.\nAs for the wine that is to be used in this ordinance, it is a necessary\npart thereof; and therefore the Papists are guilty of sacrilege in\nwithholding the cup from the common people[97].\nIV. We are now to consider what the minister is to do, antecedent to the\nchurch\u2019s partaking of the Lord\u2019s supper: He is to set apart the outward\nelements of bread and wine from a common, to this particular holy use.\nUpon which account it may be said to be _sanctified by the word of God\nand prayer_, 1 Tim. iv. 5. The words of institution contain an\nintimation that these elements are to be used in this ordinance, by\nChrist\u2019s appointment; without which, no significant sign could be used\nin any religious matters. And, as for prayer, this is agreeable to\nChrist\u2019s practice; for, he _took bread and blessed it_, or prayed for a\nblessing on it; and as the apostle expresses it; this was accompanied\nwith thanksgiving, as he says; _When he had given thanks he brake it_,\nMatt. xxvi. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 24. which is agreeable to the nature and\ndesign of the ordinance, as herein we pray for the best of blessings,\nand express our thankfulness to him for the benefits of Christ\u2019s\nredemption.\nHere I cannot but observe how the Papists pervert this ordinance in the\nmanner of consecrating the bread, which the priest does only by\nrepeating these words in Latin; _This is my body_; and from thence they\ntake occasion to advance the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation; and\nsuppose, that, by these words pronounced, the bread is changed into the\nbody and blood of Christ; which they assert, contrary to all sense and\nreason, as well as the end and design of the ordinance; and from hence\nit will follow, that man has a power to make the body and blood of\nChrist; and another consequence thereof, will be, that the human nature\nof Christ is omnipresent, which is inconsistent with a finite nature,\nand those properties that belong to it as such; from whence it is to be\nconcluded, that it is no where else but in heaven; and it involves in it\nthe greatest contradiction to suppose that it is bread, and having all\nthe qualities thereof; and yet our senses must be so far imposed on, as\nthat we must believe that it is not so, but Christ\u2019s body. It also\nsupposes, that Christ has as many bodies as there are wafers in the\nworld; which is a monstrous absurdity. It likewise confounds the sign\nwith the thing signified, and is very opposite to the sense of those\nwords of scripture, _This is my body_; which implies no more, than that\nthe bread, which is the same in itself, after the words of consecration,\nas it was before, is an external symbol of Christ\u2019s body, that is, of\nthe sufferings which he endured therein for his people.\nV. We are now to consider the actions both of the minister and the\nchurch, when engaged in this ordinance, _viz._ breaking, distributing,\neating the bread, pouring forth, and drinking the wine, for the ends\nappointed by Christ, in instituting this ordinance. Whether our Saviour\ngave the bread and wine to every one of the disciples in particular, is\nnot sufficiently determined by the words of institution: For, though\nMatthew and Mark say, _He gave the bread and the cup to the disciples_,\nMatt. xxvi. 26, 27. and Mark xiv. 22, 23. Yet Luke speaking either\nconcerning the cup used in the passover, or that in the Lord\u2019s supper,\nrepresents our Saviour as saying to his disciples, _Take this and divide\nit among yourselves_, Luke xxii. 17. which seems to intimate that he\ndistributed it to one or more of them, to be conveyed to the rest, that\nthey might divide it among themselves; which is agreeable to the\npractice of several of the reformed churches in our day, and seems most\nexpedient in case the number of the communicants is very great, and the\nelements cannot be so conveniently given by the pastor into the hand of\nevery one.\nHere I may observe how the Papists pervert this part of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper; inasmuch as they will not permit the common people to touch the\nbread with their hands, lest they should defile it; but the priest puts\nit into their mouths; for which purpose it is made up into small, round\nwafers; and the people are ordered to take great care that they do not\nuse their teeth in chewing it; for that would be, as it were, a\ncrucifying Christ afresh, as offering a kind of violence to what they\ncall his body. But these things are so very absurd and unscriptural,\nthat they confute themselves. And their consecrating a wafer to be\nreserved in a case prepared for that purpose, and set upon the altar in\nthe church, to be worshipped by all that come near it, savours of gross\nsuperstition and idolatry.\nWe may farther observe, that they deny the people the cup in this\nordinance, but not the priests; for what reason, it is hard to\ndetermine. And, they mix the wine with water; which, though it does not\nseem to be agreeable to Christ\u2019s institution, yet it was often practised\nby the ancient church, from whence they took it; and their making this a\nsacramental sign of Christ\u2019s divine and human nature, united together in\none person, is much more unwarrantable; nor can I approve of what others\nsuppose, viz. that it signifies the blood and water that came out of his\nside when he was pierced on the cross. And, I can hardly think some\nProtestants altogether free from the charge of superstition, when they\nso tenaciously adhere to the use of red wine, as bearing some small\nresemblance to the colour of Christ\u2019s blood; for which reason others\nchuse to bear their testimony against this ungrounded opinion, by the\nusing of white wine, without supposing that any thing is signified by it\nmore than by red; and others chuse to use one sort at one time, and\nanother at another, to signify that this is an indifferent matter; and\nthese, I think, are most in the right.\nMoreover, the practice of the Papists, and some others, in receiving the\nLord\u2019s supper fasting, to the end that the consecrated bread may not be\nmixed with undigested food, is not only unwarrantable, but\nsuperstitious, as well as contrary to what we read concerning our\nSaviour and his apostles partaking of the Lord\u2019s supper in the first\ninstitution thereof, immediately after having eaten the passover, and to\nwhat the apostle suggests, when he reproves the church at Corinth, for\neating and drinking to excess immediately before they partook of the\nLord\u2019s supper; upon which occasion he advises them _to eat and drink_\n(though with moderation) _in their own houses_, 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22.\nAgain, the administring the Lord\u2019s supper privately, as the Papists and\nothers do, to sick people, seems to be contrary to the design of its\nbeing a church-ordinance; and when, to give countenance to this\npractice, it is styled, as by the former of these, a viaticum, or means\nto convey the soul, if it should soon after depart out of the body, to\nheaven, they are much more remote from our Saviour\u2019s design in\ninstituting this ordinance; neither do they rightly understand the sense\nof the scripture, from whence they infer the necessity thereof, _except\nye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life\nin you_, John vi. 53. when they apply it to this purpose.\nThere is another thing that must not be wholly passed over, viz. the\nvarious gestures used in receiving the Lord\u2019s supper. The Papists not\nonly receive it kneeling; but, they allege, that they ought to do so, as\nbeing obliged to adore the body and blood of Christ, which, as they\nabsurdly suppose, is really present, inasmuch as the bread is\ntransubstantiated, or turned into it. And the Lutherans, with equal\nabsurdity assert, that the body of Christ, is really, though invisibly,\npresent in the bread; which is what they call consubstantiation. Some\nother Protestants, indeed, plead for the receiving it kneeling, as\nsupposing Christ to be spiritually, though not corporally, present\ntherein; and therefore they do not worship the bread and wine, but our\nSaviour; which, they suppose, they ought to do with this becoming\nreverence.\nWhat I would take leave to say, in answer to this, is, that we humbly\nhope and trust, that Christ, according to his promise, is present with\nhis people in all his ordinances; yet, it is not supposed that we are\nobliged to engage in every one of them kneeling. But that which\ndetermines the faith and practice of all other reformed churches, who do\nnot use this gesture in the Lord\u2019s supper, is, because it is contrary to\nthe example of our Saviour and his apostles, when it was first\ncelebrated; which ought to be a rule to the churches in all succeeding\nages.\nIf it be said, that this is a gesture most agreeable to prayer, or, at\nleast, that sitting is not so. To this it may be replied, that it is not\nan ordinance principally or only designed for prayer; for, whatever\nprayers we put up to God therein, are short, ejaculatory, and mixed with\nother meditations, which may be performed with an awful reverence of the\ndivine majesty, such as we ought to have in other acts of religious\nworship, though we do not use that gesture of kneeling. And besides, we\nthink ourselves obliged to receive the Lord\u2019s supper sitting, that being\na table gesture in use among us, in like manner as that which our\nSaviour and his apostles used, was among the eastern nations.\nAs for the reformed Gallican churches, they receive it for the most\npart, standing; which, being a medium between both extremes, they\nsuppose to be most eligible. But this not being a table-gesture, nor, in\nthat respect, conformed to that which was used by our Saviour and his\napostles, I cannot think it warrantable. Nevertheless, when the gesture\nof standing or sitting is made a significant sign as some do the former,\nof our being servants, ready to obey the will of Christ our great Lord\nand Master; or, as others explain it, as signifying our being travellers\nto the heavenly country; and the latter, _viz._ sitting, of our\nfamiliarity, or communion with Christ. These are rather the result of\nhuman invention, than founded on a divine institution, since we have not\nthe least account in scripture, of these things being signified thereby.\nThis leads us to consider,\nVI. The thing signified in this ordinance, and in what respect Christ is\nsaid to be present therein, together with the benefits expected from\nhim, as we are said to feed upon him by faith for our spiritual\nnourishment and growth in grace. I cannot but think that the general\ndesign hereof, is not much unlike to that which was ordained under the\nceremonial law, in which, after the sacrifice was offered, part of it\nwas reserved to be _eaten in the holy place_, Lev. vi. 16. which was a\nsignificant feast upon a sacrifice. In like manner, the Lord\u2019s supper,\nwhich comes in the room of the passover, is ordained to be a feast on\nChrist\u2019s sacrifice; so the apostle styles it, when he says, _Christ, our\npassover, is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast_, &c. 1\nCor. v. 7, 8. The fiducial application of Christ, and the benefits of\nhis death, is the principal thing to be considered in this\ngospel-festival. However, there are some cautions necessary to be\nobserved with respect to the things signified therein, as what may be\nuseful to us that our faith may be exercised in a right manner.\nTherefore let it be considered,\n1. That though the Lord\u2019s supper was instituted in commemoration of\nChrist\u2019s love, expressed in his death, which was the last and most\nbitter part of his sufferings for our redemption. Yet he did not design\nhereby to exclude his other sufferings in life; nor, indeed, his whole\ncourse of obedience from his incarnation to his death; since it is very\nevident that the death of Christ is often considered in scripture, by a\nsynecdoche, as denoting the whole course of obedience, both active and\npassive, which is the matter of our justification; and therefore is to\nbe the object on which our faith is to be conversant in the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, as well as his sufferings in, or immediately before his death.\n2. When Christ\u2019s sufferings upon the cross are said to be signified by\nthe bread and wine; we are not to conclude that these sufferings are to\nbe so distinctly or separately considered, as that the bread broken, is\ndesigned to signify the pains that he endured upon the cross, when his\nbody was as it were broken, its tendons, nerves, and fibres snapped\nasunder, and his joints dislocated, by being stretched thereon; and the\nwine poured forth, to signify the shedding his blood when his hands and\nfeet were pierced with the nails, and his side with the spear, as some\nsuppose; since all these things are to be made the subjects of our\naffectionate meditation in every part of this ordinance, while we are\ntaken up with the contemplation of his last sufferings. And this seems\nto give countenance to the practice of many of the reformed churches, in\nconsecrating and distributing the bread and wine together; though it is\ntrue, many think, on the other hand, that the elements are to be\nseparately consecrated, as well as distributed, it being most agreeable\nto what is said concerning Christ\u2019s blessing the bread, and giving it to\nhis disciples, and afterwards taking the cup, and giving it to them,\nMatt. xxvi. 26, 27. However, if this be allowed of, it is not necessary\nfor us to infer from hence, that each of these elements are designed to\nsignify some distinct parts of Christ\u2019s sufferings on the cross, but\nonly that the ordinance is to be still continued, the whole including in\nit two external and visible signs to be used, each of which signify the\nmeans whereby he procured our redemption; and, indeed, when the wine is\npoured forth, and set apart for another part of this ordinance, we are\nnot so much to enter on a new subject in our meditation, though the sign\nbe different from that of the bread, as to proceed in thinking on, and\nimproving the love of Christ, in his _humbling himself, and becoming\nobedient unto death, even the death of the cross_, Phil. ii. 8. and all\nthis is signified by this sign, as well as the other, neither of which\nare adapted to this end, otherwise than by divine appointment.\n3. We must take heed that we do not make more significant signs in the\nbread and wine than Christ has done; as some suppose, that almost every\ningredient or action used in making them, is to be applied to signify\nsome things that he has done or suffered for our redemption. It is a\nvery great liberty that some take in expatiating on this subject, and\napplying it to this ordinance. We have a specimen hereof contained in an\nhymn, composed to be sung as a thanksgiving after the receiving the\nLord\u2019s supper[98]; in which the corn, as first living and growing, and\nafterwards cut down, and by threshing, separated from the husk, and then\nground in the mill, and baked in the oven, are all made significant\nsigns of the sufferings and torments which our Saviour endured. And the\ncorn being united in one loaf, is made a sign of the union between\nChrist and his church. In like manner the grapes being gathered,\npressed, and made into wine, is supposed to signify our spiritual joy,\narising from Christ\u2019s shedding his blood. And, as many grapes make one\nvine, so believers should be united by faith and love. What lengths is\nit possible for the wit and fancy of men to run, when they have a\nfruitful invention, and are disposed to make significant signs, and\napply them to this ordinance without a divine warrant!\n4. When we meditate on Christ\u2019s sufferings, our faith is not to rest in,\nor principally be fixed on the grievousness of them, as Dr. Goodwin\nobserves[99]; so that we should only endeavour hereby to have our hearts\nmoved to a relenting, and compassion expressed towards him, and\nindignation against the Jews that crucified him, together with an\nadmiring of his noble and heroical love herein; so that if persons can\nget their hearts thus affected, they judge and account this to be grace;\nwhereas, it is no more than what the like tragical story of some great\nand noble personage (full of heroical virtues and ingenuity; yet\ninhumanly and ungratefully used) doth ordinarily work in ingenuous\nspirits, who read or hear of it; which, when it reacheth no higher, it\nis so far from being faith, that it is but a carnal and fleshly\ndevotion; and Christ himself, at his suffering, found fault with, as not\nbeing spiritual, when he says, _Daughters of Jerusalem weep not for me,\nbut for yourselves and for your children_, Luke xxiii. 28. that is, not\nso much for this, when you see me thus unworthily handled by those for\nwhom I die, as for yourselves.\nMoreover, he farther adds, that it was not the malice of the Jews, the\nfalseness of Judas, the fearfulness of Pilate, the iniquity of the times\nhe fell into, that wrought our Saviour\u2019s death; God the Father had an\nhigher design herein: And this our faith is constantly to be conversant\nabout, considering it as the result of an eternal agreement between the\nFather and the Son, and of that covenant which he came into the world to\nfulfil; and his being made sin for us, to take away our sins by the\natonement which he made hereby. And, besides this, we may add, that the\nhighest and most affecting consideration in Christ\u2019s sufferings, ought\nto contain in it the idea of his being a divine person, which is the\nonly thing that argued them sufficient to answer the great ends designed\nthereby, as it rendered them of infinite value; and it was upon this\naccount that his condescension expressed herein, might truly be said to\nbe infinite. These things, I say, we are principally to rest in, when we\nmeditate on Christ\u2019s sufferings in this ordinance; though the other,\nwhich are exceedingly moving and affecting in their kind, are not to be\npassed over; since the Holy Ghost has, for this end, given a particular\naccount thereof in the gospels, not barely as an historical relation of\nwhat was done to him, but as a convincing evidence of the greatness of\nhis love to us.\nThus concerning Christ\u2019s death, shewed forth or signified in this\nordinance. We are farther, under this head, to consider how he is\npresent, and they who engage in it aright feed on his body and blood by\nfaith. We are not to suppose that Christ is present in a corporal way,\nso that we should be said to partake of his body in a literal sense; but\nhe being a divine person, and consequently omnipresent; and having\npromised his presence with his church in all ages, and places, when met\ntogether in his name; in this respect he is present with them, in like\nmanner as he is in other ordinances, to supply their wants, hear their\nprayers, and strengthen them against corruption and temptation, and\nremove their guilt by the application of his blood, which is presented\nas an object for their contemplation in a more peculiar manner in this\nordinance.\nAs for our feeding on, or being nourished by the body and blood of\nChrist, these are metaphorical expressions, taken from, and adapted to\nthe nature and quality of the bread and wine by which it is signified;\nbut that which we are to understand hereby, is, our graces being farther\nstrengthened and established, and we enabled to exercise them with\ngreater vigour and delight; and this derived from Christ, and\nparticularly founded on his death. And, when we are said to feed upon\nhim, in order hereunto, it denotes the application of what he has done\nand suffered, to ourselves; and, in order hereunto, we are to bring our\nsins, with all the guilt that attends them, as it were, to the foot of\nthe cross of Christ, confess and humble our souls for them before him,\nand by faith plead the virtue of his death, in order to our obtaining\nforgiveness, and, at the same time, renew our dedication to him, while\nhoping and praying for the blessings and privileges of the covenant of\ngrace, which were purchased by him.\nMoreover, there is another thing signified in this ordinance, as a\nfarther end for which it was instituted, namely, in that we are to have\ncommunion with one another, and thereby express our mutual love, as\nmembers of Christ\u2019s mystical body, who have the same end in view, and\nmake use of the same means, _viz._ Christ crucified, as we attend on the\nsame ordinance in which this is set forth, and having the same common\nnecessities, infirmities and corruptions, and the same encouragements\nfor our faith. Therefore we ought to sympathize with one another, and,\nby faith and prayer, be helpful to them, with whom we join in this\nordinance, while we are representing our own case in common with theirs,\nbefore the Lord. This leads us to consider,\nVII. What ought to be the qualifications of those who have a right to,\nand are obliged to partake of the Lord\u2019s supper: These are expressed in\ngeneral terms by the apostle, by _discerning the Lord\u2019s body_, 1 Cor.\nxi. 29. Now this a person cannot do, who is ignorant of the design of\nhis death; therefore there must be some degree of knowledge in those who\nare qualified for this ordinance. There must also be an afflictive sense\nof the weight and burden of the guilt of those sins which are daily\ncommitted by us, and an apprehension arising from thence, of our need of\nthe merits of Christ, to take them away, and that his death is designed\nto answer this end. And, that this may be done for our real advantage,\nas we are said to feed on Christ by faith; it is supposed, that this\ngrace is wrought in us, or, that we are effectually called out of a\nstate of unregeneracy, to partake of gracious communion with Christ;\nwhereby we may be said to be fitted to have fellowship with him in this\nordinance, and so partake of it in a right manner, for our spiritual\nnourishment and growth in grace.\nFootnote 97:\n  _This was done by the council at Constance, A. D. 1415, before which\n  time there were, indeed, several disputes about the matter or form of\n  the cup, in which the wine was contained; but it was never taken away\n  from the common people till then._\nFootnote 98:\n  _This hymn is inserted after Sternhold and Hopkin\u2019s version of the\n  Psalms._\nFootnote 99:\n  _See Dr. Goodwin\u2019s Christ set forth, \u00a7 2. Chap. ii._\n    QUEST. CLXXI. _How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s\n    supper, to prepare themselves before they come unto it?_\n    ANSW. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, are,\n    before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining\n    themselves, of their being in Christ, of their sins, and wants, of\n    the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance, love to\n    God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have\n    done them wrong, of their desires after Christ, and of their new\n    obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious\n    meditation, and fervent prayer.\nThe Lord\u2019s supper being a sacred and solemn ordinance, it ought not to\nbe engaged in without due preparation before-hand, in those who partake\nof it. The duties mentioned in this answer, which are preparatory for\nit, are self-examination, the renewing the exercise of those graces\nwhich are necessary to our partaking of it aright, serious meditation on\nthe work we are going about, and fervent prayer for the presence and\nblessing of God therein.\nI. Concerning the duty of self-examination; in order hereunto, we must\nretire from the hurries and incumbrances of the world, that our minds\nmay be disengaged from them, and not filled with distracting thoughts,\nwhich will be an hindrance to us in our enquiries into the state of our\nsouls. We must also resolve to deal impartially with ourselves, and\nconsider what really makes against us, as matter of sorrow, shame, and\nhumiliation, as well as those things that are encouraging, and occasions\nof thanksgiving to God. We must also endeavour to be acquainted with the\nword of God, to which our actions and behaviour are to be applied;\nwhereby we are to determine the goodness or badness of our state in\ngeneral, or the frame of spirit in which we are, in particular.\nNow there are several things, concerning which we are to examine\nourselves before we come to the Lord\u2019s supper.\n1. Whether we are in Christ or no? since persons must be first in him\nbefore they can have spiritual communion with him. There are some\nthings, which, if we find in ourselves, would give us ground to\ndetermine that we are not in Christ; particularly,\nThat man is not in Christ who is an utter stranger to his person,\nnatures, offices, and the design of his coming into the world; together\nwith the spiritual benefits purchased by his death. Neither is he in\nChrist, who never saw his need of him, or that there is no hope of\nsalvation without him. Again, he is not in Christ, who obstinately\nrefuses to submit to his government, lives in a wilful contempt of his\nlaws, resolutely persists in the commission of known sins, or in the\ntotal neglect of known duties. Again, he is not in Christ, who is\nashamed of his doctrine, his gospel, his cross, which a true believer\ncounts his glory; as the apostle says, _God forbid that I should glory,\nsave in the cross of Jesus Christ_, Gal. vi. 14. He must also be\nreckoned out of Christ, who is stupid and presumptuous; and, though,\nprobably, he may hope to be saved by him, yet desires not to have\ncommunion with him, but expects to be made partaker of his benefits\nwithout faith; or if he pretends to have faith, it is only an assent to\nsome truths, without being accompanied with repentance, and other graces\nwhich are inseparably connected with that faith which is saving.\nBut, on the other hand, we may know that we are in Christ, if we can\ntruly say,\n(1.) That we have received a new nature from him, from whence proceed\nrenewed actions, which discover themselves in the whole course of our\nlives; _If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: Old things are\npassed away, behold, all things are become new_, 2 Cor. v. 17.\n(2.) We must enquire, whether we endeavour constantly to adhere to his\nrevealed will, not barely as the result of some sudden conviction; but\nas making it the main business of life, to approve ourselves to him in\nwell doing, as our Saviour says, _If ye continue in my word, then ye are\nmy disciples indeed_, John viii. 31.\n(3.) Converse with Christ in ordinance, is another evidence of our being\nin him: For, as a man is said to be known by the company he keeps, or\ndelights to be in; so a true Christian is known, as the apostle says, by\nhis _having fellowship with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ_,\n1 John i. 3.\n(4.) We must enquire, whether we have a great concern for the glory and\ninterest in our own souls, and an earnest desire that his name may be\nknown and magnified in the world; and this accompanied with our using\nthe utmost endeavours in our various stations and capacities in order\nthereunto?\n2. The next thing that we are to examine ourselves about, before we come\nto the Lord\u2019s supper, is, what sense we have of sin? whether we are\ntruly humbled for, and desirous to be delivered from it? It is not\nsufficient for us to take a general view of ourselves as sinners, in\ncommon with the rest of mankind, without being duly affected with it;\nbut we must consider the various aggravations of sin, with a particular\napplication thereof to ourselves; and how much we have exceeded many\nothers therein, either before or since we were called by the grace of\nGod, by which means we may take occasion to say, as the apostle does\nconcerning himself, that we are _the chief of sinners_, 1 Tim. i. 15.\nand a sense of the guilt hereof, when duly considered, will give us\noccasion to lie very low at the foot of God. We are also to take notice\nof our natural propensity and inclination to sin, and the various ways\nby which this has discovered itself in our actions; and accordingly we\nare to enquire,\n(1.) Whether we have sinned knowingly, wilfully, presumptuously, and\nobstinately? or, whether we have been surprised into it, or ensnared by\nsome sudden unforeseen temptation, and committed it without the full\nbent of our wills? whether we have striven against it, or given way to\nit, and suffered ourselves to be prevailed upon without making\nresistance?\n(2.) We must enquire, whether we have continued in sin, or unfeignedly\nrepented of it? whether sin sits light or heavy on our consciences? or,\nif our consciences are burdened with it, whether we seek relief against\nit in that way which Christ has prescribed in the gospel?\n(3.) We must enquire, whether there are not some sins that more\nfrequently and easily beset us? what they are, and whether we are daily\nwatchful against them, and use our utmost endeavours to avoid them?\n(4.) We must also enquire, whether we have not frequently relapsed into\nthe same sin which we have resolved against at various times, and, in\nparticular, at the Lord\u2019s table, and hereby broke our engagements; and\nif so, whether we did not rely too much on our own strength, when we\nmade those resolutions against sin?\n(5.) We are to enquire, whether sin gets ground upon us, whereby grace\nis weakened? or, whether, though we commit it, we find its strength\nabated, and we enabled, in some measure, to mortify it, though we do not\nwholly abstain from it? as the apostle says, _That which I do, I allow\nnot; but what I hate, that do I_, Rom. vii. 15.\n(6.) We are also to enquire, whether our sins have not carried in them a\ngreat neglect of Christ, his blood, his grace, his benefits, as not\nthinking of them, admiring or prizing them above all things, nor laying\nhold on them by faith, and so not making a right use of his dying love,\nwhich is signified in the Lord\u2019s supper.\n3. We are to examine ourselves, before we come to the Lord\u2019s table, what\nparticular wants we have to be supplied. Our Saviour is to be considered\nin this ordinance, not only as signified by the external elements; but\nas present with his people when met together in his name, with earnest\nexpectation of enjoying communion with him: And, as he is appointed to\napply, as well as purchase redemption for us, we must consider him as\nhaving his hands full of spiritual blessings, to impart to his\nnecessitous people, who come to him for them: Therefore they ought\nbefore they go, to enquire, not only, as has been before observed, what\nare their sins which are to be confessed and bewailed before him, but\nwhat it is more especially, that they stand in need of from him? The\nquestion that Christ will ask them, when they come there, is, what is\nthy petition, and what is thy request? what are those wants which thou\ndesirest a supply of? Accordingly, we are before-hand to enquire,\nwhether, though we have some little hope that we have experienced the\ngrace of God in truth, yet we do not want a full assurance of our\ninterest in Christ, _that we may know that we have eternal life_, 1 John\nv. 13. together with the joy of faith accompanying the actings thereof?\nand, whether we do not want enlargement of heart, and raised affections\nin holy duties? which the Psalmist seems to intend, when he says, _Bring\nmy soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name_, Psal. cxlii. 7.\nAgain, whether we do not want many experiences, which we have formerly\nhad, of the grace of God, and his special presence in holy duties; or\nhave not occasion to say with Job, _O that it were as in months past, as\nin the days when God preserved me: When his candle shined upon my head,\nand, by his light I walked through darkness_, Job xxix. 2, 3. Moreover,\nwe are to enquire, whether we do not want a greater degree of\nestablishment in the great doctrines of the gospel; or to be kept steady\nin a time of temptation? and, whether we do not want a greater degree of\nzeal for the honour of God, in a day in which many professors are\nlukewarm? as our Saviour observes concerning the church of Laodicea,\n_That they were neither cold nor hot_, Rev. iii. 15. or, whether we do\nnot want together with this zeal, a compassion to the souls of others,\nwho make shipwreck of faith, not having a good conscience, which may\ninduce us, as the apostle says, _In meekness to instruct those that\noppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the\nacknowledging of the truth?_ 2 Tim. ii. 25. and, whether we are duly\naffected with the degeneracy of the age wherein we live, and are not too\nnegligent in bearing our testimony against the errors advanced therein?\nor, whether we understand the meaning of those various dispensations of\nprovidence, which we are under, and what is our present duty in\ncompliance therewith? These things are of a more general nature, and to\nbe made the subject of our enquiry, whenever we draw nigh to Christ in\nany ordinance in which we hope for a supply of our wants.\nBut there are other things which we ought to have a more particular\nregard to in our enquiries, when we are to engage in the ordinance of\nthe Lord\u2019s supper.\n(1.) In order to our partaking of it aright, we are to enquire, whether\nwe do not want a clear and distinct apprehension of the covenant of\ngrace, and the seals thereof, and how we are to act faith in a way of\nself-dedication, and how we ought to renew our covenant engagements with\nGod, which we are more especially called to do therein?\n(2.) Whether we do not want a broken heart, suitably affected with the\ndying love of Jesus Christ, which is signified therein, that we may\n_look on him who was pierced, and mourn_, Zech. xii. 10.\n(3.) Whether we do not want to be led into the true way of improving\nChrist crucified, to answer all those accusations that are brought in\nagainst us, either by Satan or our own consciences, and how this is an\nexpedient for the taking away the guilt and power of sin?\n(4.) Whether we do not want to be made more like to Christ, and\nconformed to his death, that, while we behold him represented as dying\nfor us, we may _reckon ourselves as dead to sin_, and to the world; and\n_that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be\ndestroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin_? Rom. vi. 6. 10.\n(5.) Whether we do not want an abiding impression of the love of Christ,\nand a greater stedfastness in our resolution, to adhere to him; that so,\nwhatever grace we may be enabled to act, by strength derived from him,\nmay be maintained and exercised, not only at that time, but when we are\nmore immediately engaged in that ordinance?\nThese things we are to examine ourselves concerning, that we may spread\nour wants before the Lord at his table. And to induce us hereunto, we\nmay consider, that our corrupt nature is very prone to think ourselves\nbetter than we really are; so that, how indigent and distressed soever\nwe may be, we are ready to conclude, with the church of the Laodiceans,\nthat _we are rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing_,\nRev. iii. 17.\nMoreover, if we are not truly sensible of our necessities, we shall not\nvalue Christ\u2019s fulness, or the rich provisions he has made for his\npeople, and is pleased to dispense in this ordinance; as it is said,\n_The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick_, Matt. ix. 12.\nand we must consider, that a great part of our work therein, consists in\nejaculatory prayer, which we shall not be able to put up in a right\nmanner, if we are not sensible of our wants; and one reason why we are\nso often at a loss in prayer, or go out of the presence of God empty,\nis, because our hearts are not enlarged therein, which they cannot be,\nunless we are affected with a sense of our necessities.\nNow, to encourage us to examine ourselves concerning them, before we\npartake of the Lord\u2019s supper, let us consider that Christ invites us to\ndraw nigh to him therein; that he may take occasion to communicate the\nblessings of his redemption, which are signified thereby; that he may\nsupply our wants, satisfy our desires, surmount our difficulties, and\napply to us the great and precious promises of the covenant of grace,\nwhich are to be sought for at his hands, by faith and prayer, which\nsupposes the performance of this duty of self-examination, with respect\nto the blessings that we stand in need of from him.\n4. We are, before we partake of the Lord\u2019s supper, to examine ourselves\nconcerning the truth and measure of our knowledge in divine things;\ninasmuch as without the knowledge hereof, the heart cannot be good, nor\nany spiritual duty engaged in, in a right manner. As for a perfect\ncomprehensive knowledge of divine truths, that is not to be expected, by\nreason of the weakness of our capacities, and the imperfection of this\npresent state; wherein, as the apostle says, _we see_ but _through a\nglass darkly_, or, as it is said elsewhere, _We are but of yesterday,\nand know_, comparatively, _nothing_, Job viii. 9.\nHowever, there is a degree of knowledge, which is not only attainable,\nbut necessary to our right engaging in this ordinance; and this does not\nconsist barely in our knowing that there is a God, or that he is to be\nworshipped, or that there was such a person as our Saviour, who lived in\nthe world, was crucified, rose again from the dead, ascended into\nheaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead: For a\nperson may have a general notion of all these things, and yet be\nunacquainted with the end and design of Christ\u2019s death, and the\nblessings and privileges of the covenant of grace, which he procured\nthereby, or with the claim that a person may lay by faith, to them;\nwithout which, there is not a sufficient knowledge, such as the apostle\ncalls _a discerning the Lord\u2019s body_, 1 Cor. xi. 29. which we ought to\ndo in this ordinance.\nNow, that knowledge of divine truths, which ought not only to be pressed\nafter, but, we are to examine ourselves, whether we have, in some\nmeasure attained to, respects,\n(1.) The person of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, and the offices which\nhe executes as such; and more particularly, the manner and end of his\nexecuting his priestly office, in which he offered himself as a\nsacrifice for sin, which we are more especially to commemorate in this\nordinance.\n(2.) We must have an affecting sense or knowledge of the guilt of sin;\nand, as a relief against it, must be acquainted with the doctrine of the\nfree grace of God, displayed in the gospel, and founded in the blood of\nJesus, whereby sin is pardoned. We are also to be fully convinced of the\nalmighty power of the Holy Ghost, whereby alone it can be subdued, and\nof the method he takes therein to make the redemption purchased by\nChrist, effectual to answer that end.\n(3.) We are to endeavour, in some measure, to know God as our Father,\nand covenant-God in Christ, who bestows on his people the rich and\nsplendid entertainment of his house, and satisfies them with the\nabundance of his goodness, pursuant to what Christ has purchased. And we\nmust also know what it is to deal with him as those who see themselves\nobliged herein to devote themselves to him as their God; and what large\nexpectations they may have from him, whom he has avouched to be his\npeculiar people; and how this is a foundation of that humble boldness\nwith which they are encouraged to come _unto the throne of grace, that\nthey may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need_, Heb. iv.\nMoreover, we are not only to enquire, whether we are apprehensive of the\nexcellency, glory, and suitableness of those great things, that are\nrevealed in the gospel, to answer our particular exigencies, and render\nus happy in the enjoyment of God; but whether the knowledge hereof makes\na due impression on our hearts, is of a transforming nature, and has a\ntendency to regulate the conduct of our lives, and put us on the\napplication of these great things to ourselves?\nAs to the degree of our knowledge we must enquire, whether it be only a\nsingle apprehension that the doctrines of the gospel are true, or, at\nmost, contains in it some general ideas of their being excellent and\nworthy of the highest esteem; but whether we can prove them to be true,\nand render a reason of our faith, without which, it may, indeed, be\nrightly placed as to its object? But it cannot be said to be deeply\nrooted; and therefore it is exposed to greater danger of being foiled,\nweakened, or overthrown by temptation. We must also enquire, whether we\ngrow in knowledge in proportion to those opportunities or means of grace\nthat we are favoured with, which the apostle calls _growing in grace,\nand in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ_, 2 Pet. iii.\n5. We are to examine ourselves concerning the truth and degree of our\nfaith, and other graces that are inseparably connected with it. As for\nfaith, we are to enquire, whether it be a living, or what the apostle\ncalls a _dead faith_, James ii. 17, 18. as being alone, and destitute of\nthose good works which ought to proceed from it? Whether it only\ncontains in it an assent to the truth of divine revelation; or, whether\nit puts us upon a closure with Christ, embracing him in all his offices,\nand trusting in him for all those benefits which he has purchased by his\nblood? We must also enquire, what fruits or effects it produces, and\nwhat other graces accompany or flow from it? Whether it inclines us to\nset the highest value on Christ, as being in our esteem, altogether\nlovely; and gives us low thoughts of ourselves, as having nothing but\nwhat we depend on him for, or derive from him? Whether it be attended\nwith some degree of holiness in heart and life, as the apostle speaks of\nthe _heart\u2019s being purified by faith_, Acts xv. 9. Again, whether it be\nsuch a faith as _overcomes the world_, 1 John v. 14. and prevents our\nbeing easily turned aside from God, by the snares that we may meet with\nin it? Whether we are inclined hereby, to confess ourselves to be\n_strangers and pilgrims on the earth_, Heb. xi. 13. and _desire a better\ncountry_, ver. 16.\nThere are many other fruits and effects of faith, which the apostle\nmentions in Heb. xi. by which we may examine ourselves concerning the\ntruth and sincerity of this grace; and there are several graces\nmentioned in this answer, which are connected with faith, concerning\nwhich, we must enquire, whether they are found in us, particularly\nrepentance, which must of necessity be exercised in this ordinance as\nwell as faith; inasmuch as by the one, we behold Christ\u2019s glory, and, by\nthe other, we take a view of sins deformity? And it is such a\nrepentance, as inclines us not only to hate sin, but forsake and turn\nfrom it, as seeing the detestable and odious nature of it, in what\nChrist endured to make satisfaction for it.\nBut since faith and repentance have been particularly considered under a\nforegoing answer, together with the nature, properties, and effects\nthereof[100]; we shall pass them over, and consider the graces of love\nto God, desire after Christ, and our using endeavours to approve\nourselves his servants and subjects, by constant acts of obedience to\nhim: These things are to be the subject-matter of our enquiry, before we\nengage in this ordinance. It is very suitable to the occasion, to\nenquire, whether we love Christ or no; inasmuch as we are to behold and\nbe affected with the most amazing instance of love, which he has\nexpressed to us; Let us therefore enquire, whether our love to him be\nsuperlative, far exceeding that which we bear to all creatures, how\nvaluable soever they may be to us, how nearly soever we may be related\nto them, or whatever engagements we may be laid under to esteem and\nvalue them.\nWe may also try the sincerity of our love to God, by enquiring, whether\nit puts us on performing the most difficult duties for his sake, with\nthe greatest cheerfulness? And, whether we are hereby encouraged to bear\nthe most afflictive evils with patience; because it is his pleasure that\nwe should be exercised therewith, 1 Sam. iii. 18. Let us also enquire,\nwhether we love him with all our heart, or, whether our love is divided\nbetwixt him and the creature, whereby our affections are often drawn\naside from him? And, whether it puts us upon improving our time,\nstrength, and all our other talents to his glory? Whether we have no\ninterest separate from his, which we cannot but prefer to our chief joy?\nwhether this be the very end of living? As the apostle says, _For me to\nlive is Christ_, Phil. i. 21. and, whether we are earnestly desirous to\nbring others to him, not only by recommending his glory to them in\nwords; but by expressing the esteem and value we have for him, in the\nwhole course of our conversation? Whether we are hereby inclined to hate\nevery thing that he hates; as the Psalmist says, _Ye that love the Lord\nhate evil_, Psal. xcviii. 10. and whether we make those things the\nobject of our choice that he delights in?\nMoreover, we are to enquire, whether we have had any communion with him\nin ordinances, and particularly in this ordinance at other times? And\nwhen he is pleased to withhold this privilege from us in any degree,\nthat hereby we may see that all our comforts flow from him; or, when he\nhas a design to humble us for those sins that provoke him to depart from\nus, whether we are earnestly desirous of his return, and cannot be\nsatisfied with any thing short of him?\nAs for our desires after Christ, which we are farther to examine\nourselves about, we must enquire, whether, that, which moves or inclines\nus to desire him, be the view we have of the glory of his person, and\nthe delight that arises from our contemplating his divine excellencies;\nor whether we desire him, only for the sake of his benefits, or, that he\nmight deliver us from the wrath to come? Whether we desire Christ only\nwhen his service is attended with the esteem of men, or, as a means to\ngain some worldly advantage from them? Or, whether we desire to adhere\nto him, when we are called to suffer reproach, or even the loss of all\nthings for his sake; which will be a convincing evidence of the\nsincerity of our desires after, and, consequently, of our love to him?\nAnd, we are farther to enquire, whether our love to Christ, and desire\nafter him, discovers itself by renewed acts of obedience to him;\nparticularly, whether our obedience be universal or partial, constant or\nwavering, performed with delight and pleasure or with some reluctancy?\nAnd, whether it puts us upon universal holiness, as being induced\nhereunto by gospel-motives? Thus concerning our examining ourselves\nabout our faith, repentance, love to Christ, desire after him, and our\nendeavour to yield obedience to him in all things.\nThe next thing we are to examine ourselves concerning, is, whether we\nhave such a love to the brethren, and charity to all men, whereby we are\ndisposed to exercise forgiveness to those that have done us any\ninjuries? The Lord\u2019s-supper being an ordinance of mutual fellowship, we\nare obliged to behave ourselves towards one another as members of the\nsame body, subjects of the same Lord, engaged in the same religious\nexercise; and consequently, are obliged to love one another, whereby it\nwill appear, that we are Christ\u2019s disciples, John xiii. 35. This love\nconsists in our desiring and endeavouring to promote the spiritual\ninterest of each other, to the end that Christ herein may be glorified;\nand it includes in it that charity that casts a veil over their failures\nand defects, and our forgiving those injuries which they have, at\nanytime, done to us. This frame of spirit is certainly becoming the\nnature of the ordinance, in which we hope to be made partakers of the\nfruits and effects of Christ\u2019s love, and to obtain forgiveness from him,\nof all the injuries we have done against him; therefore it is very\nnecessary for us to enquire,\n[1.] Concerning our love to the brethren, whether it be such as is a\ndistinguishing character of those who are Christ\u2019s friends and\nfollowers; or which, as the apostle expresses it, will afford an\nevidence to us, that we are _passed from death to life_, 1 John iii. 14.\nAnd, in order to our discovering this, let us examine ourselves, whether\nwe love the brethren, because we behold the image of God in them? Which\nis, in effect, to love and _glorify God in them_, Gal. i. 24. Again,\nwhether our love to men leads us to desire and endeavour to be reckoned\na common good to all, according to the utmost of our ability? As it is\nsaid of Mordecai, that _he was accepted of the multitude of his\nbrethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all\nhis seed_, Esther x. 8.\nAgain, we are to enquire, whether our love be more especially to the\nsouls of men, as well as their outward concerns? This consists in our\nusing all suitable endeavours to bring them under conviction of sin, by\nfaithful and well-timed reproofs; the contrary to which, or our refusing\nto rebuke our _neighbour or brother_, and thereby _suffering sin upon\nhim_, is reckoned no other than an _hating_ of him, Lev. xix. 17. We are\nalso to express our love to the souls of men, by endeavouring to\npersuade them to believe in Christ, if they are in an unconverted state,\nor to walk as becomes his gospel, if they have been made partakers of\nthe grace thereof: Thus the apostle expresses his love to those to whom\nhe writes, when he says, _I travail in birth again till Christ be formed\nin you_, Gal. iv. 19. and elsewhere, he signifies to another of the\nchurches, how _affectionately desirous_ he was _of them_; which made him\n_willing, not only to impart the gospel of God, but his own soul;\nbecause they were dear unto him_, 1 Thes. ii. 8.\nAgain, we must enquire, whether our love puts us upon choosing such to\nbe our associates that truly fear the Lord; whom we count, as the\nPsalmist expresses it, _The excellent, in whom is all our delight_?\nPsal. xvi. 3. and, on the other hand, whether we avoid the society of,\nor intimacy with, those that are Christ\u2019s open enemies; the contrary to\nwhich, good Jehoshaphat was reproved for by the prophet, when he says,\n_Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?_ 2\nChron. xix. 2. Again, let us enquire, whether our love to men is then\nexpressed when it is most needed? As it is said, _A friend loveth at all\ntimes, and a brother is born for adversity_, Prov. xvii. 17. Again,\nwhether we are inclined to all those acts of charity which covereth a\nmultitude of faults? As the apostle describes it, that it _suffereth\nlong, and is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up;\ndoth not behave itself unseemly; seeketh not her own, is not easily\nprovoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in\nthe truth: Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,\nand endureth all things_, 1 Cor. xiii. 4,-8.\n[2.] We are to enquire, whether our love to men be expressed in\nforgiving injuries; which is a frame of spirit absolutely necessary for\nour engaging in any ordinance; as our Saviour says, _If thou bring thy\ngift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought\nagainst thee_, Matt. v. 23, 24. that is, if there be a misunderstanding\nbetween you, whoever be the aggressor, or gave the first occasion for\nit, _leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be\nreconciled to thy brother_; that is, do whatever is in thy power in\norder thereunto, and _then come and offer thy gift_. And this is more\nnecessary when we engage in this ordinance, in which we hope to obtain\nforgiveness of the many offences which we have committed against God;\nand accordingly the apostle says, _Let us keep the feast, not with old\nleaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the\nunleavened bread of sincerity and truth_, 1 Cor. v. 8. It is no\ndifficult matter for us to know whether we are disposed to forgive those\nwho have injured us; therefore the principal thing we are to examine\nourselves about, is, whether we do this with a right frame of spirit, as\nconsidering how prone we are to do those things ourselves, which may\nrender it necessary for us to be forgiven, both by God and man? and\nwhether, as the consequence hereof, though we were before this, inclined\nto over-look those graces which are discernable in them; yet now we can\nlove them as brethren, and glorify God for what they have experienced,\nand be earnestly solicitous for their salvation as well as our own? Thus\nconcerning the first duty mentioned in this answer, _viz._ our examining\nourselves before we engage in this ordinance. We now proceed to consider\nsome other duties mentioned therein, _viz._\nII. The renewing the exercise of those graces, which are necessary to\nour right engaging in it, whereby the sincerity and truth thereof may be\ndiscerned: Therefore, since faith, repentance, and several other graces,\nought to be exercised in this ordinance, it is necessary for us to give\na specimen thereof, before we engage in it. As the artificer first tries\nthe instrument he is to make use of in some curious work before he uses\nit, so the truth and sincerity of our faith is to be tried before it be\nexercised in this ordinance.\nThere is another duty preparatory to the Lord\u2019s Supper, mentioned in\nthis answer, _viz._ serious meditation, that so we may not engage in it\nwithout considering the greatness of the Majesty with whom we have to\ndo, together with our own vileness and unworthiness to approach his\npresence: We must also consider his power, wisdom, and goodness, to\nencourage us to hope for those supplies of grace from him, which we\nstand in need of; and we are to have an awful sense of his omnipresence\nand omniscience, as he is an heart-searching God, to excite in us an\nholy reverence, and prevent the wandering of our thoughts and affections\nfrom him, or any unbecoming behaviour in his presence; and, more\nparticularly we are to consider, before-hand, the end and design of\nChrist\u2019s instituting this ordinance, _viz._ that his dying love to\nsinners might be signified and shewed forth, as an encouragement to our\nfaith, and an inducement to thanksgiving and praise, as the nature of\nthe thing calls for it.\nAfter all this it is farther observed, that we are to endeavor to\nprepare for this ordinance by fervent prayer, as being sensible, that\nwhen we have done our best, we shall be too much unprepared for it,\nunless we have the special assistance of God, when engaging in it; to\nwhich I may apply Hezekiah\u2019s words, _The good Lord pardon every one that\nprepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his father; though he\nbe not cleansed according to the cleansing of the sanctuary_, 2 Chron.\nxxx. 18, 19. And we are to be earnest with him, that he would give us a\nbelieving view of Christ crucified, and especially of our interest in\nhim; that we may be able to say as the apostle does, _He loved me, and\ngave himself for me_, Gal. ii. 20. and that he would apply to us those\nblessings which he has purchased by his death, which we desire to wait\nupon him for, when engaging in this ordinance, that our drawing nigh to\nhim therein may redound to his glory and our spiritual advantage.\nFootnote 100:\n  _See Quest. LXXII. Vol. III. page 97, & seq. and Quest. LXXVI, LXXXV,\n  LXXXVII._\n    QUEST. CLXXII. _May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, and of\n    his due preparation, come to the Lord\u2019s Supper?_\n    ANSW. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due\n    preparation to the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper, may have true\n    interest in Christ, though he be not assured thereof; and in God\u2019s\n    account, hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of\n    the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and\n    to depart from iniquity, in which case (because promises are made,\n    and this sacrament is appointed for the relief even of weak and\n    doubting Christians,) he is to bewail his unbelief; and labour to\n    have his doubts resolved, and so doing, he may, and ought to come to\n    the Lord\u2019s Supper, that he may be farther strengthened.\n    QUEST. CLXXIII. _May any who profess the faith, and desire to come\n    to the Lord\u2019s Supper, be kept from it?_\n    ANSW. Such as are found to be ignorant, or scandalous,\n    notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to\n    the Lord\u2019s Supper, may, and ought to be kept from that sacrament by\n    the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive\n    instruction, and manifest their reformation.\nIn these answers we have an account of those who are the subjects of\nthis ordinance and ought to partake of it, or of those who must be kept\nfrom it: the former respects, more especially doubting Christians, who\ndesire to receive satisfaction, whether they ought to engage in it or\nno; the latter respects those who are ready to presume that they are\nqualified for it, and ought to partake of it; though, indeed, they are\nto be excluded from it.\nI. As to the case of one who doubteth of his being in Christ, and duly\nprepared for the Lord\u2019s Supper: Here are several things that may afford\nmatter of encouragement to him; and accordingly it is observed,\n1. That though this be a matter of doubt to him, as being destitute of\nassurance of his being in Christ; yet he may be mistaken in the judgment\nwhich he passes concerning himself: since assurance, as has been before\nobserved, is not of the essence of saving faith[101]. For a person may\nrely on, or give up himself to Christ, by a direct act of faith, who\ncannot at the same time, take the comfort that would otherwise arise\nfrom thence, that Christ has loved him, and given himself for him. Many\nhave reason to complain of the weakness of their faith, and the great\nresistance and disturbance which they meet with from the corruption of\nnature: And others, who have assurance, at present, of their interest in\nChrist, may afterwards, through divine desertion, lose the comfortable\nsense thereof; so that we must not conclude, that every doubting\nbeliever is destitute of faith. Such are to be tenderly dealt with, and\nnot discouraged from attending on that ordinance, which others, who\nconverse with them, cannot but think they have a right to, and are\nhabitually prepared for; though they themselves very much question,\nwhether they are actually meet for it, as being apprehensive that they\ncannot exercise those graces, that are necessary to their partaking of\nthis ordinance in a right manner. However, it is observed,\n(1.) That there are some things, which, if duly considered by such an\none, would afford him, ground of hope; though it may be, he cannot\nsufficiently improve them to his own comfort. As,\n[1.] If he be truly affected with his want of assurance, and, as the\nresult thereof, is filled with uneasiness in his own mind, laments his\ncondition, and can take no comfort in any outward enjoyments, while\ndestitute of it; and, if he be importunate with God in prayer, that he\nwould lift up the light of his countenance upon him, and grant him the\nexercise, as well as the joy of faith. Moreover, if he frequently\nexamines himself with impartiality, and an earnest desire to be\nsatisfied, as to his state; and if, notwithstanding this, he still walks\nin darkness, and his doubts and fears prevail against him, he has some\nground to conclude, that he is better than he apprehends himself to be,\nif he be truly humbled for those sins that may be reckoned the procuring\ncause thereof, and determines to be still waiting, till God shall be\npleased to discover to him his interest in forgiving grace, and thereby\nresolve his doubts, and expel his fears, which render him so very\nuneasy.\n[2.] A person has some ground of hope, if he can say, that he\nunfeignedly desires Christ and grace above all things, and can find\nsatisfaction in nothing short of him; in this respect it may be said,\nthat Christ is precious to him, as he is to them that believe. And to\nthis we may add, that if he desires to forsake all sin, as being\noffensive, and contrary to him; so that when he commits it, he can\nreadily say with the apostle, _That which I do I allow not of; for what\nI would, that do I not; but what I hate that do I_; and from hence he\nconcludes himself _wretched_; and earnestly desires to be _delivered\nfrom the body of this death_, Rom. vii. 15, 24.\n(2.) There are some promises which a weak Christian may lay hold on for\nhis encouragement; as,\n_1st_, If the guilt of sin lies as an heavy burden upon him, and is the\noccasion of his doubts about his being in Christ; there are promises of\nforgiveness, Mich. vii. 18, 19. Isa. lv. 7, 8.\n_2dly_, If he complains of the power of sin, and its prevalency over\nhim, there is a promise that is suited to his case, in Rom. vi. 14. \u2018Sin\nshall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but\nunder grace.\u2019\n_3dly_, If satan\u2019s temptations are very grievous to him, and such as he\ncan hardly resist, there are promises suited to this case, in 1 Cor. x.\n13. that \u2018God will not suffer his people to be tempted above that they\nare able, but will, with the temptation, make a way to escape;\u2019 and in\nRom. xvi. 20. \u2018The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet\nshortly.\u2019\n_4thly_, If he wants enlargement, and raised affections in prayer, or\nother religious duties; which is very discouraging to him, that promise\nmay afford him some relief, in Zech. xii. 10. \u2018I will pour upon the\nhouse of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of\ngrace and of supplication.\u2019 And, in Psal. x. 17. \u2018Lord, thou hast heard\nthe desire of the humble: Thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause\nthine ear to hear.\u2019\n_5thly_ If our doubts arise from frequent backslidings, and relapses\ninto sin, we may apply that promise in Psal. xxiii. 3. _He restoreth my\nsoul_, &c. And, Hos. xiv. 4. \u2018I will heal their backsliding, I will love\nthem freely; for mine anger is turned away from them:\u2019 And in Isa. lvii.\n17, 18. in which it is supposed, that God was wroth, and hid himself\nfrom his people for their iniquity; and they are described as _going on\nfrowardly in the way of their heart_; yet God says, \u2018I have seen his\nways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts to\nhim, and to his mourners:\u2019 And, in Hos. xi. 7-9. where God\u2019s people are\ndescribed as bent to backslide from him; yet he determines not to\ndestroy them, but says, in a very moving way, \u2018How shall I give thee up\nEphraim? How shall I deliver thee Israel, _&c._ Mine heart is turned\nwithin me, my repentings are kindled together? I will not execute the\nfierceness of mine anger; I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am\nGod and not man, the holy One in the midst of thee.\u2019\n_6thly_, If we want communion with God, or his presence with us in his\nordinances; which makes us conclude that we are not in Christ: Let us\nconsider what is said in Isa. xlv. 19. \u2018I said not unto the seed of\nJacob, Seek ye me in vain:\u2019 And, in chap. liv. 7, 8. \u2018For a small moment\nhave I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a\nlittle wrath I hid my face from thee, for a moment; but with everlasting\nkindness will I have mercy on thee.\u2019\n_7thly_, If we are under frequent convictions, but they soon wear off,\nwhich occasions us to fear that we never experienced a thorough work of\nconversion, let us consider, Isa. lxvi. 9. \u2018Shall I bring to the birth,\nand not cause to bring forth, saith the Lord?\u2019 And, in Zech. iv. 10.\n\u2018Who hath despised the day of small things?\u2019 And, in Isa. lxv. 8. \u2018As\nthe new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for\na blessing is in it; So will I do for my servants sake, that I may not\ndestroy them all.\u2019\n_8thly_, If we are in a withering and declining condition, and want\nreviving; or, if we complain of barrenness under the means of grace, so\nthat we may attend upon them, as we apprehend, to very little purpose;\nthere are some promises that are suited to this case, as Hos. xiv. 7, 8.\nIsa. xlviii. 17.\n_9thly_, If our doubts arise from the hardness of our hearts, so that we\ncannot mourn for sin as we ought to do, or would do, let us consider\nwhat God has promised in Ezek. vii. 16. Deut. xxx. 6. Acts v. 31.\n_10thly_, If we are under the visible tokens of God\u2019s displeasure, so\nthat we are ready to conclude, that he distributes terrors to us in his\nanger; and, as the consequence thereof, we walk in darkness, and are far\nfrom peace: There are many promises that are suited to this case, as\nJer. iii. 5. Psal. ciii. 8,-10. Isa. xii. 1. Joel ii. 13. Isa. l. 10.\nPsal. lxxix. 15. and xlii. 11.\n2. We have a further account how such, who are at present, discouraged\nfrom coming to the Lord\u2019s table, ought to manage themselves in this\ncase. And here it is observed, that they ought to bewail their unbelief,\nto labour to have their doubts resolved; and, instead of being\ndiscouraged, they should come to the Lord\u2019s supper, to be further\nstrengthened. This advice is not given to stupid sinners, or such as are\nunconcerned about their state, or never had the least ground to conclude\nthat they have had communion with God in any ordinance; and, especially\nif their distress of conscience arises rather from a slavish fear of the\nwrath of God, than a filial fear of him; or, if they are more concerned\nabout the dreadful consequences of sin, than the intrinsic evil that is\nin it, I say, this advice is not given to such, but those, as before\ndescribed, who lament after the Lord, earnestly seek him, though they\ncannot, at present, find him; and have fervent desires of his presence,\nthough no sensible enjoyment thereof, and appear to have some small\ndegrees of grace, though it be very weak: In this case a few words of\nadvice ought to be given to them; particularly,\n(1.) That they should take heed of giving way to any hard thoughts of\nGod; but, on the other hand, lay the whole blame hereof on themselves.\nThus God says by the prophet, \u201cHast thou not procured this unto thyself,\nin that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, when he led thee by the\nway?\u201d Jer. ii. 17.\n(2.) They should give glory to, depend on, and seek relief from the Holy\nSpirit, the Comforter, who glorifies himself by sealing believers unto\nthe day of redemption; and, together with this, bestows those comforts\non them which they stand in need of.\n(3.) They must endeavour, to their utmost, to act grace, and so go\nforward in the ways of God, though they do not go on comfortably, and\nnot say, \u201cwhy should I wait on the Lord any longer?\u201d Are they sometimes\nafraid they shall not arrive safely to the end of their race, they\nshould nevertheless resolve not to give out, or to run no longer in it;\nand because their way is attended with darkness, or hedged up with\nthorns, they should not determine, for that reason, to go backward, as\nthough they had never set their faces heaven-ward.\n(4.) They ought to lie at God\u2019s foot, acknowledging their unworthiness\nof that peace which they desire, but are destitute of, and plead for his\nspecial presence, that would give an happy turn to the frame of their\nspirits, as that which they prefer to all the enjoyments of life; as the\nPsalmist says, \u2018There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? Lord,\nlift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us,\u2019 Psal. iv. 6.\n(5.) It would be adviseable for such to contract an intimacy, and\nfrequently converse with experienced Christians, who know the depths of\nSatan, and the deceitfulness of the heart of man, and the methods of\ndivine grace in restoring comforts to those who are, at present,\ndestitute of them, agreeably to what they themselves have experienced in\nthe like case, 2 Cor. i. 4.\n(6.) They ought, as a farther means for the strengthening of their\nfaith, and establishing their comforts, to wait on God in the ordinance\nof the Lord\u2019s supper, hoping for Christ\u2019s presence therein; in which\nmany have found that they have been enlivened, quickened, and comforted,\nwhile others, through the neglect hereof, have had their doubts and\nfears increased. And this leads us to consider,\nII. What is contained in the latter of the answers we are explaining,\nwhich is applicable to those who desire to come to the Lord\u2019s supper,\nbut are to be kept from it. Here it is taken for granted, that all are\nnot to be admitted to this ordinance, though it may be, they make a\ngeneral profession of the Christian faith, and are not willing that any\nshould question their right to it. These are described in this answer,\n1. As being ignorant of the great doctrines of the gospel, and,\nconsequently, unacquainted with Christ, whom they never truly applied\nthemselves to, nor received by faith; and therefore they cannot improve\nthis ordinance aright, or have communion with Christ therein.\n2. They are to be excluded from the Lord\u2019s supper, who are scandalous or\nimmoral in their practice, whatever pretensions they make to the\ncharacter of Christians: These are described by the apostle, as persons\nwho _profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being\nabominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate_, Tit. i.\n16. Such ought not to have communion with those whom the apostle\ndescribes as _called to be saints_, Rom. i. 7. nor can they partake of\nthis ordinance aright, since they are not apprized of the end and design\nthereof, nor are they able, as the apostle expresses it, to _discern the\nLord\u2019s body_, 1 Cor. ix. 27. for, if they are strangers to themselves,\nhow can they apply the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption to their own\ncase? and, if they neglect the preparatory duty of self-examination, so\nthat they do not know their own wants, how can they go to Christ in this\nordinance for a supply thereof? or, if they do not desire the spiritual\nblessings of the covenant of grace, what right can they have to make use\nof the seals thereof? and if they are openly and visibly of another\nfamily, under the dominion of the powers of darkness, what right have\nthey to the privileges which Christ has purchased for those who are\nmembers of his family, and spiritually united to him?\n_Object._ 1. To what has been said concerning those that are to be\nexcluded from this ordinance, it is objected, that it appears, that both\ngood and bad have a right to it, from what our Saviour says in the\nparable of the wheat and the tares, in Mat. xiii. 29. both which are\nsaid to _grow together until the harvest_, when the reapers will be sent\nto _gather first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, and\nthe wheat into the barn_: So that hypocrites, and sincere Christians,\nare to continue together in the same church, and, consequently to\npartake of the same ordinances.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; this is not the sense of the parable;\nfor our Saviour explains it otherwise, when he says in ver. 38. _The\nfield is the world: the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but\nthe tares are the children of the wicked one._ And from hence we may\ninfer, that good and bad men are, through the forbearance of God,\nsuffered to live together in the world; but it gives no countenance to\nthis supposition, that the wicked ought to be joined with the godly as\nmembers of the same church: Not but that hypocrites may, and often do\nintrude themselves into the churches of Christ; yet since this is not\nknown to them, they are not to blame for it, the heart of man being\nknown to God alone; and the judgment that we are to pass concerning\nthose who are admitted into church-fellowship, or to the Lord\u2019s supper\nin particular, is to be founded on that credible profession which they\nmake; in which, though it be possible for them to deceive others, yet\nthe guilt and ill consequence thereof, will only affect themselves.\n_Object._ 2. It is further objected, that Judas was at the Lord\u2019s supper\nwhen it was first instituted by our Saviour, though he knew him to be an\nhypocrite and a traitor, and that he would speedily execute what he had\ndesigned against his life; and if so, then all ought to be admitted to\nthis ordinance. And the reason that is generally assigned why he was\nthere at that time, is, because it is said, in Luke xxii. 14. _When the\nhour was come, he sat down, and his twelve apostles with him_; and\nafterwards we read, in ver. 19. that _he took bread and brake it_, &c.\n_and also the cup after supper_, &c. ver. 20. and then it is said, in\nver. 21. _Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the\ntable_. This is supposed, by some, to have been spoken by Christ when\nthey were eating the Lord\u2019s supper; from whence it may be concluded that\nJudas was there.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied; that it seems much more probable\nthat he was not there when the Lord\u2019s supper was administered though he\njoined with Christ and the other apostles in eating the passover; for we\nmust consider,\n(1.) That the passover and the Lord\u2019s supper were celebrated, one\nimmediately after the other, at the same table, or sitting; therefore\nthe hand of Judas might be with Christ on the table, in the former,\nthough not in the latter: So that, though these words, _the hand of him\nthat betrayeth me, is with me on the table_, are inserted after the\naccount of both these ordinances being concluded; yet we have ground to\nsuppose, they were spoken while they were eating the passover, when\nJudas was present.\n(2.) It appears yet more probable that he was not present at the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, from the account which John gives of this matter, in chap. xiii.\n21. wherein our Saviour tells them, that _one of them should betray\nhim_: and, in ver. 26. he discovers that he meant Judas, by giving him\nthe sop; and in ver. 30. it is said, that _having received the sop, he\nwent immediately out_. Now it is certain there was no sop in the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, as there was in the passover, inasmuch as there was no flesh\ntherein: Therefore Judas went out when they were eating the passover,\nbefore they began to partake of the Lord\u2019s supper; being, as we may\nreasonably suppose, in a rage that his hypocrisy should be detected, and\nhe marked out as a traitor, who was, before this, reckoned as good a man\nas any of them: Therefore we have not sufficient ground from hence to\nconclude, that wicked men ought to be admitted to partake of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper.\n_Object._ 3. For Christians to exclude any from the Lord\u2019s supper, would\nargue a great deal of pride, or vain-glorious boasting, and it is, as it\nwere, to say to them who are excluded, \u201cStand off, for we are holier\nthan you.\u201d\n_Answ._ 1. A believer may with thankfulness, acknowledge the\ndistinguishing grace of God vouchsafed to him, and not to others; and,\nat the same time, bless him, that he has given him a right to the\nprivilege of his house, which all are not admitted to partake of,\nwithout doing this in a boasting way; he may say with the apostle in 1\nCor. xv. 10. _By the grace of God I am what I am_; and yet at the same\ntime, deal faithfully with those who are destitute of this grace; he may\nbless God for the right which he hopes he has to this ordinance, and yet\nit is not his duty to admit them to it who have no right.\n2. It is one thing not to admit persons who are unqualified to this\nordinance, and another thing to despise them upon this account. Our\nbusiness is not to reproach them, but to treat them with meekness; if\nperadventure God may give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the\ntruth, that hereby they may appear to have a right to it.\n_Object._ 4. If wicked men are to be excluded from one ordinance which\nChrist has instituted in his church, they may, for the same reason be\nexcluded from all; and so they may as well be debarred the privilege of\nhearing the word, and joining with the church in public prayer.\n_Answ._ There is not the same reason for excluding wicked men from\nhearing the word, or joining in prayer with the church, as there is for\nrefusing to admit them to partake of the Lord\u2019s supper. For prayer, and\npreaching the word, are God\u2019s appointed means for the working the grace\nof faith, instructing the ignorant, awakening the stupid and secure\nsinner, and putting him on complying with that method of salvation which\nGod has prescribed in the gospel, and embracing Christ as offered\ntherein: Whereas, on the other hand, the Lord\u2019s supper is an ordinance\nwhich supposes the soul to have, before this, received Christ by faith;\nand therefore he is therein to feed upon him, and to take comfort from\nwhat he has done and suffered for him, as conducive to the farther\nmortification of indwelling sin; which supposes that he has had, before\nthis, some experience of the grace of God in truth. Thus concerning the\nexclusion of ignorant or immoral persons, as being not qualified for the\nLord\u2019s supper.\nAnd here we may farther observe, that they who bring these and such-like\nobjections, with a design to open the door of the church so wide, that\nall may be received into it, and partake of those ordinances by which it\nis more particularly distinguished from the world, are very ready, in\ndefence of their own cause, to charge others with being too severe in\ntheir censures, and refusing to admit any into church-communion, unless\nthey can tell the very time in which they were converted, and the means\nby which this work was begun, and carried on; and this they are obliged\nto do in so public a manner, as that many are denied the privilege of\npartaking of this ordinance, for a mere circumstance; which is an\nextreme as much to be avoided as the receiving unqualified persons to\nthe Lord\u2019s supper.\nBut it may be replied to this, that since this charge is rather the\nresult of surmize than founded on sufficient evidence, it deserves to\nhave less notice taken of it: However, this I would say in answer to it,\nthat I never knew it to be the practice of any church of Christ, to\nexclude persons from its communion, because they knew not the time or\nmeans of their conversion; which may be sometimes occasioned by their\nhaving been favored with the blessing of a religious education and\nrestraining grace from their childhood, so that they have not run those\nlengths in sin which others have done; and therefore the change which is\nwrought in conversion, especially as to what concerns the time and\nmanner thereof, is less discernible. Sometimes the work has been begun\nwith a less degree of the terrors of conscience, under a sense of the\nguilt of sin, and the condemning sentence of the law, than others have\nexperienced: These have been drawn with the cords of love, and the grace\nof God has descended upon them insensibly, like the dew upon the grass;\nand therefore all that can be perceived by them, or that is to be\nrequired of them as a necessary qualification for their being admitted\nto the ordinances and privileges which belong to believers, is their\ndiscovering those fruits of faith which are discernible in the\nconversation of such as have experienced the grace of God in truth.\nAs to the other part of the charge, in which some churches are pretended\nto insist on such terms of communion as are merely circumstantial, so as\nto refuse to receive any that cannot comply with them: This is to be\nanswered by those who appear to be liable to it. All that I shall\ntherefore add under this head, is, that since a visible profession of\nfaith in Christ is to be made, as necessary to constitute a visible\nchurch, and the conversation of those who make it, ought to be\napparently agreeable thereunto: And inasmuch as none are obliged to make\nany thing known to the church, that contains the least appearance of\ndishonour or reflection on their character in the world; but are only\nrequired to testify and give a proof of their steady adherence to\nChrist, and their desire to embrace him in all his offices, as well as\nworship him in all his ordinances; this cannot justly be reckoned an\nunnecessary circumstance or making that a term of communion which Christ\nhas not made, and thereby excluding those who have a right to the Lord\u2019s\nsupper.\nAnd now we have considered the terms of communion, and the\nqualifications for it, as well as the spiritual privileges that are to\nbe expected by those who have a right to it. I cannot but observe, how\nthis is abused, and practically disowned, by those who engage in this\nordinance merely as a qualification for a civil employment. A person may\ncertainly be a good member of a commonwealth, and very fit to be\nentrusted with the administration of the civil affairs thereof, who has\nlittle or nothing to say concerning his experiences of the grace of God.\nTo assert, that a right to a civil employment is founded on the same\nqualifications that give a person a right to partake of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, would be to advance, not only that which is indefensible, but\nwhat would be almost universally denied, unless it could be proved, that\nall might partake of it, the contrary to which, we have endeavoured to\nmaintain.\nMoreover, when Christ instituted this ordinance, his people were in no\nexpectation of bearing any part in the civil government; therefore this\nwas most remote from the first intent and design thereof: And we often\nfind that this is a temptation to men to profane this ordinance, and\nlays a burden on the consciences of those who know themselves unprepared\nfor it, who had little or nothing in view but the securing their secular\ninterest; by which means it is to be feared, that many of them eat and\ndrink unworthily, and, instead of receiving advantage by it, bring their\nconsciences under such entanglements, that they cannot easily extricate\nthemselves from. Thus concerning those who are to be admitted to be\npartakers of the Lord\u2019s Supper, though doubting of their meetness for\nit, and others being excluded, who have no right to it.\nThe last thing observed in this answer, is, that they who are not, at\npresent, deemed fit for this ordinance, may afterwards be admitted to it\nwhen they have received instruction, and manifested a thorough\nreformation; or when, by their diligent attendance on other ordinances,\nor means of grace, accompanied with the divine blessing, that, which at\npresent disqualifies them, being removed, they may humbly and thankfully\nwait on God therein, and hope for his presence and blessing; and then\nthe church will have reason, as well as themselves, to bless God for\nthat grace which they have experienced, whereby they may come to it for\nthe better, and not for the worse.\nFootnote 101:\n  _See Quest. lxxxi. Vol. III. page 268._\n    QUEST. CLXXIV. _What is required of them that receive the sacrament\n    of the Lord\u2019s Supper, in the time of the administration of it?_\n    ANSW. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the\n    Lord\u2019s Supper, that during the time of the administration of it,\n    with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that\n    ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions,\n    heedfully discern the Lord\u2019s body, and affectionately meditate on\n    his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a\n    vigorous exercise of their graces, in judging themselves and\n    sorrowing for sin, in hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding\n    on him by faith, receiving of his fulness, trusting in his merits,\n    rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace, in renewing of\n    their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.\n    QUEST. CLXXV. _What is the duty of Christians after they have\n    received the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper?_\n    _Answ._ The duty of Christians after they have received the\n    sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper, is, seriously to consider how they\n    have behaved themselves therein, and with what success; if they find\n    quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of\n    it, watch against relapses, fulfil their vows, and encourage\n    themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance; but if they\n    find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation\n    to, and carriage at the sacrament; in both which, if they can\n    approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to\n    wait for the fruit of it in due time; but if they see they have\n    failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it\n    afterward with more care and diligence.\nThese two answers respect our behaviour in, and after our engaging in\nthis ordinance.\nI. We are to consider with what frame of spirit we are to engage\ntherein; how our meditations are to be employed, and what graces are to\nbe exercised.\n1. Here is something observed, which is common to it with all other\nordinances, _viz._ that we are to wait on God with an holy reverence\narising from a becoming sense of his divine perfections, and the\ninfinite distance we stand in from him; and we are to impress on our\nsouls an awful sense of his omniscience and omnipresence; whereby he\nknows with what frame of spirit we draw nigh to him, better than this is\nknown to ourselves; and highly resents every thing that is contrary to\nhis holiness, or unbecoming the character of those who are worshipping\nat his footstool.\n2. There are other things peculiar to this ordinance, that are necessary\nin order to our engaging in it in a right manner; as,\n(1.) We are diligently to observe the sacramental elements and actions,\nwhich contain the external part of the duty required of us. The bread\nand wine, together with the actions to be performed in our receiving\nthem by Christ\u2019s appointment, are, as has been before observed,\nsignificant and instructive signs of his death, and the benefits which\nhe has procured for us thereby, that are to be attended to, and brought\nto our remembrance in this ordinance.\nMoreover, we are to consider, that though the blessings of the covenant\nof grace are signified thereby, as they are instituted, not natural\nsigns thereof; yet the gospel, in which we have an account of what\nChrist did, and suffered for us, is a large and sufficient explication\nhereof for the direction of our faith, when conversant about them.\n(2.) We are affectionately to meditate on the sufferings and death of\nChrist, which are signified thereby. Meditation is a great part of the\nwork we are to be engaged in, and the death of Christ is the principal\nsubject thereof; accordingly we are to consider his condescending love\nin giving his life a ransom for us; and, in order to our being affected\ntherewith, and to excite our admiration and thankfulness for it, we must\ncontemplate the divine excellency and glory of his Person; which adds an\ninfinite value to every part of his obedience and sufferings. We must\nalso consider the kind of death he died; which is called his being\n_wounded_, _bruised_, Isa. liii. 5. _cut off_ Dan. ix. 26. and is\nrepresented as that which had the external mark of the curse of God\nannexed to it; upon which account he is said to have been made a curse\nfor us, Gal. iii. 13.\nWe are also to consider the character of the persons for whom he laid\ndown his life; who are described as being _without strength_, or ability\nto do what is good, and _ungodly_, and so open enemies to him, Rom. v.\n6, 8, 10. and therefore there was nothing in us that could induce him to\ndo this for us. We are also to consider, that he died in our room and\nstead, as _bearing our griefs, and carrying our sorrows_, Isa. liii. 4.\nand being _delivered for our offences_, Rom. iv. 25. And we are also to\nconsider the great ends designed thereby, as God is hereby glorified,\nhis holiness and justice in demanding and receiving a full satisfaction\nfor sin, illustrated in the highest degree; so that he declares himself\n_well-pleased_ in what Christ has done and suffered, Matt. iii. 17. and\n_well-pleased_ likewise, as the prophet expresses it, _for his\nrighteousness\u2019 sake_, Isa. xlii. 21. We are also to consider the great\nadvantage that we hope to receive thereby, as _being justified by his\nblood, we shall be saved from wrath through him_, Rom. v. 9. This is\ntherefore the highest inducement to us, to give up ourselves entirely to\nhim.\n3. We are, in this ordinance, to stir up ourselves to a vigorous\nexercise of those graces that the nature of the ordinance requires: And\naccordingly we are,\n(1.) To judge ourselves; as the apostle says, _If we would judge\nourselves, we should not be judged_, 1 Cor. xi. 31. and this we ought to\ndo, by accusing, condemning, and passing sentence against ourselves, for\nthose sins which we have committed against Christ, whereby we were\nplunged into the utmost depths of misery, in which we should for ever\nhave continued, had he not redeemed us by his blood. We are also to\nacknowledge our desert of God\u2019s wrath and curse; so that _if he should\nmark iniquity, we could not stand_, Psal. cxxx. 3. and this sense of sin\nought to be particular, including in it those transgressions which are\nknown to none but God and ourselves; as we ought to make a particular\napplication of the blood of Christ for the forgiveness thereof. This is\ncertainly very suitable to the nature of the ordinance we are engaged\nin, wherein Christ is set forth as a sacrifice for sin, and we are led,\nat the same time, to be duly affected with our malady, and the great\nremedy God has provided; which will have a tendency to enhance our\npraise and thankfulness to him, who loved us, and gave himself for us.\n(2.) We are to exercise a godly sorrow for sin, which is the ground of\nall that distress and misery which we are liable to: This ought to take\nits rise from the corruption of nature, from whence all actual sins\nproceed; and we are to bewail our sins of omission, as well as\ncommission; our neglect to perform duties that are incumbent on us, as\nwell as those sins that have been committed by us with the greatest\npresumption, deliberation, wilfulness, and obstinacy, which contain in\nthem the highest ingratitude and contempt of the blood of Christ, and\nthe method of salvation by him. And this sorrow for sin ought to produce\nthose good effects of praying and striving against it, endeavouring to\nreturn to God, from whom we have backslidden. The apostle calls it,\n_sorrowing after a godly sort_; and speaks of it as attended with\n_carefulness_, that we may avoid it for the future; _clearing of\nourselves_, so that we may either be encouraged to hope that we have not\ncommitted the sins which we are ready to charge ourselves with, or, that\nthe guilt thereof is taken away by the atonement that Christ has made\nfor us. It ought also to produce an holy _indignation_, and a kind of\nrevenge against sin, as that which has been so prejudicial to us; as\nlikewise a _fear_ of offending; a _zeal_ for the glory of God, whom we\nhave dishonoured; and a _vehement desire_ of those blessings which we\nhave hereby forfeited. This sorrow for sin ought to proceed from an\ninward loathing and abhorrence of it; and the degree thereof ought to\nbear some proportion to its respective aggravations, and the dishonour\nwe have brought to God thereby; which would be an effectual means to\nincline us to abhor ourselves, and repent in dust and ashes.\nThis is very agreeable to the nature of the ordinance we are engaged in,\nsince nothing tends more to enhance the vile and heinous nature of sin,\nthan the consideration of its having crucified the Lord of glory; which\nis to be the immediate subject of our meditation therein. We read that\nChrist, in his last sufferings, was _exceeding sorrowful, even unto\ndeath_, Matt. xxvi. 38. which could not proceed from the afflictive view\nthat he had of the pains and indignities he was to suffer in his\ncrucifixion; for that would argue him to have a less degree of holy\ncourage and resolution than some of the martyrs have expressed when they\nhave endured extreme torments, and most ignominious reproaches for his\nsake: Therefore his sorrow proceeded from the afflictive sense that he\nhad of the guilt of our sins which he bore. If therefore he not only\nsuffered, but his soul was exceeding sorrowful for our sins; this ought\nto excite in us the exercise of that grace in this ordinance, in which\nit is brought to our remembrance.\n(3.) We are to hunger and thirst after Christ; which implies in it an\nardent desire of having communion with him: Thus the church says, _With\nmy soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit will I\nseek thee early_, Isa. xxvi. 9. and the Psalmist compares this to the\nhunted _hart_, that is ready to die for thirst, which _pants after the\nwater-brooks_, Psal. xlii. 1. This arises from a deep sense of our need\nof Christ, and farther supplies of grace from him, and is attended with\na firm resolution that nothing short of him shall satisfy us, as not\nbeing adapted to supply our wants. Such a frame of spirit is agreeable\nto the ordinance we are engaged in, since Christ is therein represented\nas having purchased, and being ready to apply to his people, those\nblessings which are of a satisfying and comforting nature.\n(4.) We are to feed on Christ by faith, and thereby receive of his\nfulness, as he is frequently represented in scripture, under the\nmetaphor of _food_: Thus he styles himself, _The bread of life_, John\nvi. 35. and the blessings he bestows, are called, \u2018The meat which\nperisheth not, but endureth to everlasting life,\u2019 ver. 27. and the\ngospel-dispensation is set forth by a \u2018feast of fat things, a feast of\nwines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees\nwell refined,\u2019 Isa. xxv. 6. Thus our Saviour also represents it in the\nparable, Matt. xxii. 4. in which he commands his servants to invite\nthose that were bidden to the marriage-feast, by telling them what\nthings he had prepared for their entertainment, as an encouragement to\ntheir faith. Thus we are to consider that fulness of grace that is in\nChrist, (when drawing nigh to him in this ordinance,) of merit, for our\njustification, of strength to enable us to mortify sin, and resist\ntemptations, of wisdom to direct us in all emergencies and difficulties,\nof peace and comfort, to revive and encourage us under all our doubts\nand fears, and to give us suitable relief when we are ready to faint\nunder the burdens we complain of. All these blessings are to be\napprehended and applied by faith, otherwise we cannot conclude that they\nbelong to us; and nothing can be more adapted to this ordinance, wherein\nChrist is represented as having all those blessings to bestow, which he\nhas purchased by his blood, and these are signified or shewed forth\ntherein.\n(5.) We are, in this ordinance, to trust in the merits of Christ, or to\nexercise an entire confidence in him, who, by his death, has purchased\nfor us all spiritual and saving blessings. This ought to be attended\nwith an humble sense of our own unworthiness, as being _less than the\nleast of all God\u2019s mercies_, Gen. xxxii. 10. and as deserving nothing\nbut his fierce wrath for our iniquities. And, since he has paid a full\nand satisfactory price of redemption for us, and thereby procured the\nblessings that we had forfeited, which have a tendency to make us\ncompletely happy, we ought to lay the whole stress of our salvation on\nhim, as being sensible that _he is able to save to the uttermost, all\nthat come unto God by him_, Heb. xii. 25.\n(6.) We are to rejoice in Christ\u2019s love, which is infinitely greater\nthan what can be in the heart of one creature towards another: This love\nof Christ has several properties;\n_1st_, It doth not consist merely in his desiring our good, or wishing\nthat we were happy, but in making us so; nor does it only consist in his\nsympathizing with us in our miseries, but delivering us from them, and\ndiscovering himself as our refuge and strength, a very present help in\ntrouble.\n_2dly_, As Christ\u2019s love to his people did not take its motive at first\nfrom any beauty or excellency which he found in them who were deformed,\npolluted, and worthy to be abhorred by him, but afterwards adorned and\n_made comely through his comeliness put upon them_, Ezek. xvi. 14. so\nwhen they forfeit his love by their frequent backslidings, and deserve\nto be cast off by him, it is nevertheless unchangeably fixed upon them,\ninasmuch as _having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them\nunto the end_, John xiii. 1.\n_3dly_, Christ\u2019s love is infinitely condescending, which arises not only\nfrom that infinite distance which there is between him and his people,\nbut from his remembring them in their low estate, having compassion on\nthem whom no eye pitied, and saving them when they were in the utmost\ndepths of despair and misery, _saying to them when they were in their\nblood, live_, Ezek. xvi. 6.\n_4thly_, It is not like the love of strangers, which contents itself\nwith some general endeavours to do good to them whom they design not to\ncontract an intimacy with, but it is attended with the highest acts of\nfriendship and communion, imparting his secrets to them, as he promises\n_to love, and manifest himself to them_, John xiv. 21. and tells his\ndisciples, \u2018Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth\nnot what his lord doeth: But I have called you friends; for all things\nthat I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you,\u2019 chap. xv.\n_5thly_, It is such a love as forgives all former injuries, and upbraids\nnot his people for what they have done against him, either before or\nsince they believed in him. Thus God is said to \u2018pardon the iniquity,\nand pass by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage,\u2019 and \u2018to\ncast all their sins into the depths of the sea,\u2019 Micah vii. 18, 19. and\n\u2018to blot out their transgressions for his own sake, and not to remember\ntheir sins,\u2019 Isa. xliii. 25.\n_6thly_, It is such a love as affords us all seasonable and necessary\nhelp in times of our greatest straights and difficulties, Psal. xlvi. 1.\nand makes provision for our future necessities; as he tells his\ndisciples, _I go to prepare a place for you_, John xiv. 2. that they\nmight be assured of being happy in another world; and accordingly he\nexpresses himself in his mediatorial prayer, \u2018Father, I will that these\nwhom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, that they may behold\nmy glory,\u2019 John xvii. 24.\n_7thly_, It is such a love, as puts him upon reckoning all injuries done\nagainst his people, as though they were done against himself, and the\nkindnesses expressed to them, as though they were expressed to him, as\nit is said, _He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye_, Zech.\nii. 8. and, _he that despiseth you, despiseth me_, Luke x. 16. And, when\nhe takes notice of those expressions of kindness, which his people had\nshewn to one another, he says, _Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of\nthe least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me_, Mat. xxv. 40.\n_8thly_, It is such a love as inclines him to interpose himself between\nhis people and all danger, whereby he prevents their being overcome by\ntheir enemies; and indeed, he not only hazarded, but as _a good shepherd\ngave his life for his sheep_, John x. 11.\nThis is that love which is to be the subject of our meditation in this\nordinance; accordingly we are first to endeavour, to make out our\ninterest in him, by faith, which will be evinced by those acts of love\nto him that flow from it, and then we may rejoice in it as a constant\nspring of peace and blessedness.\n(7.) The next grace to be exercised in this ordinance, is thankfulness,\nadoring and praising him that he has been pleased to extend compassion\nto us in bestowing those blessings, which are the result of his\ndiscriminating grace, the instances whereof are various, _viz._ as he\ndelivers us from the ruin that sin would have inevitably brought upon\nus, prevents us with the blessings of goodness, and restrains the\nbreaking forth of our corruptions, which would otherwise have inclined\nus to commit the vilest abominations; and, more especially, as he renews\nour nature, changes our hearts, creates us unto good works, and then\nquickens and excites that grace in us which his own hand wrought, and\ncomforts us when our spirits are overwhelmed with sorrow, whereby he\nenables us to go on in his way rejoicing, and so carries on the work\nwhich he has begun in us, till it be completed in glory. There is\nnothing that we have, either in hand or hope, but what will afford\nmatter for the exercise of this grace; and more particularly, our hearts\nought to be excited hereunto from the consideration of the benefits that\nare signified in this ordinance; especially if we are enabled to receive\nthem by faith.\n(8.) We are, at the Lord\u2019s supper, to renew our covenant with God. That\nthis may be rightly understood, we must consider what it is for a\nbeliever to enter into covenant with God, which he is supposed to have\ndone before this; and that consists not in our promising that we will do\nthese things that are out of our power, or, that we will exercise those\ngraces, which none but God, who works in his people, both to will and to\ndo, can enable us to put forth; but it consists in our making a\nsurrender of ourselves to Christ, and depending on him for the supply of\nall our spiritual wants, humbly hoping and trusting that he will enable\nus to adhere stedfastly to him, working in us all that grace which he\nrequires of us; which blessing if he is pleased to grant us, we shall be\nenabled to perform all the duties that are incumbent on us, how\ndifficult soever they may be. This is an unexceptionable way of entering\ninto covenant with God, as it contains an acknowledgement of our own\ninability to do that which is good without him, and desire to give the\nglory of all to him; on whom we stedfastly rely, that we may obtain\nmercy from him to be faithful.\nMoreover, to renew our covenant, is to declare, that through his grace,\nwe are inclined stedfastly to adhere to our solemn dedication to him,\nnot, in the least, repenting of what we did therein; and, that we have\nas much reason to depend on his assistance now, as we had at first,\nsince grace is carried on, as well as begun by him alone; and\naccordingly, while we express our earnest desire to be stedfast in his\ncovenant, we depend on his promise that he will never fail us, nor\nforsake us: And we take this occasion, more especially, to renew our\ndedication to him, as it is very agreeable to the nature of this\nordinance, in which we have the external symbols of his love to us,\nwhich lays us under the highest obligation thereunto.\n(9.) We are, in this ordinance, to shew our readiness to exercise a\nChristian love to all saints; which consists, more especially, in our\nearnest desire that all grace and peace may abound in them, as in our\nown souls; that hereby we may have occasion to glorify God together, and\nshew our mutual concern for the spiritual welfare of each other. We are\nto bless God for the grace they are enabled to exercise, though, it may\nbe, we cannot exercise it in the same degree ourselves: And, as for\nothers, we are to sympathize with them in their weaknesses, grieve for\ntheir falls and miscarriages; and be very ready to make abatements for\nthose frailties and infirmities that we behold in them, which we\nourselves are sometimes liable to, especially if they are not\ninconsistent with grace, in which case we should cast a mantle of love\nover them, not knowing but we may be exposed to, and fall by the same\ntemptations.\nThis love is to be expressed, more especially in this ordinance;\ninasmuch as we are to consider all saints as members of Christ\u2019s\nmystical body, children of the same God and Father, partakers of the\nsame grace with us, fellow travellers to the same heavenly country,\nwhere we hope to meet with them at last, though now they are liable to\nthe same difficulties with ourselves, and exposed to those assaults and\ntemptations that we often meet with from our spiritual enemies. This\nexpression of our love, though it be more immediately and directly\nextended to the same society, that joins in communion with us; yet it is\nnot to be confined within such narrow limits, but includes in it the\nhighest esteem for all who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be\nsaints, though their place of abode be remote from, and they are not\nknown to us in the flesh.\nII. We are now to consider the duty of Christians after they have\nreceived the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper; and that consists in\nenquiring, how they have behaved themselves therein? and, whether they\nhave any ground to conclude, that they have been favoured with the\nspecial presence of God in this ordinance, whereby it has been made a\nmeans of grace to them?\nAs to the former of these enquiries relating to the frame of our\nspirits, while engaging in this solemn duty, we shall sometimes find,\nthat it has been such as affords matter for deep humiliation and\nself-abasement, in the sight of God, when we reflect upon it;\nparticularly,\n1. When our minds and affections have been conversant about those\nthings, which are altogether unsuitable to the work we have been engaged\nin, and, instead of conversing with Christ in this ordinance, we have\nhad our thoughts and meditations most taken up with worldly matters; or,\nif they have, indeed, been conversant about religious affairs, yet we\nmay, in some measure, see reason to blame ourselves, if these have been\naltogether foreign to the great end and design of the ordinance we have\nbeen engaged in. There are many portions of scripture, or heads of\ndivinity founded upon it, which we may employ our thoughts about at\nother times, with great advantage; yet they may not be altogether\nsuitable, or adapted to our receiving spiritual advantage by, or making\na right improvement of Christ crucified, as the nature of this ordinance\nrequires.\n2. They behave themselves unbecomingly, in this ordinance, who meditate\non the thing signified therein, to wit, the dying love of Jesus Christ,\nas though they were unconcerned spectators, having only an historical\nfaith, and content themselves with the bare knowledge of what relates to\nthe life and death of Christ, without considering the end and design\nthereof, _viz._ that he might make atonement for sin, or their\nparticular concern herein, so as to improve it, as an expedient for the\ntaking away the guilt and power thereof in their own souls.\n3. We may reflect on our behaviour in this ordinance, when we have given\nway to deadness and stupidity, without using those endeavours that are\nnecessary for the exciting our affections; when a subject so affecting\nas Christ\u2019s pouring out his soul unto death, being wounded for our\ntransgressions, despised and rejected of men, bleeding and dying on the\ncross, and, in the midst of his sufferings, crying out, _My God, my God,\nwhy hast thou forsaken me_, has not had an efficacy to raise our\naffections, any more than if it were a common subject?\n4. We have reason to blame our behaviour in this ordinance, when we have\nattended on it with a resolution to continue in any known sin, without\nbeing earnest with God to mortify it, or desiring strength and grace\nfrom Christ, in order thereunto, and improving his death for that end.\nThus we have reason, sometimes, to reflect on our behaviour at the\nLord\u2019s supper, with grief, and sorrow of heart, as what has been\ndisagreeable to the nature of the ordinance we have been engaged in.\nBut, on the other hand, we may, sometimes, in taking a view of our\nbehaviour therein, find matter of encouragement, when, abating for human\nfrailties, and the imperfection of grace, that inseparably attends this\npresent state, we can say, to the glory of God, that we have, in some\nmeasure, behaved ourselves as we ought to do. Thus when we have found,\nthat our hearts have been duly affected with the love of Christ, and we\nhave had the exercise of those graces that are suitable thereunto; and\nif we can say, that we have had some communion with him, and have not\nbeen altogether destitute of his quickening and comforting presence, and\nthe witness of his Spirit with ours, that we are the children of God;\nthen we may conclude, that we have engaged in this ordinance in a right\nmanner. And if we have found that it has been thus with us, we are to\nbless God for it, as considering that he alone can excite grace in us,\nwho wrought it at first. And we are farther to consider, that such-like\nacts of grace will be a good evidence of the truth and sincerity\nthereof; whereby our comforts may be more established, and we enabled to\nwalk more closely and thankfully with God, by the communication of those\ngraces that he is pleased to bestow upon us in this ordinance.\nMoreover, if we have had experience of the presence of God therein, and\nhave been brought into a good frame, we ought to beg the continuance\nthereof. The best frame of spirit will be no longer abiding, than it\npleases God to keep up the lively exercise of faith and other graces;\nand this, being so valuable a blessing, is to be sought for by fervent\nprayer and supplication, that our good frames may not be like the\nmorning cloud, or early dew, that soon passes away: This will discover,\nthat we set a value upon them, and glorify God as the author of them;\nand it is the best expedient for our walking with God at other times, as\nwell as when engaged in holy ordinances.\nAgain, it is farther observed, that they, who have been quickened and\ncomforted, when partaking of the Lord\u2019s supper, ought to watch against\nrelapses into those sins, that formerly they have been overtaken with,\nbut now see reason to abhor. This we ought to do, because, though we are\nsometimes brought into a good frame, yet still we have deceitful hearts,\nthat, before we are aware, may betray us into the commission of those\nsins which have occasioned great distress to us in times past; and, to\nthis we may add, the endeavours of Satan to ensnare us by his wiles; so,\nthat when we think ourselves the safest, we may be exposed to the\ngreatest dangers. When we have been least apprehensive of our return to\nour former sins, and, it may be, have been too secure in our opinion,\nwhile confiding too much to our own strength, we have lost those good\nframes, and our troubles have been renewed thereby: Therefore, it is our\nduty to watch against the secret workings of corrupt nature, and the\nfirst motions of sin in our hearts, while we earnestly implore help from\nGod, that we may be kept from our own iniquities; namely, those sins\nthat we have formerly committed, or that more easily beset us than any\nother.\nThe next duty incumbent on us, after we have received the Lord\u2019s supper,\nis, to fulfil our vows: This will be better unstood, if compared with\nwhat was before observed concerning sacramental vows or covenants: which\nought not to contain in them a making promises, especially in our own\nstrength, that we will be found in the exercise of those graces which\nare the special gift and effects of God\u2019s almighty power. Therefore, I\nalways, when occasionally mentioning making religious vows, consider\nthem principally as containing an express declaration, that we are under\nan indispensable obligation to perform those duties, and put forth those\nacts of grace which are incumbent on us, as those who desire to approve\nourselves Christ\u2019s faithful servants, whom he has taken into a\ncovenant-relation with himself. We also declare, that without help from\nGod we can do nothing: This help we implore from him, at the same time\nwhen we devote, or give up ourselves to him; so that we do this, hoping\nand trusting that he will bestow upon us that grace which is out of our\nown power; which, if he will be pleased to do, we determine that he\nshall have all the glory that arises from it. This is most agreeable to\nthe sense of the Latin word[102]; from whence the word _vow_ is derived;\nand, I think, it is much rather to be acquiesced in, than that general\ndescription which some give to it, when they exhort those who are\nengaged in this ordinance, first to confess those sins which they have\ncommitted since they were last at the Lord\u2019s table, so far as they occur\nto their memories; and, as a means of their obtaining forgiveness, to\nmake a solemn vow, or promise, that they will abstain from them for the\nfuture, and walk more agreeably to the engagements which they are laid\nunder: This they do without an humble sense of the treachery of their\nown hearts, or their need of strength from God, to perform any thing\nthat is good; and afterwards, they are as little inclined to fulfil\ntheir own promises, as they were before forward to make them, with too\nmuch reliance on their own strength; and, by this means, they bring\nthemselves into the greatest perplexities, and go on, as it were, in a\nround of making solemn vows and resolutions, and then breaking them, and\nafterwards renewing them again: Whereas, when we intend nothing by our\nvowing, but a confessing that what others promise in their own strength,\nwe see ourselves obliged to do; and, at the same time, depend on Christ\nfor strength to enable us to perform it, and give up ourselves to him,\nas his covenant-people, in hope thereof; this is the safest way of\nvowing, inasmuch as it redounds most to the honour of God, and contains\nevery thing in it that may put us upon using our utmost endeavours to\nperform the duties that are incumbent on us, and, at the same time, we\nexpress our unfeigned desire to glorify him as the God and Author of\nthat grace, which is necessary thereunto. And, in this sense I would\nunderstand what we are exhorted to in the answers we are explaining,\nwhen it is said, in one of them, that while we are receiving the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, we ought to renew our covenant with God; and after we have\nreceived it, we are to fulfil our vows, as it is expressed in the other;\nas the former includes in it such a dedication to God as has been but\nnow considered; the latter, to wit, the fulfilling our vows, implies in\nit a doing every thing that is in our power, in order thereunto; and, at\nthe same time, a waiting on God to give success to our endeavours, and\nto work in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, without which we\ncan do nothing.\nAfter we have waited on the Lord in this ordinance, we are to encourage\nourselves to a frequent attendance thereon; especially if we have ground\nto conclude, that we have had any sensible communications of his grace\nvouchsafed to us therein. As this is an honour which God puts on his own\ninstitutions, it is certainly an encouragement to us, to persevere in\nwaiting on him therein. Thus the Psalmist says, _Because he hath\ninclined his ear unto me, therefore I call upon him as long as I live_,\nPsal. cxvi. 2. This will effectually remove all those doubts and\nscruples that discourage us from engaging in this ordinance, lest we\nshould not behave ourselves in a right manner therein, fearing that we\nare not sufficiently prepared for it, and therefore shall be disowned by\nChrist, when we engage in it: I say, this we are fenced against, by\nhaving experienced his quickening and comforting presence therein.\nBut, suppose we have not met with this desirable blessing, which the\nbest believers do not experience in a like degree, at all times; then we\nought, after we have received the Lord\u2019s Supper, to endeavour to find\nout the particular cause of God\u2019s withdrawing his special presence from\nus, and what is that root of bitterness which springs up and troubles\nus. It may be, he withholds this privilege from us in a way of\nsovereignty, that we may hereby learn that our comforts are not at our\nown disposal; or, that they are not the necessary result of our\nattendance on ordinances, but arise from the divine blessing\naccompanying them. This, God, it may be, withholds from us for the trial\nof our graces; and that we may see how needful it is for us to wait for\nthose spiritual comforts, which, at present, he withholds from us; as\nthe prophet says, _Therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious\nunto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon\nyou; for the Lord is a God of judgment; blessed are they that wait for\nhim_, Isa. xxx. 18.\nBut since we may, for the most part, apprehend some particular reason\nwhy God denies us his quickening, and comforting presence, arising from\nsins of omission or commission, antecedent to, or whilst we have been\nengaged in this ordinance: We must enquire,\n(1.) Whether there has not been some defect, as to preparatory duties?\nand particularly, whether we have duly examined ourselves before we came\nto the Lord\u2019s table, concerning our knowledge of Christ, and the\nbenefits of his redemption; or, especially, of our being enabled to\nimprove them by faith? and, whether we have examined ourselves\nconcerning the sense we have of the guilt of sin, and the need we stand\nin of Christ\u2019s righteousness, to take it away, and accordingly resolved\nto wait on him in this ordinance, with earnest desires of obtaining this\nprivilege.\n(2.) We must enquire, whether our behaviour when we have been engaged in\nthis ordinance, has not been, in some measure, unbecoming the\nspirituality and importance thereof? whether we have not spared, or\nindulged, some secret corruption, that has broke forth therein? or,\nwhether we have not given way to some temptation, that has then beset\nus? whether we have not depended on our own righteousness, for the\ntaking away the guilt of sin, and procuring for us acceptance in the\nsight of God? or, whether we have not engaged in this ordinance, in our\nown strength, and by this self-confidence, provoked him to withdraw from\nus; which, if we have, it will afford matter of deep humiliation in his\nsight, and call for repentance and reformation, if we would be fenced\nagainst this inconvenience, which, at present we labour under; and then\nwe may hope that we shall be enabled to wait on him in this ordinance,\nin such a way, that we may have those comfortable experiences of grace\nfrom him, which will be an evidence that we have waited on him for the\nbetter, and not for the worse.\nFootnote 102:\n  _Voveo._\n    QUEST. CLXXVI. _Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord\u2019s\n    Supper agree?_\n    ANSW. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper, agree, in\n    that the author of both is God, the spiritual part of both is Christ\n    and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be\n    dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other, and to be\n    continued in the church of Christ, until his second coming.\n    QUEST. CLXXVII. _Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord\u2019s\n    Supper differ?_\n    ANSW. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper differ, in\n    that baptism is to be administered but once with water, to be a sign\n    and seal of our regeneration, and ingrafting into Christ, and that\n    even to infants, whereas the Lord\u2019s supper is to be administered\n    often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit\n    Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our\n    continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years\n    and ability to examine themselves.\nThese two answers contain little more than a recapitulation of some\nthings, that have been occasionally mentioned, in explaining the nature\nof these ordinances; and therefore we shall very briefly insist on them.\nI. Concerning those things wherein the sacraments of baptism and the\nLord\u2019s supper agree; accordingly,\n1. It is observed, that God is the Author of both. This may be inferred\nfrom what has been said concerning their being holy ordinances, or means\nof grace; in which we are to expect his presence and blessing to make\nthem effectual to salvation: This we cannot do without engaging in them\nby his own warrant, which he has been pleased to give us, as appears\nfrom his word, and the experience of many believers, who have found\nsensible advantage thereby; so that the effects of his power and grace,\nthat have been produced in their hearts, when engaged therein, afford a\nconvincing evidence that God is the Author thereof. This, as to what\nconcerns baptism, respects more especially, the baptism of those that\nare adult; for when infants are baptized, though God can, and sometimes\ndoes, as is more than probable, own this ordinance, by regenerating them\nat that time; yet this cannot be known by us, unless it be inferred,\nfrom those extraordinary communications of grace which they may\nexperience, who are enabled, by faith to give up their children to God\ntherein.\n2. Baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper farther agree, in that Christ, and his\nbenefits are signified by both of them: for they are, each of them,\nordinances for our faith, as they are signs and seals of the covenant of\ngrace, in which Christ, and the benefits of his redemption, are set\nforth: Thus the apostle says, with respect to baptism, _So many of as\nwere baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death, buried\nwith him by baptism into death_, Rom. vi. 3, 4. accordingly we have\ncommunion with Christ as crucified, dying and buried, and, after this,\nrising again from the dead, whereby he brought the work of redemption to\nperfection: These things are signified; and thus our faith is to make\nuse of this sign in baptism; and the apostle says the same thing with\nrespect to the Lord\u2019s Supper: _As often as ye eat this bread, and drink\nthis cup, ye do shew the Lord\u2019s death till he come_, 1 Cor. xi. 26.\n3. Baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper, are farther observed to agree, in that\nthey are to be dispensed by none but the ministers of the gospel. Under\nthe Old Testament-dispensation, where all the parts of the\ntemple-service were significant signs of Christ, and the benefits of the\ncovenant of grace; these were to be administered by none but those who\nwere qualified, called, and lawfully set apart to that work, as the\napostle says, _No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is\ncalled of God, as was Aaron_, Heb. v. 4. And we may conclude, that the\nmoral reason of the thing extends itself to the administration of the\nseals of the covenant, under the gospel-dispensation. It is certain,\nthat some must be appointed, or set apart to this work, otherwise it\nwould belong to every body, and consequently there would be no\ndeterminate administrators of these ordinances, who might be said to\nhave a special call thereunto, from God and man. It may also be inferred\nfrom those scriptures that speak of _pastors after God\u2019s own heart_, who\nare to _feed_ his people _with knowledge and understanding_, as being\nhis special _gift_, Jer. iii. 15. and from what the apostle says,\nconcerning gospel-ministers, whether extraordinary or ordinary, as being\nChrist\u2019s _gift_, when he _ascended up on high_, Eph. iv. 8, 11.\n4. It is farther observed, that these two ordinances agree, in that they\nare both to be continued in the church, until Christ\u2019s second coming.\nThough we look and hope for more of the presence of God therein, and a\ngreater effusion of his Spirit, to make them more effectual, and render\nthe church more bright and glorious, as being favoured with greater\ndegrees of the communications of divine grace; yet we have no ground to\nexpect new ordinances, or a new dispensation to succeed this we are\nunder, till Christ\u2019s second and most glorious coming; therefore this is\ncalled, _The last time_, 1 John ii. 18. Upon which account the apostle\nsays, that _the ends of the world are come upon us_, 1 Cor. x. 11. by\nwhich we are to understand, that the present dispensation of the gospel\nthat we are under, is the last we are to expect till Christ\u2019s second\ncoming.\nAnd this also appears, from the promise which Christ has given of his\npresence with his ministers and churches, when faithfully engaging in\nthese ordinances, as he says, _Lo, I am with you always, even unto the\nend of the world_, Matt. xxviii. 20. And, as his _death_, as was before\nobserved, is to be _shewed forth till he come_, 1 Cor. xi. 26. this\nproves that the Lord\u2019s supper is also to be continued in the church till\nthen. This I would the rather observe, inasmuch as it is contrary to\nwhat some maintain, who, while they hope for a greater effusion of the\nSpirit, and a more glorious state of the church in the latter day, are\nready to extend their thoughts too far, they conclude that it will be a\nnew dispensation, as the ordinances which the church is favoured with,\nat present, shall cease, particularly baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper;\nwhich we can by no means approve of.\nII. We are now to consider wherein the sacraments of baptism and the\nLord\u2019s supper differ.\n1. It is observed that they differ, in that baptism is to be\nadministered but once; whereas, the Lord\u2019s supper is to be administered\noften. This appears from two different circumstances contained in them.\nAs for baptism, it signifies our first ingrafting into, or putting on\nChrist; and when denominated from the thing signified thereby, it is\ncalled, the _washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy\nGhost_, Titus iii. 5. which is hoped for in this ordinance; accordingly\nit is considered as our first solemn dedication to Christ; and, as this\nis signified thereby, it is called an initiating ordinance, in which we\nare bound to be the Lord\u2019s; which bond holds good as long as we live,\nand therefore needs not to be signified, sealed, or confirmed by our\nbeing baptized a second time: But, on the other hand, the Lord\u2019s supper\nsignifies our feeding or living upon Christ, and receiving daily\nsupplies of grace from him, as our necessities require: Therefore this\nordinance differs from baptism as it is often to be engaged in.\n2. They differ, in that the former as has been before proved, is not\nonly to be applied to the adult, if they have not been baptized before,\nbut to the infants of believing parents, which the Lord\u2019s supper is not.\nIn baptism, the person dedicated may be considered as being passive, and\nso devoted to God by the faith of another, who has a right to do this:\nBut none are to partake of the Lord\u2019s supper but those who have such a\ndegree of knowledge, that they are able to discern the Lord\u2019s body, and\ncapable of performing that duty which the apostle recommends as\nnecessary thereunto, when he says, _Let a man examine himself, and so\nlet him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup_, 1 Cor. xi. 28.\nI am sensible that some of the ancient church, and particularly Cyprian,\nin the third century, have pleaded for, and practised the administration\nof the Lord\u2019s supper to infants, being led into this mistake, by\nsupposing what does not sufficiently appear, _viz._ that infants among\nthe Jews ate the passover, because whole families are said to eat it.\nBut this does not appear to include infants; for whom another sort of\nfood was designed: neither could they reap any advantage by it, not\nbeing capable of discerning the thing signified, or feeding on Christ,\nthe true Paschal Lamb; which could be done no otherwise than by faith.\nOthers were led into this mistake from the wrong sense they gave of that\nscripture, in which Christ says, _Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of\nman, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you_, John vi. 53. thinking\nthat our Saviour meant hereby, the bread and wine in the Lord\u2019s supper.\nTherefore this ordinance was absolutely necessary to salvation; upon\nwhich account they thought that it ought to be extended to infants, as a\nmeans of their obtaining it. But it is certain this cannot be the\nmeaning of that scripture, since the Lord\u2019s supper was not instituted,\nor known in the church, when our Saviour spake these words: Therefore,\nhe intends nothing else thereby but the fiducial application of Christ\u2019s\ndeath, as an expedient for our obtaining eternal life.\n    QUEST. CLXXVIII. _Which is Prayer?_\n    ANSW. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name\n    of Christ, by the help of his Spirit, with confession of our sins,\n    and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.\nHaving considered the things that are to be believed and done; what\nremains is, to enquire concerning those things that are to be prayed\nfor, and how this great duty of prayer is to be performed. This is\nnecessary to be insisted on, inasmuch as we are obliged to yield\nobedience to the revealed will of God; nevertheless, by reason of our\ndepravity and weakness, we can do nothing that is good without his\nassistance, which is not to be expected, unless it be humbly desired of\nhim; and this is what we generally call _prayer_; which being performed\nby creatures who are not only indigent, but unworthy, this is to be\nacknowledged, and accordingly we are, in prayer, to confess sin as the\nprincipal ground and reason of this unworthiness. And, inasmuch as God\nhas been pleased to encourage us to hope, that we shall not seek his\nface in vain, who, in many instances is pleased to grant returns of\nprayer; this obliges us to draw nigh to him with thanksgiving. These\nthings are particularly contained in the answer we are explaining; and\nthe method in which we shall endeavour to speak to it, is to consider,\nI. What, prayer supposes; and that is,\n1. That we are dependent and indigent creatures, have many wants to be\nsupplied, sins to be forgiven, miseries, under which we need pity and\nrelief, and weaknesses, under which we want to be strengthened and\nassisted in the performance of the duties that are incumbent on us. From\nhence it may be inferred, that though our Lord Jesus Christ is often\nrepresented as praying to God, this is an action performed by him in his\nhuman nature; in which alone he could be said to be indigent, who, in\nhis divine nature, is all-sufficient.\n2. It supposes that God, who is the object of prayer, is regarded by us,\nnot only as able, but willing to help us; and that he has encouraged us\nto draw nigh to him for relief: And therefore it is a duty that more\nespecially belongs to those who are favoured with the hope of the\ngospel.\nII. We shall now shew how prayer is to be considered, as to the various\nkinds hereof; and accordingly we are represented as drawing nigh to God,\nwith an humble sense of our secret sins and wants, which none but God\nand our own consciences are privy to. This kind of prayer our Saviour\nintends, when he says, _Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,\nand when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret,\nand thy Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly_, Mat.\nvi. 6. and we have an instance hereof in himself; inasmuch, as it is\nsaid, that _when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a\nmountain apart to pray_, chap. xiv. 23. also, _Peter went up upon the\nhouse-top to pray_, Acts x. 9. in which, being retired from the world,\nhe had a greater liberty to pour forth his soul unto God.\nMoreover, we are to join with others in performing this duty, in which\nwe confess those sins, and implore a supply of those wants that are\ncommon to all who are engaged therein: This our Saviour encourages us to\ndo, when he says, _If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any\nthing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which\nis in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name,\nthere am I in the midst of them_, Mat. xviii. 19, 20. This is a branch\nof social worship, and is to be performed by every family apart, whereof\nwe have an example in Cornelius, concerning whom it is said, that he was\n_a devout man, and feared God with all his house, and prayed to him\nalways_; and that he did this, at certain times, _in his house_, Acts x.\n2. compared with ver. 30. Moreover, this duty is to be performed\npublicly in the church, or any worshipping assembly met together for\nthat purpose: Of this we have an instance in the apostle Paul, who, when\nhe had called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, designing to take\nhis leave of them, after an affectionate discourse, and suitable advice\ngiven to them, he _kneeled down and prayed with them all_, chap. xx. 36.\nAgain, prayer may be considered as that for which a stated time is set\napart by us, either alone, or with others; or, that which is occasional,\nshort, and ejaculatory, consisting in a secret lifting up of our hearts\nto God, and may be done when we are engaged in other business of a\ndifferent nature, without being a let or hindrance to it: Thus it is\nsaid that _Nehemiah prayed_, when he has going to _deliver the cup into\nthe king\u2019s hand_, between the king\u2019s asking him a question, and his\nreturning him an answer to it; which seems to be the meaning of what is\nsaid in Neh. ii. 4, 5. _Then the king said unto me; for what dost thou\nmake request? so I prayed to the God of heaven, and I said unto the\nking_, &c. These ejaculatory prayers are either such as we put up to God\nwhile engaged in worldly business for direction, assistance, or success\ntherein; or when attending on the word read or preached, or any other\nholy duties, in which we lift up our hearts to him for his presence\ntherein.\nIII. The next thing to be considered, is, the various parts of prayer;\nand these are three, _viz._ Confession of sin; petition for a supply of\nour wants; and thanksgiving for mercies received. Confession of sin\nsupposes that we are guilty, and deserve punishment from God; petition\nsupposes, that we are miserable and helpless; and thanksgiving implies,\na disposition to own God, the author of all the good we enjoy or hope\nfor, and includes in it a due sense of those undeserved favours we have\nreceived from him.\nFrom this general account of the duty of prayer, and the parts thereof,\nwe may infer,\n1. That the two former of them, namely, confession of sin, and petition\nfor relief, under the various miseries and distresses which we are\nliable to, is only applicable to those who are in a sinful and imperfect\nstate, as believers are in this world. As for glorified saints in\nheaven, they have no sins to be confessed, nor any miseries under which\nthey need help and pity. As for that part of prayer which consists of\nthanksgiving for mercies already received, that, indeed, is agreeable to\na perfect state, and is represented as the constant work of glorified\nsaints: Thus the Psalmist says, _The heavens_, that is, the inhabitants\nthereof, _shall praise thy wonders, O Lord, thy faithfulness also in the\ncongregation of the saints_, Psal. lxxxix. 5.\n2. Sinners, who have lost their day of grace, against whom the door of\nhope and mercy is shut, who are enduring the punishment of sin in hell,\nthese are not properly the subjects of prayer; concerning whom it may be\nsaid, not only that they cannot pray, being destitute of those graces\nthat are necessary thereunto; but having no interest in a Mediator, or\nin the promises of the covenant of grace, which are a warrant and\nencouragement for the performance of this duty.\n3. In this world, wherein we enjoy the means of grace, none are the\nsubjects of prayer but man. The Psalmist, indeed, speaks of God\u2019s\n_giving to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry_, Psal.\ncxlvii. 9. and elsewhere it is said, _He provideth for the raven his\nfood, when his young ones cry unto God_, Job. xxxviii. 41. The meaning\nof which is, not that brute creatures formally address themselves to God\nfor a supply of their wants, having no idea of a divine being; but,\nthat, when they complain for want of food, the providence of God\nsupplies them, though they know not the hand from whence it comes.\n4. Though it be the duty of all men in the world to pray; yet none can\ndo this by faith, and, consequently, in an acceptable manner, but\nbelievers, concerning whom the apostle says, _Ye have received the\nspirit of adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father_, Rom. viii. 15.\nAs for the first part of prayer, _viz._ petition, or supplication. This\nwill be particularly considered under several following answers, and\nespecially those that contain an explication of the Lord\u2019s prayer; which\nis a directory for what we are to ask of God: Therefore we shall, at\npresent, only consider the other two parts of prayer, _viz._ confession\nof sin, and thanksgiving for mercies.\n(1.) Concerning confession of sin; and accordingly,\n[1.] We shall prove, that it is an indispensable duty incumbent on all\nmen; and that, not only on those who are in a state of unregeneracy, and\nconsequently under the dominion of sin, but on believers themselves, who\nare in a justified state. This will appear, if we consider, that not to\nconfess sin, is, in effect, to justify ourselves in the commission of\nit; and, as it were, to deny that which is so well known to the\nheart-searching God, as well as to our own consciences. It also contains\nin it a charging God with injustice, when he inflicts on us the\npunishment that is due to it; which is contrary to what Ezra says;\n_Thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve_, Ezra\nMoreover, none was ever truly humbled in the sight of God, or obtained\nmercy and forgiveness of sin, but he was first brought to confess it\nwith suitable affection, and brokenness of heart; which are ingredients\nin true repentance: Thus it is said, _He looketh upon men, and if any\nsay, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited\nme not; he will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life\nshall see the light_, Job xxxiii. 27, 28. It is also said elsewhere, _He\nthat covereth his sins shall not prosper: But whoso confesseth and\nforsaketh them shall have mercy_, Prov. xxviii. 13. This duty is so\nevident, that, one would think, no one, who duly considers what he is,\nor how contrary his actions are to the revealed will of God, should have\nthe front to deny it: However, it is well known, that many seem\ndesignedly to wave all confession of sin in prayer; and, others argue\nagainst it, more especially, as to what concerns the case of believers:\nAccordingly,\n_Object._ It is objected, that believers ought not to confess sin; since\nthat is inconsistent with a justified state: It is, in effect, to plead\nguilty, though God has taken away the guilt of sin, by forgiving it for\nthe sake of the atonement which Christ has made: It is a laying open the\nwound that God hath healed and closed up, or bringing to remembrance\nthat which he hath said, _he will remember no more_, Heb. x. 67. and it\nis contrary to the grace of God, who hath said, none shall _lay any\nthing to the charge of_ his _elect_, since _it is God that justifieth_,\nRom. viii. 33. for a believer to lay any thing to his own charge, which\nhe does when he confesses sin.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied;\n_1st_, That we must distinguish between a believer\u2019s desert of\npunishment or condemnation, and his being actually punished by God, as a\nsin-revenging judge, according as his iniquities deserve. That a\nbeliever shall not eventually fall under condemnation, is true, because\nhis sins are forgiven; and with respect to such, the apostle says,\n_There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus_, ver.\n1. Nevertheless, though he be in a justified state, and, as the\nconsequence hereof, shall be undoubtedly saved; yet, according to the\ntenor of his own actions, he being a sinner, contracts guilt in the\nsight of God; and, a desert of punishment is inseparably connected with\nevery sin, though a person may be in a justified state who commits it.\nIt is one thing to be liable to condemnation, and another thing to\ndeserve to be condemned: The former of these is, indeed, inconsistent\nwith a justified state; but the latter is not: And it is in this sense\nthat we are to understand the Psalmist\u2019s words, _If thou, Lord, shouldst\nmark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand_, Psal. cxxx. 3. And,\naccordingly, the best believer on earth, though he have a full assurance\nof his being forgiven by God; yet, inasmuch as he is a sinner, he is\nobliged to confess that he deserves to be cast off by him, or, if God\nshould deal with him according to what he finds in him, without looking\nupon him as he is in Christ, his head and surety, he would be undone and\nlost for ever.\n_2dly_, Believers are daily sinning, and therefore contracting fresh\nguilt; as it is said, _There is not a just man upon earth that doeth\ngood and sinneth not_, Eccl. vii. 20. and, indeed their sin is sometimes\nso great, that they grieve the Holy Spirit, wound their own consciences,\nand act very disagreeably to their character as believers. This\ntherefore ought to be confessed with shame and self-abhorrence; as the\nprophet says, _That thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never\nopen thy mouth anymore, because of thy shame; when I am pacified towards\nthee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God_, Ezek. xvi. 63.\nMoreover, it is certain that believers, when they have had a discovery\nthat their sin was pardoned, have, at the same time, confessed it with\ngreat humility. Thus, immediately after Nathan had reproved David for\nhis sin, and told him, upon his repentance, that _the Lord had put it\naway_, 2 Sam. xii. 13. yet he makes a penitent confession of it before\nGod, and says, _Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this\nevil in thy sight_, Psal. li. 4.\n[2.] We shall now consider with what frame of spirit sin is to be\nconfessed; and this ought to be done,\n_1st_, With a due sense of the infinite evil thereof, as it reflects\ndishonour on the divine perfections; and particularly as it is opposite\nto the holiness and purity of God, and a contempt cast on his law, which\nexpressly forbids it, and a disregarding the threatenings denounced\nthereby against those who violate it, and renders us liable to his\nwrath, as a sin-revenging Judge, pursuant to the intrinsic demerit\nthereof: And therefore it is justly styled _an evil thing and bitter_;\nthe only thing that can be called a moral evil; and it is certainly\nbitter in the consequences thereof.\n_2dly_, We are to confess sin with humility, shame, confusion of face,\nand self-abhorrence; and that more especially, by reason of the vile\ningratitude there is in it, as committed by those who are under the\ngreatest engagements to the contrary duties.\n_3dly_, Sin is to be confessed with the hope of obtaining forgiveness\nthrough the blood of Christ, as laying hold on the promises of mercy,\nwhich are made to those who confess and forsake it, Prov. xxviii. 13.\nand, with an earnest desire, to be delivered from the prevailing power\nthereof, by strength derived from Christ.\n[3.] We shall now consider what sins we are to confess before God; and\nthese are, either the sin of our nature, or those actual transgressions\nthat proceed from it.\n_1st_, The sin of our nature. As fallen creatures, we are destitute of\nthe image of God; and, having contracted corrupt habits, by repeated\nacts of rebellion against him, all the powers and faculties of our souls\nare vitiated thereby, and we not only indisposed and disinclined to what\nis good, but naturally bent to backslide from God, and to commit the\ngreatest abominations, if destitute of his preventing, restraining, or\nrenewing grace: Thus the apostle says, _I know that in me, (that is, in\nmy flesh) dwelleth no good thing_, Rom. vii. 18. And this is to be\nconsidered as what has universally defiled and depraved our nature; and\ntherefore we ought to cry out with the leper, _Unclean, unclean_, Lev.\nxiii. 45. or, as the prophet say, _From the sole of the foot even unto\nthe head, there is no soundness in us, but wounds, and bruises, and\nputrifying sores_, Isa. i. 6. We are to consider it as that which\ninsinuates itself into our best duties; and it is like the fly in the\nprecious ointment; and it is of such a nature, that when we have been\nenabled to gain some advantage against it, it will afterwards recover\nstrength. Notwithstanding all our endeavours to the contrary. It is like\nan incurable disease in the body, which, though we endeavour to keep it\nunder for a while, yet it will prevail again, till the frame of nature\nis demolished, and thereby all diseases cured at once: Nevertheless,\nwhen we confess and are humbled for this propensity, that is in our\nnature to sin, we are to pray and hope, that the prevailing power\nthereof may be so far weakened, that, by the principle of grace,\nimplanted in regeneration, and excited by the Spirit, in promoting the\nwork of sanctification, though it dwells in us it may not entirely have\ndominion over us, or we be thereby denominated the servants of sin.\n_2dly_, We are to confess the many actual sins that we daily commit,\nwith all their respective aggravations; sins of omission and commission,\nboth of which are contained in the apostle\u2019s confession; _The good that\nI would do, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do_, Rom.\nvii. 19. Our sinful neglects of duty are numberless; we are to confess\nour not having redeemed our time, but spent it in those trifles and vain\namusements that profit not; particularly if we have misimproved the very\nflower and best part of our time and strength, and not remembered our\nCreator in the days of our youth. This Job reckons the principal ground\nand reason of the evils that befal him in his advanced age, when he\nsays, _Thou writest bitter things against me; and makest me to possess\nthe iniquities of my youth,_ Job xiii. 26. And we are humbly to confess\nour not having improved, and, thereby, lost many opportunities for\nextraordinary service, either to do, or to get good: Thus the prophet\nsays, _Yea, the stork the heaven knoweth her appointed times, and the\nturtle, and the crane, and the swallow observe the time of their coming,\nbut my people know not the judgment of the Lord_, Jer. viii. 7. We are\nalso to confess our neglecting to comply with the calls and invitations\nof the gospel; upon which account we are said, _to receive the grace of\nGod in vain,_ 2 Cor. vi. 1. _or not to know the time of our visitation,_\nLuke xix. 44. but when God has _called, we have refused; when he has\nstretched out his hand, no man regarded, but have set at nought all his\ncounsel, and would none of his reproof_, Prov. i. 24, 25. We are also to\nconfess our neglect of public and secret duties, or worshipping of God\nin a careless indifferent manner; as the prophet represents the people,\nsaying, _Behold, what a weariness is it, and ye have snuffed at it,\nsaith the Lord of Hosts; and ye have brought that which was torn, and\nthe lame and the sick; should I accept this at your hands?_ Mal. i. 13.\nWe are also to confess our neglect of relative duties, in not\ninstructing those under our care, nor reproving them for sin committed,\nnor sympathizing with the afflicted, nor warning those who are going out\nof God\u2019s way; by which means a multitude of sins might have been\nprevented, whereby many have been ruined through our sinful neglect.\nAs for sins of commission, which are also to be confessed; these are\neither such as were committed before or after our conversion to God; the\nformer of which contain a disowning his authority, or right to\nobedience; the latter, an ungrateful disregard to, or forgetfulness of\nthe greatest benefits received from him. We are also to confess those\nsins which are contrary to the moral law, or the very light of nature;\nwhich we are often guilty of: And, that we may be furnished with matter,\nand give scope to our thoughts and affections therein, it may be of use\nfor us to consider the sins forbidden under each of the Ten\nCommandments, which have been before particularly insisted on. We ought\nalso to confess the various aggravations of sin; and, to assist us\ntherein, those things that are contained in a foregoing answer[103], may\nbe of some use to us, especially if we make a particular application\nthereof to our own case, and observe how far we have reason to fall\nunder a sense of guilt, or charge ourselves with crimes of the like\nnature.\nMoreover, we are to confess the sins we have committed against the\nengagements or grace of the gospel; the low thoughts we have sometimes\nhad of the person of Christ, his love to us, or the benefits we have\nbeen made partakers of from him, while we have been ready to say, as the\ndaughters of Jerusalem are represented speaking, _What is thy beloved\nmore than another beloved,_ Cant. v. 9. and how much we have hardened\nour hearts against him, refusing to submit to his yoke, or bear his\ncross; how often we have been ashamed of his cause and interest,\nespecially when called to suffer reproach for it. Have we not sometimes\nquestioned the truth of his promises, refused to submit to his\nrighteousness, and depend upon it alone for justification, while we have\nhad too high thoughts of ourselves, glorying and valuing ourselves upon\nthe performance of some moral duties, which we have put in the room of\nChrist?\nWe ought to confess how much we have opposed him in all his offices; not\ndepending on him as a prophet to lead us in the way of truth and peace,\nbut have leaned to our own understanding, and therefore have been left\nto pervert, disbelieve, or, at least, entertain some doubts about the\ngreat doctrines of the gospel; or, if our minds have been rightly\ninformed therein, yet we have not made a practical improvement thereof,\nfor our spiritual advantage. Have we not opposed him as a priest, and\nneglected to set a due value on that atonement he has made for sin, not\nimproving his intercession for us, who is entered into the holy place,\nmade without hands, to encourage us to come boldly to the throne of\ngrace? Have we not also refused to submit to him as king of saints, or\nseek protection from him against the assaults of our spiritual enemies?\nThese things are to be confessed by us in prayer; and that with such a\nsense of our own guilt, that we ought to acknowledge ourselves to be,\n(as the apostle says concerning himself,) _the chief of sinners,_ 1 Tim.\nI am sensible that many will be ready to conclude, that much of what has\nbeen said concerning sins to be confessed, is applicable to none but\nthose that are in a state of unregeneracy; and, among them, few can say,\nthat they are the chief of sinners, unless they have been notoriously\nvile and scandalous in the eye of the world; and that the apostle Paul,\nwhen he applies this to himself, has a peculiar reference to what he was\nbefore his conversion.\nBut to this it may be replied; that it is impossible we should know so\nmuch of the sins of others, together with their respective aggravations,\nas we may of those that have been committed by ourselves. And if we have\nnot been left to commit those gross and scandalous sins, which we have\nbeheld in them with abhorrence, this is not owing to ourselves, but the\ngrace of God, by which we are what we are; which, if we had been\ndestitute of, we should have been as bad as the worst of men; and if our\nhearts have been renewed and changed thereby, so that we are kept from\ncommitting those sins that are inconsistent with a state of grace; yet\nthere are very heinous aggravations attending those we have reason to\ncharge ourselves with; whereby we have acted contrary to the experience\nwe have had of the efficacious influence of the Holy Spirit, and have\nbeen guilty of very great ingratitude against him, that has laid us\nunder the highest obligations. Thus concerning confession of sin, when\ndrawing nigh to God in the duty of prayer.\n(2.) We are now to consider another part of prayer, namely, that we are\ntherein thankfully to acknowledge the mercies of God: Thus the Psalmist\nsays, _Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with\npraise; be thankful unto him, and bless his name,_ Psal. c. 4. And\nelsewhere, _I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and will\ncall upon the name of the Lord,_ Psal. cxvi. 17. that is, I will join\nprayer and praise together. Nothing is more obvious, than that favours\nreceived ought to be acknowledged; otherwise we are guilty of that\ningratitude which is one of the vilest crimes. Not to acknowledge what\nwe receive from God, is, in effect, to deny our obligation to him; which\nwill provoke him to withhold from us those other mercies which we stand\nin need of.\nThis duty ought to be performed at all times, and on all occasions: Thus\nthe apostle says, _In every thing by prayer and supplication with\nthanksgiving, let your request be made known unto God,_ Phil. iv. 6.\nThis is evident, in that there is no condition of life but what has some\nmixture of mercy in it; and that this may be more particularly\nconsidered, we may observe, that the mercies we receive from God, are\neither outward or spiritual, common or special; the former of these he\ngives to all without distinction; as it is said, _The Lord is good to\nall, and his tender mercies are over all his works,_ Psal. cxlv. 9. And\nelsewhere, he is _kind unto the unthankful, and to the evil,_ Luke vi.\n35. _and maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth\nrain on the just and on the unjust,_ Matt. v. 45. The latter sort of\nmercies he bestows on the heirs of salvation, in a covenant-way, as the\npurchase of the blood of Christ, and a pledge of farther blessings which\nhe has reserved in store for them: There are mercies which we have in\nhand, or in possession, and others which we have in hope or in\nreversion: Thus the apostle speaks of the _hope_ which is _laid up for_\nthe saints _in heaven,_ Col. i. 3, 5. which he _thanks_ God for in his\nprayer for the church.\nAgain, the mercies of God may be considered either as personal or\nrelative; the former we are more immediately the subjects of; the latter\naffect us so far as we stand related to others, for whose welfare we are\ngreatly concerned, and whose happiness makes a very considerable\naddition to our own.\n[1.] We are to express our thankfulness to God for personal mercies; and\naccordingly we are to bless him for the advantages of nature, which are\nthe effects of divine goodness: Thus the Psalmist says, _I will praise\nthee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made,_ Psal. cxxxix. 14. Though\nthe human nature falls very short of what it was at first, when the\nimage of God was perfectly enstamped on all the powers and faculties of\nthe soul; and it is not what it shall be when brought to a state of\nperfection in heaven: Yet there are many natural endowments which we\nhave received from God, as a means for our glorifying him, and answering\nthe end of our being, in the whole conduct of our lives: And,\n_1st_, As to what concerns the blessings of providence, which we have\nreceived in every age of life. In our childhood and youth we have great\nreason to be thankful, if we have had the invaluable blessing of a\nreligious education, and have been kept or delivered from the pernicious\ninfluence of bad examples, from whence that age of life oftentimes\nreceives such a tincture as tends to vitiate the soul, and open the way\nfor all manner of sin, which will afterwards insinuate itself into, and\nprevail, like an infectious distemper, over all the powers and faculties\nthereof. What reason have we to bless God if we have been favoured with\nrestraining or preventing grace, whereby we have been kept from youthful\nlusts, which are destructive to multitudes, and lay a foundation for\ntheir future ruin; and especially if it has pleased God to bring us\nunder early convictions of sin; so that we have experienced in that age\nof life, the hopeful beginnings of a work of grace, which is an effect\nof more than common providence! We ought to take notice, with great\nthankfulness, of the methods of divine grace, if we have been early led\ninto the knowledge of the first principles of the oracles of God,\nespecially if they have made such an impression on our hearts, that we\ncan say, with good Obadiah, _I thy servant, fear the Lord from my\nyouth,_ 1 Kings xviii. 12.\nAgain, we are to express our thankfulness for the mercies which we have\nreceived in our advanced age, when arrived to a state of manhood; and\naccordingly are to bless him for directing and ordering our settlement\nin the world, in those things more especially that relate to our secular\ncallings and employments therein, and the advantages of suitable society\nin those families in which our lot has been cast, as well as the many\ninstances of divine goodness in our own. We ought also to bless him for\nsucceeding our industry and endeavours used, to promote our comfort and\nhappiness in the world, together with that degree of usefulness which it\nhas pleased God to favour us with, therein. We ought also to bless him\nfor carrying us through many difficulties that lay in our way, some of\nwhich we have been almost ready to think insurmountable; as also for\nbringing us under the means of grace, in which the providence of God is\nmore remarkable, in those who have not been favoured with a religious\neducation in their childhood; and more especially if these means have\nbeen made effectual to answer the highest and most valuable ends.\nThere are other mercies which some have reason to bless God for, who are\narrived to old age, which is the last stage of life, wherein the frame\nof nature is declining and hastening apace to a dissolution. These, I\nsay, have reason to be thankful, if they have not, as it were, outlived\nthemselves, wholly lost their memory and judgment, by which means they\nwould have been brought back again, as it were, to the state of\nchildhood, as some have been; or, if old age be not pressed down beyond\nmeasure, with pain and bodily diseases, or a multitude of cares and\ntroubles about outward circumstances in the world, which would tend to\nembitter the small remains of life, which has not much strength of\nnature to bear up under great troubles, nor can those methods be made\nuse of, whereby others, without much difficulty, are able to extricate\nthemselves out of them: But they, of all others, have most reason to\nbless God, who can look back on a long series of usefulness, in\nproportion to the number of years they have lived; so that that promise\nis fulfilled to them, _They shall still bring forth fruit in old age;\nthey shall be fat and flourishing_, Psal. xcii. 14. This is more than a\ncommon mercy, and therefore requires a greater degree of thankfulness,\nwhen it may be said of them, _The hoary head is a crown of glory, being\nfound in the way of righteousness_, Prov. xvi. 31. and grace keeps equal\npace with age; and they have nothing to do but to wait for a release,\nfrom a careful, vain, uneasy life to heaven. Thus concerning the\noccasions we have for thankfulness in every age of life.\n_2dly_, We are now to consider the reason that we have to be thankful in\nthe various circumstances or conditions of life; particularly,\n_1st_, When we have a great measure of outward prosperity, which is more\nthan many enjoy; which calls for a proportionable degree of\nthankfulness, especially if it be sanctified and sweetened with a sense\nof God\u2019s special love, so that it is a pledge and earnest of better\nthings reserved for us hereafter. When we have the good things of this\nlife for our conveniency, that our passage through the world may be more\neasy and comfortable to us; and yet we have ground to hope that this is\nnot our portion, or that we are not like those whom the Psalmist speaks\nof, and calls _the men of the world, who have their portion in this\nlife_, Psal. xvii. 14. or, like the rich man in the parable, to whom it\nwas said, _Son, remember that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good\nthings_, Luke xvi. 25. We have reason to bless God when outward\nprosperity is a means of our glorifying him, and being more serviceable\nto promote his interest, and not a snare or occasion of sin, when it is\nnot like the _prosperity of fools_, which has a tendency to _destroy\nthem_, Prov. i. 32. or when what is said concerning that murmuring\ngeneration of men, whom the Psalmist speaks of, that _lusted exceedingly\nin the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert_: so that though _he\ngave them their request, he sent leanness into their soul_, is not\napplicable to us, Psal. cvi. 14, 15. Again, when we enjoy the outward\nblessings of providence, and, at the same time, live above them; so that\nour hearts are not too much set upon them; but we are willing to part\nwith them, when God is about to deprive us of them, or take us from\nthem; and when outward enjoyments are helps, and not hindrances to us in\nour way to heaven. These are inducements to the greatest thankfulness,\nand ought to be acknowledged to the glory of God.\n_2dly_, We have reason to be thankful, though it pleases God to follow\nus with many afflictions and adverse providences in the world: These are\nnot, indeed, to be reckoned blessings in themselves; nevertheless, they\nare not inconsistent with a thankful frame of spirit; especially,\n_1st_, When we take occasion from hence to be affected with the vanity,\nemptiness, and uncertainty of all outward comforts, which perish in the\nusing.\n_2dly_, When afflictive providences have a tendency to humble and make\nus submissive to the divine will, so that we are hereby led to have a\ndeep sense of sin, the procuring cause thereof. Thus Ephraim speaks of\nhis being chastised by God, and, at the same time, _ashamed and\nconfounded_, as _bearing the reproach_ of former sins committed by him,\nJer. xxxi. 18, 19. or, when those sins, which before prevailed, are\nhereby prevented, and we enabled to mortify them: Thus the Psalmist\nsays, _Before I was afflicted, I went astray; but now I have kept thy\nword_, Psal. cxix. 67. And when God is pleased to cause his grace to\nabound as outward troubles abound. 2 Cor. iv. 16. and when the want of\noutward mercies makes us see the worth of them, and puts us upon\nimproving every instance of the divine goodness, as a great inducement\nto thankfulness.\n_3dly_, We have reason to be thankful under afflictions, when we have a\ncomfortable hope that they are evidences of our being God\u2019s children,\ninterested in his special love, Heb. xii. 7. so that we have ground to\nconclude, that he is hereby training us up, and making us more meet for\nthe heavenly inheritance, so that we can say with the apostle, _Our\nlight affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more\nexceeding and eternal weight of glory_, 2 Cor. iv. 17.\n[2.] We are to express our thankfulness for those mercies which we call\nrelative, or for the blessings that others enjoy, in whose welfare we\nare more immediately concerned. As it is the duty of every one to desire\nthe good of all men; so we ought to bless God for the mercies bestowed\non others as well as ourselves. The relation we stand in to others, is\neither more general or extensive, and, in this respect, it may include\nin it all mankind; and accordingly we are to be thankful for the mercies\nwhich our fellow-creatures receive from the hand of God, inasmuch as\nhereby the divine perfections are magnified: And, as for those who\nreceive the blessings that accompany salvation, the ends of Christ\u2019s\ndeath, and the dispensation of the gospel, are hereby attained; and\nwhatever mercies God bestows on others, we bless him for them, as taking\nencouragement to hope that he will bestow the same blessings upon us,\nwhen we stand in need of them.\nAs for those who are related to us in the bonds of nature, or as members\nof the family to which we belong, for whose welfare we are more\nimmediately concerned, we may, in some measure, reckon the mercies they\nenjoy, our own, and therefore should be induced to bless God, and be\nthankful for them, as well as for those which we receive in our\npersons.\u2014There is also another relation, which is more large and\nextensive, namely, that which we stand in to all the members of Christ\u2019s\nmystical body, whom the apostle calls _the household of faith_, Gal. vi.\n10. and, as such, supposes them to be entitled to our more special\nregard: Accordingly we are to express our thankfulness to God, in\nprayer, for all the mercies they receive, especially those that are of a\nspiritual nature; inasmuch as herein Christ is glorified, and his\ninterest advanced, which ought to be dearer to us than any thing that\nrelates to our own private or personal interest, as the Psalmist speaks\nof his preferring Jerusalem\u2019s welfare above _his chief joy_, Psal.\ncxxxvii. 6. And that which farther inclines us to do this, is, because\nwe hope that we shall be made partakers of the same blessings, whereby\nothers will have occasion to bless God on our behalf. Thus concerning\nthe inducements we have to thankfulness for blessings received, either\nby ourselves or others.\nI shall conclude this head by considering, that thankfulness, which\nought to be a great ingredient in prayer, is always to be accompanied\nwith the exercise of other graces, whereby we are disposed to adore and\nmagnify the divine perfections that are displayed in the distribution of\nthose favours which we bless him for; together with an humble sense of\nour own unworthiness of the least of those mercies which we enjoy, and\nan earnest desire that we may be enabled, not only to do this in words,\nbut to express our thankfulness to him by such a frame of spirit as is\nagreeable thereto.\nThere are two things more, contained in the answer we have been\nexplaining, without the due consideration whereof, the duty of prayer\nwould be very imperfectly handled, namely, its being an offering up of\nour desires to God in the name of Christ, and by the help of the Spirit:\nBut since these are particularly insisted on in some following answers,\nI have purposely waved the consideration of them at present.\nFootnote 103:\n  _See Quest._ CLI.\n                    Quest. CLXXIX., CLXXX., CLXXXI.\n    QUEST. CLXXIX. _Are we to pray unto God only?_\n    ANSW. God only being able to search the hearts, hear the requests,\n    pardon the sins, and only to be believed in, and worshipped with\n    religious worship, prayer, which is a special part thereof, is to be\n    made by all to him alone, and to none other.\n    QUEST. CLXXX. _What is it to pray the name of Christ?_\n    ANSW. To pray in the name of Christ is in obedience to his command,\n    and in confidence on his promises to ask mercy for his sake, not by\n    bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to\n    pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer,\n    from Christ and his mediation.\n    QUEST. CLXXXI. _Why are we to pray in the name of Christ?_\n    ANSW. The sinfulness of man, and his distance from God by reason\n    thereof, being so great as that we can have no access into his\n    presence without a Mediator; and there being none in heaven or earth\n    appointed to, or fit for that glorious work, but Christ alone; we\n    are to pray in no other name but his only.\nIn these answers we have a farther explication of what is briefly laid\ndown in the last; and that, more especially, as to what respects the\nobject of prayer; and the method prescribed in the gospel, relating to\nour drawing nigh to God, through a mediator, which is called praying in\nthe name of Christ; together with the reason hereof.\nI. It is observed, that prayer is to be made to God alone, and to none\nother. This appears,\n1. Because it is an act of religious worship, which is due to none but\nGod; as our Saviour says, _Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him\nonly shalt thou serve_, Matt. iv. 10.\u2014This can be denied by none who\nare, in any measure, acquainted either with natural or revealed\nreligion; in which we are obliged to extol, adore, and admire those\ndivine perfections which are displayed in the works of nature and grace,\nand to seek that help from him, and those supplies of grace that we\nstand in need of to make us completely blessed, which supposes him to be\ninfinitely perfect and all-sufficient. Now to ascribe this divine glory\nto a creature, either directly, or by consequence, is, in effect, to say\nthat he is equal with God, and thereby to rob him of that glory that is\ndue to him alone, to seek that from the creature, that none but God can\ngive, or to ascribe any of the perfections of the divine nature to it,\nis the highest affront that can be offered to the divine Majesty. Now as\nprayer without adoration and invocation, is destitute of those\ningredients which render it an act of religious worship; so to address\nourselves, in such a way, to any one but God, is an instance of such\nprofaneness and idolatry, as is not to be mentioned without the greatest\ndetestation.\n2. Prayer is to be made only to God, inasmuch as he only is able to\nsearch the heart, which is a glory peculiar to himself, in which he is\ndistinguished from all creatures, 1 Kings viii. 39. Acts i. 24. It is\nthe heart that is principally to be regarded in prayer: If this be not\nright with God, there is no glory that we can ascribe to him, that will\nbe reckoned any better than _flattering him with our mouth_, and _lying\nto him with our tongues_, Psal. lxxviii. 36, 37. as the Psalmist says:\nTherefore, the inward frame of our spirit, and the principle, or spring\nfrom whence all religious duties proceed, being only known to God,\nprayer is only to be directed to him.\n3. He alone can hear our requests, pardon our sins, and fulfil our\ndesires. Prayer, when addressed to God, is not like that in which we\ndesire those favours from men, which are of a lower nature, whereby some\nparticular wants are supplied, in those respects in which one creature\nmay be of advantage to another; but when we pray to God, we seek those\nblessings which are the effects of infinite power and goodness, such as\nmay make us completely happy, both in this and a better world. Moreover,\nwe are to implore forgiveness of sin from him in prayer; which is a\nblessing none can bestow but God, Mark ii. 7. for as his law is the rule\nby which the goodness or badness of actions are determined; and the\nthreatening which he has annexed to it, is that which renders us liable\nto that punishment sin deserves; so it is he alone that can remit the\ndebt of punishment, which we are liable to, and give us a right and\ntitle to forfeited blessings; which being the principal thing that we\nare to seek for in prayer, this argues that none but God is the object\nthereof.\n4. God alone is to be believed in: Accordingly prayer, if it be\nacceptable to him, must be performed by faith. Thus the apostle says,\n_How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed?_ Rom. x.\n14. There must be a firm persuasion that he can grant us the blessings\nwe ask for; herein faith addresses itself to him as God all-sufficient;\nand is persuaded that he will fulfil all his promises, as a God of\ninfinite faithfulness; and accordingly we are to give up ourselves\nentirely to him as our proprietor and bountiful benefactor, the only\nfountain of blessedness, and object of religious worship: This is to be\ndone by faith in prayer, and consequently it is to be directed to God\nonly.\nII. We are now to consider what it is to pray in the name of Christ:\nThis doth not consist barely in a mentioning his name; which many do\nwhen they ask for favours for his sake, without a due regard to the\nmethod God has ordained; in which we are to draw nigh to him by Christ\nour great Mediator, who is to be glorified as the person by whom we are\nto have access to God the Father as the fountain of all the blessings,\nwhich are communicated to us in this method of divine grace. To come to\nGod in Christ\u2019s name, includes in it the whole work of faith, as to what\nit has to plead with, or hope for, from him, through a Mediator, in that\nway which he has prescribed to us in the gospel. And this more\nespecially consists in our making a right use of what Christ has done\nand suffered for us, as the foundation of our hope, that God will be\npleased to grant us what he has purchased thereby; which contains the\nsum of all that we can desire, when drawing nigh to him in prayer. Here\nlet it be considered,\n1. That the thoughts of having to do with an absolute God, cannot but\nfill us with the utmost distress and confusion, when we consider\nourselves as guilty sinners, and God, out of Christ, as a sin-revenging\nJudge, a consuming fire, Heb. xii. 29. in which case we may well say, as\nour first parent did, immediately after his fall, _I heard thy voice and\nI was afraid_, Gen. iii. 10.\n2. God is obliged, in honour, as a God of infinite holiness, to separate\nand banish sinners from his comfortable presence, they being liable to\nthe curse and condemning sentence of the law; by reason whereof his\nterror makes them afraid, and his dread falls upon them; nevertheless,\n3. They have, in the gospel, not only an invitation to come, but a\ndiscovery of that great Mediator, whom God has ordained to conduct his\npeople into his presence, having procured liberty of access to him, or,\nas the apostle expresses it, _boldness to enter into the holiest by his\nblood, by a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us through\nthe vail, that is to say, his flesh_, Heb. x. 19, 20. and he has, for\nthis end, erected a throne of grace, and encouraged us to come to it,\nand given many great and precious promises, whereby we may hope for\nacceptance in his sight; these being all established in Christ, and the\nblessings contained therein procured by his blood, and having liberty,\nin coming, to plead what he has done and suffered, as what was designed\nto be the foundation of our hope of obtaining mercy, we are said to come\nand make our supplications to God in the name of Christ.\nIII. We are now to consider the reason why we are to pray in the name of\nChrist; and that we have in one of the answers we are explaining. In\nwhich it is observed; that man, by sin, is set at such a distance from\nGod, that he cannot, by any means, come into his presence. God cannot\nlook upon him with any delight or complacency; inasmuch as his guilt\nrenders him the object of his abhorrence; and he cannot do any thing\nwhich has a tendency to reconcile God to him, and therefore he is\nspeechless, and can ask for no blessing at his hand. And it is farther\nobserved, that there is none in heaven or earth, that is, no mere\ncreature, that is fit for that glorious work; none has a sufficiency of\nmerit to present to God, whereby he may be said to make atonement for\nsin; or, as Job expresses it, there is _no days-man that might lay his\nhand on both_ parties, Job ix. 33. that is, able to deal with God in\npaying a ransom; which he may, in honour accept of; or with man, by\nencouraging him to hope that he shall obtain the blessings which he\nstands in need of; and bringing him into such a frame, that he may draw\nnigh to God in a right manner. This is only owing to our Lord Jesus\nChrist; and he does it as our great Mediator, who alone is fit to manage\nthis important work; therefore we are to pray to God, only in his name,\nwho is, by divine appointment, an advocate with the Father, pleading our\ncause before his throne, and thereby giving us ground of encouragement,\nthat our persons shall be accepted, and our prayers answered upon his\naccount, who is the only Mediator of redemption and intercession, in\nwhom God is well pleased, and gives a believer ground to conclude that\nhe shall not seek his face in vain.\n                  Quest. CLXXXII., CLXXXIII., CLXXXIV.\n    QUEST. CLXXXII. _How doth the Spirit help us to pray?_\n    ANSW. We not knowing what to pray for as we ought, the Spirit\n    helpeth our infirmities, by enabling us to understand both for whom,\n    and what, and how prayer is to be made, and by working and\n    quickening in our hearts (although not in all persons, not at all\n    times in the same measure) those apprehensions, affections, and\n    graces, which are requisite for the right performance of that duty.\n    QUEST. CLXXXIII. _For whom are we to pray?_\n    ANSW. We are to pray for the whole church of Christ, upon earth, for\n    magistrates and ministers, for ourselves, our brethren, yea, our\n    enemies, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live\n    hereafter, but not for the dead, nor for those that are known to\n    have sinned the sin unto death.\n    QUEST. CLXXXIV. _For what things are we to pray?_\n    ANSW. We are to pray for all things tending to the glory of God, the\n    welfare of the church, our own, or other\u2019s good, but not for any\n    thing that is unlawful.\nAs there is no duty that we can perform in a right manner, without help\nobtained from God\u2014And the same may be said, in particular, concerning\nthat of prayer: Accordingly we are led,\nI. To speak of the help that the Spirit of God is pleased to afford\nbelievers, in order to their engaging aright in this duty. Here we may\nobserve,\n1. That it is supposed that we know not what to pray for as we ought, or\nhow to bring our souls into a prepared frame for this duty, without the\nSpirit\u2019s assistance.\n(1.) We are oftentimes at a loss with respect to the matter of prayer;\nand this may be said to proceed from our being unacquainted with\nourselves, and not duly sensible of our wants, weaknesses, or secret\nfaults: Sometimes we cannot determine whether we are in a state of grace\nor no; or, if we are, whether it is increasing or declining; or, if we\nhave ground to complain by reason of the hidings of God\u2019s face, and our\nwant of communion with him, we are oftentimes hard put to it to find out\nwhat is that secret sin which is the occasion of it; nor are we\nsufficiently apprized of the wiles of Satan, or the danger we are in of\nbeing ensnared or overcome thereby. Moreover, we are oftentimes not able\nto know how to direct our prayers to God aright, as we know not what is\nmost conducive to his glory, or what it is that he requires of us,\neither in obedience to his commanding will, or in submission to his\nprovidential will. Hence it arises, that many good men, in scripture,\nhave asked for some things which have been in themselves unlawful,\nthrough the weakness of their faith, and the prevalency of their\ncorruption: Thus some have desired, that God would call them out of this\nworld by death, being impatient under the many troubles they met with\ntherein; accordingly we read concerning Elijah, that \u2018he requested for\nhimself that he might die, and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take\naway my life; for I am not better than my fathers,\u2019 1 Kings xix. 4. and\nJob says, \u2018O that I might have my request! and that God would grant me\nthe thing that I long for! Even that it would please God to destroy me;\nthat he would let loose his hand, and cut me off,\u2019 Job vi. 8, 9. And\nJonah says, \u2018O Lord, I beseech thee, take my life from me; for it is\nbetter for me to die than to live,\u2019 Jonah iv. 3. And Moses, though he\nhad the character of the meekest man upon earth, and doubtless excelled\nall others in his day, in those graces which he had received from God,\nas well as in the great honours conferred on him; yet he puts up a most\nunbecoming prayer, both as to the matter and manner thereof; as it is\nobserved, that he said unto the Lord, \u2018Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy\nservant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou\nlayest the burden of all this people upon me? Have I conceived all this\npeople? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry\nthem in thy bosom (as a nursing-father beareth the sucking child) unto\nthe land which thou swarest unto their fathers? Whence should I have\nflesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give\nus flesh, that we may eat. I am not able to bear all this people alone,\nbecause it is too heavy for me. And if thou deal thus with me, kill me,\nI pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let\nme not see my wretchedness,\u2019 Numb. xi. 11-15. And, in another instance,\nhe asks for a thing which he knew before hand, that God would not grant\nhim, when he says, \u2018I pray thee, let me go over and see the good land\nthat is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon:\u2019 Upon which\nGod says, \u2018Let it suffice thee, speak no more unto me of this matter,\u2019\nDeut. iii. 25, 26.\u2014Many instances of the like nature are mentioned in\nscripture; and, indeed, nothing is more obvious from daily experience,\nthat what the apostle James observes, that persons \u2018ask and receive not,\nbecause they ask amiss,\u2019 James iv. 3. or what the apostle Paul says, \u2018We\nknow not what we should pray for as we ought,\u2019 Rom. viii. 26.\n(2.) We are, at other times, straitened in our affections, and so know\nnot how to ask any thing with a suitable frame of spirit: It is certain\nwe cannot excite our affections, or especially put forth those graces\nwhich are to be exercised in prayer, when we please. Our hearts are\nsometimes dead, cold, and inclined to wander from God in this duty; and,\nat other times, we pray with a kind of indifferency, as though it was of\nno great importance whether our prayer were answered or no. How seldom\ndo we express that importunity in this duty which Jacob did, \u2018I will not\nlet thee go, except thou bless me?\u2019 Gen. xxxii. 26. And as for those\ngraces that are to be exercised in prayer, we often want that reverence,\nand those high and awful thoughts of the divine Majesty, which we ought\nto have, who draw nigh to a God of infinite perfection; nor, on the\nother hand, do we express those low and humble thoughts of ourselves, as\nour own meanness, the imperfection of our best performances, and the\ninfinite distance which we stand at from God, ought to suggest; and to\nthis we may add, that we are often destitute of that love to Christ, and\ntrust in him, which are necessary to the right performance of this duty,\nas also of that hope of being heard, which is a very great encouragement\nto it.\n2. We are now to enquire wherein the Spirit is said to help our\ninfirmities; and this may be considered as adapted to that two-fold\nnecessity which we are often under, respecting the matter or frame of\nspirit with which this duty is to be performed.\n(1.) The Spirit helps our infirmities, with respect to the matter of\nprayer. This is not in the least derogatory to his divine glory, if he\nis pleased to condescend thus to converse with man, and it is not\ncontrary to the nature of things; for the Spirit, being a divine Person,\nsearches the heart, and can impress those ideas on the souls of his\npeople, whereby they may be led into the knowledge of those things that\nthey ought to ask in prayer, with as much facility as any one can convey\nhis ideas to another by words. If it was impossible for God to do this,\nhis providence could not be conversant about intelligent creatures, any\notherwise than in an objective way, in which it would not differ from\nthat which may be attributed to finite spirits. And it would have been\nimpossible for God to have imparted his mind and will by extraordinary\nrevelation, (without which, it could not have been known) if he may not,\nthough it be in an ordinary way, communicate those ideas to the souls of\nhis people, whereby they may be furnished with matter for prayer.\nI am not pleading for extraordinary revelation; for that is to expect a\nblessing that God does not now give to his people: But I only argue from\nthe greater to the less; whereby it may appear, that it is not\nimpossible, or absurd, from the nature of the thing, or contrary to the\ndivine perfections, for God to impress the thoughts of men in an\nordinary way; since he formerly did this in an extraordinary, as will be\nallowed by all, who are not disposed to deny and set aside revealed\nreligion. Moreover, there was such a thing in the apostle\u2019s days, as\nbeing led by the Spirit, which was distinguished from his miraculous and\nextraordinary influences, as a Spirit of inspiration; otherwise, it is\ncertain, he would not have assigned this as a character of the children\nof God, which he does, Rom. viii. 14. And when our Saviour promises his\npeople the _Spirit to guide them into all truth_, John xvi. 13. I cannot\nthink that this only respected the apostles, or their being led into the\ntruths that they were to impart to the church by divine inspiration; but\nit seems to be a privilege that belongs to all believers: Therefore, we\nconclude, that it is no absurdity to suppose that he may assist his\npeople, as to what concerns the matter of their prayers, or suggest to\nthem those becoming thoughts which they have in prayer, when drawing\nnigh to God in a right manner.\nSome have enquired, whether we may conclude that the Spirit of God\nfurnishes his people with words in prayer, distinct from his impressing\nideas on their minds? This I would be very cautious in determining, lest\nI should hereby not put a just difference between this assistance of the\nSpirit, that believers hope for, and that which the prophets of old\nreceived by inspiration. I dare not say, that the Spirit\u2019s work consists\nin furnishing believers with proper expressions, with which their ideas\nare clothed, when they engage in this duty, but rather with those\nsuitable arguments and apprehensions of divine things, which are more\nimmediately subservient thereunto: Accordingly the apostle, speaking of\nthe Spirit\u2019s assisting believers, when they know not what to pray for as\nthey ought, says, that he does this _with groanings that cannot be\nuttered_: that is, he impresses on their souls those divine breathings\nafter things spiritual and heavenly, which they sometimes,\nnotwithstanding, want words to express; though, at the same time, the\nframe of their spirits may be under a divine influence, which God is\nsaid to know the meaning of, when he graciously hears and answers their\nprayers, how imperfect soever they may be, as to the mode of expression.\n(2.) The Spirit helps our infirmities by giving us a suitable frame of\nspirit, and exciting those graces which are to be exercised in this duty\nof prayer. This the Psalmist calls, _preparing their hearts_; which God\ndoes, and then _causes his ear to hear_, Psal. x. 17. which is a very\ndesirable blessing; and, in order to our understanding it aright, let it\nbe considered,\n[1.] That we cannot, without the Spirit\u2019s assistance, bring our hearts\ninto a right frame for prayer; and that is the reason why we engage in\nthis duty, in such a manner as gives great uneasiness to us when we\nreflect upon it; so that when we pretend to draw nigh to God, we can\nhardly say that we worship him as God, but become vain in our\nimaginations; and the corruption of our nature discovers itself more at\nthis time than it does on other occasions; and Satan uses his utmost\nendeavours to distract and disturb our thoughts, and take off the edge\nof our affections; whereby we seem not really to desire those things\nwhich, with our lips, we ask at the hand of God. As for an unregenerate\nman, he has not a principle of grace, and therefore cannot pray in\nfaith, or with the exercise of those other graces which he is destitute\nof; and the believer is renewed but in part, and therefore, if the\nSpirit is not pleased to excite the principle of grace which he has\nimplanted, he is very much indisposed for this duty, which cannot be\nperformed aright without his assistance.\n[2.] We are, nevertheless, to use our utmost endeavours, in order\nthereunto, hoping for a blessing from God to succeed them. Accordingly,\nwe are to meditate on the divine perfections, and the evil of sin, which\nis contrary thereunto; whereby we are rendered guilty, defiled, and\nunworthy to come into the presence of God; yet we consider ourselves as\ninvited to come to him in the gospel, and encouraged by his promise and\ngrace, to cast ourselves before his footstool, in hope of obtaining\nmercy from him.\nWe are also to examine ourselves, that we may know what sins are to be\nconfessed by us, and what are those necessities which will afford matter\nfor petition or supplication in prayer, together with the mercies we\nhave received; which are to be thankfully acknowledged therein. We are\nalso to consider the many encouragements which we have, to draw nigh to\nGod in this duty, taken from his being ready to pardon our iniquities,\nheal our backslidings, help our infirmities, and grant us undeserved\nfavours. We must also impress on our souls a due sense of the\nspirituality of the duty we are to engage in, and that we have to do\nwith the heart-searching God, who will be worshipped with reverence and\nholy fear; and therefore we are to endeavour to excite all the powers\nand faculties of our souls, to engage in this duty in such a way that we\nmay hereby glorify his name, and hope to receive a gracious answer from\nhim.\n[3.] When we have used our utmost endeavours to bring ourselves into a\npraying frame, yet we must depend on the Holy Spirit to give success\nthereunto, that we may be enabled to exercise those graces that are more\nespecially his gift and work: And, in order thereunto,\n_1st_, We must give glory to him as the author of regeneration, since no\ngrace can be exercised in this duty but what proceeds from a right\nprinciple, or a nature renewed, and internally sanctified, and disposed\nfor the performance hereof; which is his work, as the _Spirit of grace\nand of supplication_, Zech. xii. 10.\n_2dly_, As we are to draw nigh to God in this duty, as a reconciled God\nand Father, if we hope to be accepted by him; so we are to consider,\nthat this is the peculiar work of the Spirit, whereby we are _enabled to\ncry, Abba, Father_, Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 6. This will not only\ndispose us to perform this duty in a right manner, so as to enable us to\npray in faith; but it will afford us ground of hope that our prayers\nwill be heard and answered by him.\n_3dly_, Inasmuch as we often are straitened in our spirits, which is a\ngreat hindrance to us in this duty, we must consider it as a peculiar\nblessing and gift of the Holy Ghost, to have our hearts enlarged; which\nthe Psalmist intends, when he says, _Bring my soul out of prison, that I\nmay praise thy name_, Psal. cxlii. 7. and it is a peculiar branch of\nthat liberty which he is pleased to bestow on his people, under the\ngospel-dispensation; as the apostle says, _Where the Spirit of the Lord\nis, there is liberty_, 2 Cor. iii. 17. And by this means our affections\nwill be raised, and we enabled to pour out our souls before him.\nThis may give us occasion to enquire concerning the difference that\nthere is between raised affections in prayer, which unregenerate persons\nsometimes have, from external motives; and those which the Spirit\nexcites in us as a peculiar blessing, whereby he assists us in the\ndischarge of this duty. There are several things in which they differ;\nas,\n_1st_, The former of these oftentimes proceeds from a slavish fear and\ndread of the wrath of God; the latter from a love to, and desire after\nhim, which arises from the view we have of his glory, as our covenant\nGod, in and through a Mediator.\n_2dly_, Raised affections in unregenerate persons, are seldom found, but\nwhen they are under some pressing affliction, in which case, as the\nprophet says, _They will seek God early_, Hos. v. 15. but when this is\nremoved, the affections grow stupid, cold, and indifferent, as they were\nbefore his afflicting hand was laid upon them: Whereas, on the other\nhand, a believer will find his heart drawn forth after God and divine\nthings, when he is not sensible of any extraordinary affliction that\ngives vent to his passions; or he finds, that as afflictions tend to\nexcite some graces in the exercise whereof his affections are moved, so\nwhen it pleases God to deliver him from them, his affections are still\nraised while other graces are exercised agreeably thereunto.\n_3dly_, Raised affections, in unregenerate men, for the most part, carry\nthem forth in the pursuit of those temporal blessings which they stand\nin need of: Thus when Esau sought the blessing carefully with tears, it\nwas that outward prosperity which was contained therein, that he had\nprincipally in view, as disdaining that his brother Jacob should be\npreferred before him; or, as it is said, _made his Lord, and his\nbrethren given him for servants_, Gen. xxvii. 37. but he had no regard\nto the spiritual or saving blessings contained therein: Whereas, a\nbeliever is most concerned for, and affected with those blessings that\nimmediately accompany salvation, or contain in them the special love of\nGod, or communion with him, which he prefers to all other things: Thus\nthe Psalmist says, _There be many that say, Who will shew us any good?\nLord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us_, Psal. iv. 6.\nAnd to this we may add,\n_4thly_, Whatever raised affections unregenerate persons may have, they\nwant a broken heart, an humble sense of sin, and an earnest desire that\nit may be subdued and mortified; they are destitute of self-denial, and\nother graces of the like nature, which, in some degree, are found in a\nbeliever, when assisted by the Spirit, in performing the duty of prayer\nin a right manner.\nFrom what has been said concerning the Spirit\u2019s assistance in prayer, we\nmay infer,\n_1st_, That there is a great difference between the gift and the grace\nof prayer: The former may be attained by the improvement of our natural\nabilities, and is oftentimes of use to others who join with us therein;\nwhereas the latter is a peculiar blessing from the Spirit of God, and an\nevidence of the truth of grace.\n_2dly_, They who deny that the Spirit has any hand in the work of grace,\nand consequently disown his assistance in prayer, cannot be said to give\nhim that glory that is due to him, and therefore must be supposed to be\ndestitute of his assistance, and very deficient as to this duty.\n_3dly_, Let us not presume on the Spirit\u2019s assistance in prayer, while\nwe continue in a course of grieving him, and quenching his holy motions.\n_4thly_, Let us desire raised affections, as a great blessing from God,\nand yet not be discouraged from engaging in prayer, though we want them;\nsince this grace, as well as all others, is dispensed in a way of\nsovereignty: And if he is pleased, for wise ends, to withhold his\nassistance; yet we must not say, why should I wait on the Lord any\nlonger?\n_5thly_, If we would pray in the Spirit, or experience his help, to\nperform this duty in a right manner, let us endeavour to walk in the\nSpirit, and to maintain a spiritual, holy, self-denying frame, at all\ntimes, if we would not be destitute of it, when we engage in this duty.\nThis leads us to consider,\nII. The persons for whom we are to pray; and on the other hand, who are\nnot to be prayed for.\n1. As to the former of those: It is observed,\n(1.) That we are to pray for the whole church of Christ upon earth; by\nwhich we are to understand, all those that profess the faith of the\ngospel, especially such whose practice is agreeable to their profession;\nand in particular, all those religious societies who consent to walk in\nthose ordinances whereby they testify their subjection to Christ, as\nking of saints. The particular members of which these societies consist,\nare, for the most part, unknown to us; so that we cannot pray for them\nby name, or as being acquainted with the condition and circumstances in\nwhich they are; yet they are not to be wholly disregarded, or excluded\nfrom the benefit of our prayers: Thus the apostle speaks of the _great\nconflict he had_, not only _for them at Laodicea; but, for as many as\nhad not seen his face in the flesh_, Col. ii. 1. This is a peculiar\nbranch of the communion of saints, and it is accompanied with those\nearnest desires which we have, that God may be glorified in them, and by\nthem, as well as ourselves; particularly we are to pray,\n[1.] That they may be united together in love to God and to one another,\nJohn xvii. 21. That this may be attended with all those other graces and\ncomforts which are an evidence of their interest in Christ.\n[2.] That they may have the special presence of God with them in all his\nordinances, which will be a visible testimony of his regard to them, and\nan honour put on his own institutions, as well as an accomplishment of\nwhat he promised to his apostles just before he ascended into heaven,\nthat he would _be with them always even unto the end of the world_, Mat.\nxxviii. 20.\n[3.] That they may be supported under the burdens, difficulties and\npersecutions which they meet with, either from the powers of darkness or\nwicked men, for Christ\u2019s sake, that so the promise may be made good to\nthem, that _the gates of hell shall not prevail against them_, chap.\n[4.] That there may be added to particular churches out of the world,\nmany such as shall be saved, Acts ii. 47. which shall be an argument of\nthe success of the gospel: And when we pray, that God would magnify his\ngrace in bringing sinners home to himself, we are to pray for the\naccomplishment of those promises that respect the conversion of the\nJews: Thus the apostle says, _Brethren, my heart\u2019s desire and prayer to\nGod for Israel is, that they might be saved_, Rom. x. 1. and, that there\nmay be a greater spread of the gospel throughout the most remote and\ndark parts of the earth, among whom Christ is, at present, unknown: This\nthe apostle calls _The fulness of the Gentiles coming in_, chap. xi. 25.\nand it is agreeable to what is foretold by the prophet Isaiah, in chap.\nlx. which seems not as yet to have had its full accomplishment.\n[5.] We are to pray that the life of faith and holiness may be daily\npromoted in all the faithful members of the church of Christ, that they\nmay be enabled more and more to adorn the doctrine of God, our Saviour,\nand be abundantly satisfied, and delighted with the fruits and effects\nof his redeeming love.\n[6.] That God would accept of those sacrifices of prayer and praise that\nare daily offered to him by faith, in the blood of Christ, in every\nworshipping assembly, which will redound to the advantage of all the\nservants of Christ, whom they think themselves obliged to make mention\nof in their prayers, as well as to the glory of God, which is owned and\nadvanced thereby.\n[7.] That the children of believers, who are devoted to God, may be\nunder his special care and protection, that they may follow the\nfootsteps of the flock, and fill up the places of those who are called\noff the stage of this world; that so there may be a constant supply of\nthose who shall bear a testimony to Christ and his gospel in the rising\ngeneration.\n[8.] That the members of every particular church of Christ may acquit\nthemselves so as that they may honour him in the eyes of the world, and\nbe supported and carried safely through this waste howling wilderness,\ntill they arrive at that better country for which they are bound; and\nthat they may not be foiled or overcome while they are in their militant\nstate, but may be joined with the church triumphant in heaven.\n(2.) We are to pray for magistrates. This is not only included in the\ngeneral exhortation given us to _pray for all men_; but they are\nparticularly mentioned by the apostle, and it is intimated that it is\n_good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,_ 1 Tim. ii. 1-3.\nThis also may be argued from hence, that magistracy is God\u2019s ordinance,\nRom. xiii. 1, 2. and there is no ordinance which is enstamped with the\ndivine authority, though it may principally respect civil affairs; but\nwe are to pray that God would succeed and prosper it, that it may answer\nthe valuable ends for which it was appointed.\nNow there are several things that we are to pray for in the behalf of\nmagistrates, _viz._ that they may approve themselves rulers after God\u2019s\nown heart, to _fulfil all his will,_ Acts xii. 26. as was said of David;\nthat their counsels and conduct may be ordered for his glory, and the\ngood of his church; that they may not be a _terror_ to good _works;_\nnamely, to persons that perform them, but _to the evil_; and so _may not\nbear the sword in vain,_ Rom. xiii. 3, 4. Accordingly we are to pray,\nthat they may be a public blessing to all their subjects, and herein\nthat promise may be fulfilled; _Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and\ntheir queens thy nursing-mothers,_ Isa. xlix. 23. and, as an instance\nhereof, that under them _we may lead a quiet and peaceable life,\ngodliness and honesty,_ 1 Tim. ii. 2. And, as to what concerns their\nsubjects, that their authority may not be abused and trampled on by\nthem, on the one hand, while they take occasion to offend with impunity;\nnor be dreaded as grievous to others who feel the weight thereof, in\ninstances of injustice and oppression.\n(3.) We are to pray for ministers. This is a necessary duty, inasmuch as\ntheir work is exceeding great and difficult; so that the apostle might\nwell say, _Who is sufficient for these things,_ 2 Cor. ii. 16. And,\nindeed, besides the difficulties that attend the work itself, there are\nothers that they meet with, arising from the unstable temper of\nprofessed friends, who sometimes, as the apostle says, _become their\nenemies for telling them the truth,_ Gal. iv. 16. or from the restless\nmalice and violent opposition of open enemies; which evidently takes its\nrise from that inveterate hatred that they bear to Christ and his\ngospel. Moreover, as they have difficulties in the discharge of the work\nthey are called to, so they must give an account to God for their\nfaithfulness therein; and it is of the highest importance that they do\nthis _with joy, and not with grief,_ Heb. xiii. 17, 18. as the apostle\nspeaks; and immediately he intreats the church\u2019s prayers, as that which\nwas necessary in order hereunto. Now there are several things which\nought to be the subject-matter of our prayers, with respect to\nministers.\n[1.] That God would send forth a supply or succession of them, to answer\nthe church\u2019s necessities; inasmuch as _the harvest is plenteous_, as our\nSaviour observes, _but the labourers are few,_ Matt. xi. 37, 38.\n[2.] That they may answer the character which the apostle gives of a\nfaithful minister; and accordingly _study to shew themselves approved\nunto God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word\nof truth,_ 2 Tim. ii. 15.\n[3.] That they may be directed and enabled to impart those truths that\nare substantial, edifying, and suitable to the circumstances and\ncondition of their hearers.\n[4.] That they may be spirited with zeal, and love to souls, in the\nwhole course of their ministry; that the glory of God, and the\nadvancement of his truth may lie nearest their hearts, and a tender\nconcern and compassion for the souls of men, may incline them to use\ntheir utmost endeavours, as the apostle speaks, _to save them with fear,\npulling them out of the fire,_ Jude, ver. 23.\n[5.] That their endeavours may be attended with success, which, in some\nmeasure, may give them a comfortable hope that they are called,\naccepted, and approved of by God, which, from the nature of the thing\nwill tend to their own advantage, who make this the subject of our\nearnest prayers on their behalf; and, indeed, the neglect of performing\nthis duty, may, in some measure, be assigned as one reason why the word\nis often preached with very little success; so that this ought to be\nperformed, not barely as an act of favour, but as a duty that redounds\nto our own advantage.\n(4.) We are to pray, not only for ourselves and our brethren, but for\nour enemies. That we are to pray for ourselves, none ever denied, how\nmuch so ever many live in the neglect of this duty; and as for our\nobligation to pray for our brethren, that is founded in the law of\nnature; which obliges us to love them as ourselves, and, consequently,\nto desire their welfare, together with our own.\nHowever, it may be enquired, what we are to understand by our brethren,\nfor whom we are to express this great concern in our supplications to\nGod? For the understanding of which, let it be considered, that, besides\nthose who are called _brethren_, in the most known acceptation of the\nword, as Jacob\u2019s sons tell Joseph, _We be twelve brethren, sons of one\nfather,_ Gen. xlii. 32. it is sometimes taken, in scripture, for any\nnear kinsman: Thus Abraham and Lot are called _brethren_, chap. xiii. 8.\nthough they were not sons of the same father, for Lot was Abraham\u2019s\nbrother\u2019s son, chap. xi. 31. this is a very common acceptation of the\nword in scripture. Again, it is sometimes taken in a more large sense,\nfor those who are members of the same church: Thus the apostle calls\nthose that belonged to the church at Colosse, _the saints and faithful\nbrethren in Christ,_ Col. i. 2. and sometimes they who are of the same\nnation, are called brethren: Thus it is said, _When Moses was full forty\nyears old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children, of\nIsrael,_ Acts vii. 23. And it is sometimes taken for those who make\nprofession of the same religion with ourselves; and also for those who\nare kind and friendly to us: Thus it is said, _A friend loveth at all\ntimes, and a brother is born for adversity,_ Prov. xvii. 17. and,\nindeed, the word is sometimes taken in the largest sense that can be, as\ncomprizing in it all mankind, who have the same nature with ourselves, 1\nJohn iv. 21. These are objects of love, and therefore our prayers are,\nespecially in proportion to the nearness of the relation they stand in\nto us, to be directed to God on their behalf. Some, indeed, are allied\nto us by stronger bonds than others; but none, who are entitled to our\nlove, pity, and compassion, are to be wholly excluded from our prayers.\nThis will farther appear, if we consider that we are also to pray for\nour enemies, as the law of nature obliges us to do good for evil; and\nconsequently, as our Saviour says, we are to _pray for them which\ndespitefully use us, and persecute us,_ Matt. v. 44. We are not, indeed,\nto pray for them, that they may obtain their wicked and unjust designs\nagainst us; or that they may have power and opportunity to hurt us; for\nthat is contrary to the principle of self-preservation, which is\nimpressed on our nature; but we are to pray for them.\n[1.] That however they carry it to us they may be made Christ\u2019s friends,\ntheir hearts changed, and they enabled to serve his interest; that they,\ntogether with ourselves, may be partakers of everlasting salvation;\ntherefore it is a vile thing, and altogether inconsistent with the\nspirit of a christian, to desire the ruin, much more the damnation of\nany one, as many wickedly and profanely do.\n[2.] We are to pray that their corruptions may be subdued, their tempers\nsoftened, and their hearts changed; so that they may be sensible of, and\nlay aside their unjust resentments against us. And,\n[3.] If they are under any distress or misery, we are not to insult or\ntake pleasure in beholding it, but to pity them, and to pray for their\ndeliverance, as much as though they were not enemies to us.\n(5.) We are to pray not only for all sorts of men now living; according\nto what is contained in the last head, but for those that shall live\nhereafter. This includes in it an earnest desire that the interest of\nChrist may be propagated from generation to generation; and his kingdom\nand glory advanced in the world until his second coming: Thus the\nPsalmist says, _He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not\ndespise their prayer: This shall be written for the generation to come;\nand the people which shall be created, shall praise the Lord_, Psal.\ncii. 17, 18. and our Saviour says, _Neither pray I for these alone, but\nfor them also which shall believe on me through their word_, John xvii,\n2. We are now to consider those who are excluded from our prayers; and\nthese are either such as are dead, or those who have sinned the sin unto\ndeath.\n(1.) We are not to pray for the dead. This is asserted in opposition to\nwhat was maintained and practised by some in the early ages of the\nchurch, and paved the way for those abuses and corruptions which are\npractised by the church of Rome, at this day, who first prayed for the\ndead, and afterwards proceeded farther in praying for them. The first\nstep that was taken leading hereunto, seems to have been their being\nguilty of great excesses in the large encomiums they made in their\npublic anniversary orations, in commemoration of the martyrs and\nconfessors, who had suffered in the cause of christianity. This was done\nat first, with a good design, viz. to excite those who survived, to\nimitate them in their virtues, and to express their love to the cause\nfor which they suffered; but afterwards they went beyond the bounds of\ndecency in magnifying and extolling them; and then they proceeded yet\nfarther, in praying for them; This is often excused, by some modern\nwriters, from the respect they bear to them, who first practised it;\nthough it can hardly be vindicated from the charge of will-worship,\nsince no countenance is given to it in scripture.\nThat which is generally alleged in their behalf, is, that they supposed\nthe souls of believers did not immediately enter into heaven, but were\nsequestered, or disposed of in some place inferior to it, which they\nsometimes call _paradise_, or _Abraham\u2019s bosom_, where they are to\ncontinue till their souls are re-united to their bodies. Whether this\nplace be above or below the earth, all are not agreed; but their mistake\narises from their misunderstanding those scriptures which describe\nheaven under these metaphorical characters of _paradise_, or _Abraham\u2019s\nbosom_[104]. Here they suppose that they are, indeed, delivered from the\nafflictions and miseries of this present life; but yet not possessed of\nperfect blessedness in God\u2019s immediate presence. Therefore they\nconclude, that there was some room for prayer, that the degree of\nhappiness which they were possessed of, might be continued, or rather,\nthat it might in the end, be perfected, when they are raised from the\ndead, and admitted to partake of the heavenly blessedness.\nOthers thought, that at death, the sentence was not peremptorily past\neither on the righteous or the wicked, so that there was room left for\nthem to pray for the increase of the happiness of the one, or of the\nmitigation of the torment of the other; and therefore, in different\nrespects, they prayed for all, both good and bad, especially for those\nwho were within the pale or inclosure of the church; and above all, for\nsuch as were useful to, and highly esteemed by it.\nThe principal thing that is said in vindication of this practice (for\nwhat has been but now mentioned, as the ground and reason thereof, will\nby no means justify it) is, that though the souls of believers are in\nheaven; yet their happiness will not be, in all respects, complete, till\nthe day of judgment: Therefore, in their prayers, they chiefly had\nregard to the consummation of their blessedness at Christ\u2019s second\ncoming, together with the continuance thereof, till then; without\nsupposing that they received any other advantage thereby. And, inasmuch\nas this is not a matter of uncertainty, they farther observe, that many\nthings are to be prayed for, which shall certainly come to pass, whether\nwe pray for them or no; _e. g._ the gathering of the whole number of the\nelect, and the coming of Christ\u2019s kingdom of glory: Therefore they\nsuppose, that the advantage principally redounds to those who put up\nprayers to God for them, as hereby they express their faith in the\ndoctrine of the resurrection, and the future blessedness of the saints,\nand the communion that there is between the church militant and\ntriumphant.\nThis is the fairest colour that can be put upon that ancient practice of\nthe church, and the many instances that we meet with, in the writings of\nthe Fathers, concerning their prayers for the dead[105].\nThus concerning the practice of the church, before we read of the\nfictitious place which the Papists call _purgatory_; where they fancy,\nthat separate souls endure some degrees of torment, and are relieved by\nthe prayers of their surviving friends; which was not known to the\nchurch before the seventh century; and is without any foundation from\nscripture, as has been before observed under a foregoing answer[106].\nNow since this was formerly defended, and is now practised by the\nPapists, the contrary doctrine is asserted in this answer, _viz._ that\nwe are not to pray for the dead; and that this may farther appear, let\nit be considered,\nThat the state of every man is unalterably fixed, at death; so that\nnothing remains which can be called an addition to the happiness of the\none, or the misery of the other, but what is the result of the re-union\nof the soul and body at the resurrection; and therefore to pray that the\nsaints may have greater degrees of glory conferred upon them, or sinners\na release from that state of misery in which they are, is altogether\nungrounded; and therefore such prayers must be concluded to be unlawful.\nThat the state of man is fixed at death is sufficiently evident from\nscripture: Thus our Saviour, in the parable of the _rich man_ and\n_Lazarus_, speaks of the one as immediately _carried by the angels into\nAbraham\u2019s bosom_, Luke xvi. 22, _&c._ (by which, notwithstanding what\nsome ancient writers have asserted to the contrary, we are to understand\nheaven;) and the other as being in a place of _torments_, without any\nhope or probability of the least mitigation thereof; whereby hell, not\npurgatory is intended: And the apostle says, _It is appointed unto men\nonce to die, and after this the judgment_, Heb. ix. 27, by which he\nintends, that all men must leave the world; and when they are parted\nfrom it, their state is determined by Christ; though this is not done in\nso public and visible a manner, as it will be in the general judgment:\nIf therefore the state of men be unalterably fixed at death; it may be\njustly inferred from thence, that there is no room for any one to put up\nprayers to God on their behalf: Prayer must have some proof on which it\nrelies, otherwise it cannot be addressed to God by faith; or, as the\napostle expresses it, _nothing wavering_, James i. 6. Now, if we have no\nground to conclude that our prayers shall be heard and answered; or have\nany doubt in our spirits whether the thing prayed for be agreeable to\nthe will of God; such a prayer cannot be put up in faith, and therefore\nis not lawful.\n_Obj._ 1. The Papists, in defence of the contrary doctrine, are very\nmuch at a loss for scriptures to support it: However, there is one,\ntaken from a passage in the apocryphal writings, in which Judas\nMaccabeus, and his company, are represented as praying and offering a\nsin-offering, and thereby making reconciliation for the dead, _i. e._\nsome that had been slain in battle, 2 Maccab. xii. 43,-45.\n_Answ._ The reply that some make to this, is, that the prayers for the\ndead here spoken of, are of a different nature from those which the\nPapists make use of in the behalf of those whom they pretend to be in\npurgatory, or, that they prayed for nothing but what some of the\nFathers, as before-mentioned did, _viz._ that they might be raised from\nthe dead, whereby they expressed their faith in the doctrine of the\nresurrection: But, I think there is a better reply may be given to it,\nnamely, that the argument is not taken from any inspired writing; and\ntherefore no more credit is to be given to it than any other human\ncomposure, in which some things are true, and others false: And as for\nthis book in particular, the author himself plainly intimates that he\ndid not receive it by divine inspiration; for he says, _If I have done\nwell, and as it is fitting the story, it is that which I desired; but if\nslenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto_, chap. xv.\n38. which is very honestly said; but not like an inspired writer, and\ntherefore nothing that is said therein is a sufficient proof of any\nimportant article of faith or practice, such as that is, which we are\nnow defending.\n_Obj._ 2. It is farther objected, that the apostle Paul puts up a short\nand affectionate prayer for Onesiphorus, in 2 Tim. i. 18. _The Lord\ngrant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day_;\nwhereas, it is concluded by some, that, at the time the apostle wrote\nthis epistle, Onesiphorus was dead, since there are two petitions put\nup, one in this verse for him, and another in ver. 16. for _his house_;\nand in chap. iv. 19. when he salutes some of his friends, according to\nhis custom, he makes mention of the _household of Onesiphorus_, not of\nhim. This turn Grotius himself gives of this scripture[107]. And the\nPapists greedily embrace it, as it gives countenance to their practice\nof praying for the dead.\n_Answ._ It is but a weak foundation that this argument is built on; for\nthough Paul salutes his household, and not himself, in the close of this\nepistle, it does not follow from hence, that he was dead; for he might\nbe absent from his family at this time, as he often was, when engaged in\npublic service, as being sent by the church, as their messenger, to\nenquire concerning the progress and success of the gospel in other\nparts; or to carry relief to those who were suffering in Christ\u2019s cause:\nIt may be, the apostle might be informed that he was then in his way to\nRome, where he was himself a prisoner when he wrote this epistle; and if\nso, it would not have been proper to send salutations to him, whom he\nexpected shortly to see, while, at the same time, he testified the great\nlove he bore to him and all his family, as being a man of uncommon zeal\nfor the interest of Christ and religion.\n(2.) They are not to be prayed for who have sinned the sin unto death.\nThis sin we read of, as what excludes persons from forgiveness, in\nscripture, Matt. xii. 32. in which such things are said concerning it,\nas should make us fear and tremble, not only lest we should be left to\ncommit it, but give way to those sins which border upon it; and there is\nenough expressed therein to encourage us to hope that we have not\ncommitted it; which is the principal thing to be insisted on, when we\ntreat on this subject in our public discourses, or any are tempted to\nfear, lest they are guilty of it. Here let it be observed, that though\nit be called _the sin unto death_, we are not to suppose that it is one\nparticular act of sin, but rather a course or complication of sins,\nwherein there are many ingredients of the most heinous nature. And,\n[1.] That it cannot be committed by any but those who have been favoured\nwith gospel light; for it always contains in it a rejection of the\ngospel, which supposes the revelation or preaching thereof.\n[2.] It is not merely a rejecting the gospel, though attended with\nsufficient objective evidence, in those who have not had an inward\nconviction of the truth thereof, or whose opposition to it proceeds\nprincipally from ignorance, as the apostle says concerning himself, that\n_though he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious; yet he\nobtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly, in unbelief_, 1 Tim. i.\n[3.] It is a rejecting the gospel which we once professed to embrace,\nand therefore carries in it the nature of apostacy: Thus the Scribes and\nPharisees, when they attended on John\u2019s ministry, professed their\nwillingness to adhere to Christ, and afterwards, when he first appeared\npublicly in the world, they were convinced in their consciences, by the\nmiracles which he wrought, that he was the Messiah; though, after this\nthey were offended in him, and ashamed to own him, because of the\nhumbled state and condition in which he appeared in the world; for which\nreason, they, in particular, were charged with this sin in the scripture\nbefore-mentioned.\n[4.] It also contains in it a rejecting of Christ and the known truth,\nout of envy, and this attended with reviling, persecuting, and using\ntheir utmost endeavours to extirpate and banish it out of the world, and\nbeget in the minds of men the greatest detestation of it: Thus the Jews\nare said to _deliver Christ out of envy_, Matt. xxvii, 18. and with the\nsame spirit they persecuted the gospel.\n[5.] Such as are guilty of this sin, have no conviction in their\nconsciences of any crime committed herein; but stop their ears against\nall reproof, and set themselves, with the greatest hatred and malice,\nagainst those, who, with faithfulness, admonish them to the contrary.\n[6.] They go out of the way of God\u2019s ordinances, and wilfully exclude\nthemselves from the means of grace, which they treat with the utmost\ncontempt, and use all those endeavours that are in their power, that\nothers may be deprived of them.\n[7.] This condition they not only live but die in; so that their\napostacy is not only total, but final.\nHowever, I cannot but observe, that some are of opinion that this sin\ncannot be now committed, because we have not the dispensation of\nmiracles, whereby the Christian religion was incontestibly proved, in\nour Saviour\u2019s and the apostles\u2019 time: And the main thing in which it\nconsisted in the scripture before-mentioned, in Matt. xii. was, in that\nthe Pharisees were charged with saying, that Christ _cast out devils by\nBeelzebub, the prince of the devils_; whereby they intimate that those\nmiracles, which they had before been convinced of the truth of, as being\nwrought by the finger of God, were wrought by the devil: which supposes\nthat they were eye-witnesses to such-like miracles wrought, which we\ncannot be: Therefore it is concluded by some, that this sin cannot now\nbe committed; inasmuch as the dispensation of miracles is ceased. But\nthis method of reasoning will not appear so strong and conclusive, if we\nconsider, that though, it is true, the gospel is not now confirmed to us\nby miracles; yet we have no less ground to believe that the christian\nreligion was confirmed by this means, than if we had been present at the\nworking of these miracles. Nevertheless, though it should be alleged,\nthat this ingredient cannot, in every circumstance, be contained in the\nsin against the Holy Ghost, in our day; yet there are other things\nincluded in the description of it, before-mentioned, in which it\nprincipally consists, that bear a very great resemblance to that sin\nwhich we have been considering: As for instance, if persons have\nformerly believed Christ to be the Messiah, and been persuaded that this\nwas incontestibly proved by the miracles which he wrought, and\naccordingly, were inclined to adhere to him, and embrace the gospel,\nwherein his person and glory are set forth; and yet have afterwards\napostatized from this profession; and if this had been attended with\nenvy and malice against Christ; and if they have treated the evidence\nwhich they once acknowledged, the Christian religion, to have been\nundeniably supported by, with contempt and blasphemy; and have totally\nrejected that faith which they once professed, arising from carnal\npolicy, and the love of this world; and when this is attended with\njudicial hardness of heart, blindness of mind, and strong delusions,\ntogether with a rooted hatred of all religion, and a malicious\npersecution of those that embrace it; This is what we cannot but\nconclude to bear a very great resemblance to that which, in scripture,\nis called the unpardonable sin; and it is a most deplorable case, which\nshould be so far improved by us, as that we should use the utmost\ncaution, that we may not give way to those sins which bear the least\nresemblance to it: Nevertheless, doubting christians are to take heed\nthat they do not apply this account that has been given of it to\nthemselves, so as to lead them to despair; which is not the design of\nany description thereof, which we have in scripture. Now that these may\nbe fortified against such-like objections, let it be considered,\n_1st_, That it is one thing peremptorily to determine that it is\nimpossible for any one to commit this sin in our day, since the\ndispensation of miracles is ceased, (which is, in effect, to suppose\nthat we can have no evidence for the truth of the Christian religion,\nbut what is founded on occular demonstration; such as they who saw\nChrist\u2019s miracles;) and another thing to determine concerning particular\npersons, that they are guilty of this sin. It is certain that this\nmatter might be determined with special application to particular\npersons in our Saviour\u2019s and the apostles\u2019 time, when there was among\nother extraordinary gifts, that of discerning of spirits; and\nconsequently it might be known, whether they who apostatized from the\nfaith of the gospel, had before this, received a full conviction of the\ntruth thereof; and it might then be known, by extraordinary revelation,\nthat God would never give them repentance, and therefore their apostacy\nwould be final; and, it is more than probable, that this was supposed by\nthe apostle, when he speaks of some that had committed this sin, who are\nnot to be prayed for: But these things cannot be known by us; therefore\nI would not advise any one to forbear to pray for the worst of sinners,\nwho seem most to resemble those that are charged with this sin, this\nmatter not being certainly known by us.\n_2dly_, That which is principally to be considered for the encouragement\nof those who are afraid that they have committed this sin, is, that\npersons certainly know that they have not committed it, though they are\nin an unregenerate state; as,\n_1st_, When _they have not had opportunity_, or those means that are\nnecessary to attain the knowledge of the truth, and so remain ignorant\nthereof; or if they have had sufficient means to know it, they have not\ncommitted this sin, _if they desire and resolve to wait on God in his\nordinances_, in order to their receiving good thereby.\n_2dly_, They _who are under conviction of sin_, disapprove of, and _have\nsome degree of sorrow and shame for it_, may certainly conclude that\nthey have not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.\n_3dly_, If persons have reason to think that their hearts are hardened\nthrough the deceitfulness of sin, and that they are greatly backslidden\nfrom God; yet they ought not to conclude that they have committed this\nsin, _if they are afraid lest they should be given up to a perpetual\nbacksliding_, or dread nothing more than a total and a final apostacy;\nupon which account they are induced to pray against it, and to _desire a\nbroken heart, and that faith, which, at present, they do not\nexperience_. In this case, though their state be dangerous, yet they\nought not to determine against themselves, that they have committed the\nsin unto death.\nThe use which we ought to make of this awful doctrine, and the hope that\nthere is that we have not committed this sin is,\n1. That we should _take heed that we do not give way to wilful\nimpenitency, and a contempt of the means of grace_, lest we should\nprovoke God to give us up to judicial hardness of heart, so as to make\nsad advances towards the commission thereof: Let us take heed that we do\nnot sin against the light and conviction of our own consciences, _and\nwilfully neglect and oppose the means of grace_, which, whether it be\nthe sin unto death or no, is certainly a crime of the most heinous and\ndangerous tendency.\n2. Let doubting christians _take heed that they do not give way to\nSatan\u2019s suggestions_, tempting them to conclude that they have committed\nthis sin; which they are sometimes afraid that they have, though they\nmight determine that they have not, did they duly weigh what has been\nbut now observed concerning this matter.\n3. _Let us bless God, that yet there is a door of hope, and resolve by\nhis grace_, that we will always wait on him in the ordinances which he\nhas appointed, till he shall be pleased to give us ground to conclude\nbetter things concerning ourselves, even things that accompany\nsalvation. This leads us to consider,\nIII. What we are to pray for; particularly,\n1. For those things which concern the glory of God. And that we may know\nwhat they are, we are to enquire; whether, if God should give us what we\nask for, it would have a tendency to set forth any of his divine\nperfections, and thereby render him amiable and adorable in the eyes of\nhis creatures, so that in answering our prayers, he would act becoming\nhimself? We are also to take an estimate of this matter, from the\nintimation he has given us hereof in his word, in which we may observe,\nnot only whether he has given us leave, but commands and encourages us\nto ask for it; more especially, whether he has promised to give it to\nus; and, whether our receiving the blessing we ask for, has a tendency\nto fit us for his service, that hereby praise that waits for him, may be\nascribed to him.\n2. We are to pray for those things which concern our own good, or the\ngood of others. These are particularly insisted on in the Lord\u2019s prayer,\nwhich is explained in the following answers; therefore it is sufficient\nfor us, at present, to consider the good we are to pray for in general,\nnamely, temporal blessings, which are the effects of divine bounty,\nconcerning which, our Saviour says, _Your heavenly Father knoweth that\nye have need of these things_, Mat. vi. 32. We are also to pray for\nspiritual blessings, such as forgiveness of sin, strength against it,\nand the sanctifying influences of the Spirit, to produce in us holiness\nof heart and life; as also, for deliverance from, and victory over our\nspiritual enemies. We are also to pray for the consolations of the holy\nGhost, arising from assurance of the love of God, whereby we may have\npeace and joy in believing; and for all those blessings which may make\nus happy in a better world.\n3. We are to pray for those things which are lawful to be asked of God;\nand accordingly,\n(1.) The things we pray for, must be such as it is possible for us to\nreceive, and particularly such as God has determined to bestow, or given\nus ground to expect, in this present world: Therefore we are not to pray\nfor those blessings to be applied here, which he has reserved for the\nheavenly state; such as a perfect freedom from sin, tribulation or\ntemptation, or our enjoying the immediate views of the glory of God:\nThese things are to be desired in that time and order, in which God has\ndetermined to bestow them; therefore we are to wait for them till we\ncome to heaven, and, at present, we are to desire only to be made\npartakers of those privileges which he gives to his children in their\nway thither.\n(2.) We are not to pray that God would inflict evils on others, to\nsatisfy our private revenge for injuries done us; since this is, in\nitself, unlawful, and unbecoming a Christian frame of spirit, and\ncontrary to that duty which was before considered, of our praying for\nour very enemies, and seeking their good.\n(3.) We are not to ask for outward blessings without setting bounds to\nour desires thereof; nor are we to ask for them unseasonably, or for\nwrong ends. We are not to pray for them as though they were our chief\ngood and happiness, or of equal importance with things that are more\nimmediately conducive to our spiritual advantage; and therefore,\nwhatever measure of importunity we express in praying for them, it is\nnot to be inconsistent with an entire submission to the divine will, as\nbeing satisfied that God knows what is best for us; or, whether that\nwhich we desire, will, in the end, prove good or hurtful to us; much\nless ought we to ask for outward blessings, that we may abuse, and, as\nthe apostle James speaks, _Consume them upon our lusts_, James iv. 3.\nFootnote 104:\n  _See page 317._\nFootnote 105:\n  _That several of the Fathers practised and pleaded for praying for the\n  dead, is evident from what Cyprian says, Epist. xxxix. concerning the\n  church\u2019s offering sacrifices, by which he means prayers for the\n  martyrs; among whom, he particularly mentions Laurentius and Ignatius,\n  on the yearly return of those days, on which the memorial of their\n  martyrdom was celebrated. And Eusebius, in the life of Constantine,\n  Lib. iv. Cap. lxxi. when speaking concerning the funeral obsequies\n  performed for that monarch, says, that a great number of people, with\n  tears and lamentations poured forth prayers to God for the emperor\u2019s\n  soul. And Gregory Nazianzen prayed for his brother C\u00e6sarius after his\n  death. Vid. Ejusd in Fun. C\u00e6sar, Orat. x. Also Ambrose prayed for the\n  religious emperors, Valentinian and Gratian, and for Theodosius, and\n  for his brother Satyrus. Vid. Ejusd. de obit. Valentin. Theodos. &\n  Satyr. And Augustin speaks of his praying for his mother Monica, after\n  her decease, in Confess. Lib. ix. Cap. xiii. And Epiphanius defends\n  this practice with so much warmth, that he can hardly forbear charging\n  the denial hereof as one of Aerius\u2019s heresies. Vid. Epiphan. h\u00e6eres.\n  lxxv. And some Popish writers, when defending their praying for the\n  dead, have, with more malice than reason, charged the Protestants with\n  being Aerians, upon this account._\nFootnote 106:\n  _See Quest. lxxxvi. page 313._\nFootnote 107:\n  _Vid. Grot. in loc._\n    QUEST. CLXXXV. _How are we to pray?_\n    ANSW. We are to pray with an awful apprehension of the Majesty of\n    God, and deep sense of our own unworthiness, necessities, and sins,\n    with penitent, thankful, and enlarged hearts, with understanding,\n    faith, sincerity, fervency, love, and perseverance, waiting upon\n    him, with humble submission to his will.\nThis answer respects the manner of performing this duty, and the frame\nof spirit with which we are to draw nigh to God. Accordingly,\n1. We are to pray with an awful apprehension of the Majesty of God;\notherwise our behaviour would be highly resented by him, and reckoned no\nother than a thinking him altogether such an one as ourselves. Some of\nthe divine perfections have a more immediate tendency to excite an holy\nreverence; accordingly we are to consider him as omnipresent, and\nomniscient, to whom our secret thoughts, and the principle from whence\nour actions proceed, are better known than they can be to themselves. We\nare to conceive of him as a God of infinite holiness; and therefore he\ncannot but be highly displeased with that worship that is opposite\nthereunto, as proceeding from a conscience defiled with sin, or\nperformed in an unholy manner. Thus the prophet says, _Thou art of purer\neyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity_, Hab. i. 13.\nthat is, thou canst not behold it without the utmost detestation; and\ntherefore, _if we regard it in our heart, he will not hear_ our prayers,\nPsal. lxvi. 18. We are also to have a due sense of the spirituality of\nhis nature, that we may worship him in a spiritual manner; therefore we\nare not to entertain any carnal conceptions, or frame any ideas of him,\nlike those we have of finite or corporeal beings; nor are we to think it\nsufficient, that our external mien and deportment have been grave, and\ncarried in it a shew of reverence, when our hearts have not, at the same\ntime, been engaged in this duty, or disposed to give him the glory that\nis due to his name. We are also to draw nigh to him with a due sense of\nthose perfections that tend to encourage us to perform this duty, with\nhope of finding acceptance in his sight. Therefore we are to conceive of\nhim, as a God of infinite goodness, mercy, and faithfulness, with whom\nis plenteous redemption, in and through a Mediator, which is suitable to\nour condition, as indigent, miserable, and guilty sinners; and a God of\ninfinite power, who is _able to do exceeding abundantly above all we are\nable to ask or think_, Eph. iii. 20.\n2. We are to pray to God with an humble sense of our own unworthiness.\nThis is the necessary result of those high conceptions we have of his\ndivine excellency and greatness; whereby we are led to consider\nourselves as infinitely below him; and, indeed, the best of creatures\nare induced hereby to worship him with the greatest humility: Thus the\nSeraphim are represented in that vision, which the prophet Isaiah had of\nthem, as ministering to, and attending upon our Lord Jesus, when sitting\non a throne on his temple; as _covering their faces and their feet with\ntheir wings_, denoting their unworthiness to behold his glory, or to be\nemployed by him in his service, Isa. vi. 1-4. But when we take a view of\nhis infinite holiness, and our own impurity, this should be an\ninducement to us to draw nigh to him, with the greatest humility: As\ndependent creatures, we have nothing but what we derive from him; as\nfrail dying creatures, we wither away, and are brought to nothing, Job\nxiii. 25. Job compares this to a leaf that is easily broken, and driven\nto and fro, or to the dry stubble, that can make no resistance against\nthe wind that pursues it; and the Psalmist, speaking of man in general,\nsays, _Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him; or the son\nof man, that thou makest account of him?_ Psal. civ. 3. And elsewhere it\nis said, _What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him, and that thou\nshouldest set thine heart upon him?_ Job vii. 17. These are humbling\nconsiderations; but we shall be led into a farther sense of our own\nunworthiness, when we consider ourselves as sinful creatures, worthy to\nbe abhorred by God; therefore he might justly reject us, and refuse to\nanswer our prayers. But since this humble frame of spirit is so\nnecessary for the right performance of this duty, let us farther\nobserve, as an inducement hereunto.\n(1.) That the greatest glory we can bring to God can make no addition to\nhis infinite perfections: Thus it is said, _Can a man be profitable unto\nGod, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any\npleasure, that is, any advantage, to the Almighty, that thou art\nrighteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?_ Job\nxxiii. 2, 3. And elsewhere, _If thou be righteous, what givest thou him,\nor what receiveth he of thy hand?_ ch. xxxv. 7. denoting that it is\nimpossible for us, by any thing we can do or suffer for his sake, to\nmake him more glorious than he would have been in himself, had we never\nhad a being: Therefore, if there is nothing by which we can lay any\nobligations on God, we have reason to address ourselves to him with a\nsense of our own unworthiness.\n(2.) We are so far from meriting any good thing from the hand of God,\nthat by our repeated transgressions, notwithstanding the daily mercies\nwe receive from him, we give farther proofs of our great unworthiness;\nand, indeed, if we are enabled to do any thing in obedience to his will,\nthis is not from ourselves; yea, it is contrary to the dictates of\ncorrupt nature, and must be ascribed to him as the author of it.\n(3.) If we could do the greatest service to God by espousing his cause,\nand promoting his interest in the world; it is no more than what we are\nbound to do; and, at the same time we must consider, that _it is God\nthat worketh in_ us, _both to will and to do of his good pleasure_,\nPhil. ii. 13.\n(4.) The best believers recorded in scripture, have entertained a\nconstant, humble sense of their own unworthiness: Thus Abraham, when he\nstood before the Lord, making supplications in the behalf of Sodom,\nexpresses himself thus, _Behold, now I have taken upon me to speak unto\nthe Lord, who am but dust and ashes_. And Jacob says, _I am not worthy\nof the least of all thy mercies, and of all the truth which thou hast\nshewed unto thy servant_, Gen. xxxii. 10. And they who have been most\nzealous for, and made eminently useful in promoting Christ\u2019s interest in\nthe world, have had an humble sense of their own unworthiness; as the\napostle says concerning himself, _I am the least of the apostles, that\nam not meet to be called an apostle_, 1 Cor. xv. 9. And he immediately\nadds, _By the grace of God I am what I am_, ver. 10. And elsewhere he\nstyles himself, _less than the least of all saints_, Eph. iii. 8.\nWe have another instance of humility in prayer, in the Psalmist\u2019s words,\n_I am a worm, and no man_, Psal. xxii. 6. which, so far as they have any\nreference to his own case, may give us occasion to infer, that the most\nadvanced circumstances, in which any are in the world, are not\ninconsistent with humility, when drawing nigh to God in prayer; but if\nwe consider him speaking in the person of Christ, as several expressions\nof this Psalm argue him to do, and cannot well be taken in any other\nsense[108]; then we have herein the most remarkable instance of the\nhumble address that was used by Christ in his human nature, when drawing\nnigh to God in prayer; which is certainly a great motive to induce us to\nengage in this duty with the utmost humility.\n3. We are to draw nigh to God in prayer, with a sense of our\nnecessities, and the sins that we have committed against him.\nAccordingly, we are to consider ourselves as indigent creatures, who are\nstripped and deprived of that glory, and those bright ornaments which\nwere put on man at first in his state of innocency; destitute of the\ndivine image, and all those things that are necessary to our happiness,\nunless he is pleased to supply these wants, forgive our iniquities, and\ngrant us communion with himself; which things we are to draw nigh to him\nin prayer for. We are also, in this duty, to have a sense of sin, _viz._\nthe guilt that we contract thereby, and the punishment we have exposed\nourselves to, that we may see our need of drawing nigh to God in\nChrist\u2019s righteousness; and also of the stain and pollution thereof,\nwhich may induce us to fall down before the footstool of the throne of\ngrace, with the greatest degree of self-abhorrence. We are also to\nconsider how we are enslaved to sin, how much we have been, and how\nprone we are at all times, to _serve divers lusts and pleasures_, Tit.\niii. 3. and to _walk according to the course of this world, according to\nthe prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the\nchildren of disobedience_, Eph. ii. 2.\nMoreover, we are to consider sin as deeply rooted in our hearts,\ndebasing our affections, and captivating our wills. If we are in an\nunconverted state, we are to look upon it as growing and encreasing in\nus, rendering us more and more indisposed for what is good, by which\nmeans we are set at a farther distance from God and holiness: On the\nother hand, if we have ground to hope we are made partakers of\nconverting grace, then we have acted contrary to the highest\nobligations, and been guilty of the greatest ingratitude. These things\nwe are to endeavour to be affected with, when drawing nigh to God in\nprayer, in order to our performing this duty aright.\n4. There are several graces that are to be exercised in prayer;\n(1.) Repentance: This is necessary, because we are sinners; and as such,\nare to come into the presence of God with confession, joined with\nsupplication which must be made with a penitent frame of spirit; the\ncontrary to which, is a tacit approbation of sin, and a kind of\nresolution to adhere to it, which is very unbecoming those who are\npleading for forgiveness: Accordingly, when God promised that he would\n_pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of\nJerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications_, he adds, that\n_they shall look upon him, whom they have pierced, and mourn for him_,\nor for it, _as one mourneth for his only son; and shall be in\nbitterness, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born_: And that\nthis shall be done by _every family apart, and their wives apart_, Zech.\nxii. 10. _& seq._ So when _the priests, the ministers of the Lord_, are\ncommanded to _pray_, that _he_ would _spare his people_; they, are, at\nthe same time, to _weep between the porch and the altar, to rent their\nhearts, and turn unto the Lord their God_, Joel ii. 13. 17. And when\nIsrael is advised to _take with them words_, and instructed how they\nshould pray, they are exhorted to _turn unto the Lord_; to repent of\ntheir seeking help from Assyria and Egypt, and of that abominable\nidolatry which they had been guilty of, Hos. xiv. 1, 2, 3, 8.\nNow there are several subjects very proper for our meditation; which\nmay, through the divine blessing accompanying it, excite this grace,\nwhen we are engaged in the duty of prayer; particularly the multitude of\ntransgressions which are charged on the consciences of men by the law,\nthat _every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before\nGod_, Rom. iii. 19. and especially the ingratitude which we have reason\nto accuse ourselves of, and our contempt of Christ, and the way of\nsalvation by him, which is discovered in the gospel; and our having done\nmany things in the course of our lives, which fill us with shame and\nsorrow, whenever we come into the presence of God, to pour out our\nhearts before him in this duty.\n(2.) The next grace to be exercised in prayer is, thankfulness, in which\nrespect prayer and praise ought to be joined together: Thus the Psalmist\nsays, _Praise waiteth for thee O God, in Zion, and unto thee shall the\nvow be performed, O thou that hearest prayer_, Psal. lxv. 1, 2. That\nthis is a part of prayer has been observed under a foregoing answer; in\nwhich we considered the many blessings that we have reason to be\nthankful for. I shall only add, at present, that it is matter of\nthankfulness, that we have liberty of access to God, in hope of\nobtaining mercy from him, as sitting on a throne of grace, who might\nhave been forever banished from his presence, or have been brought\nbefore his judgment-seat as criminals, doomed to everlasting\ndestruction.\nMoreover, we are to bless him, not only that we have leave to come\nbefore him, but have often experienced that he has heard, and answered\nour prayers, and therein has fulfilled that promise, _I said not to the\nseed of Jacob, seek ye me in vain_, Isa. xlv. 19. And that we may be\nbrought into a thankful frame, we ought to consider,\n[1.] The worth of every mercy; especially those that are spiritual, or\naccompany salvation; and this we may judge of by the price that was paid\nfor it, which is no less than the blood of Jesus; which the apostle not\nonly styles _precious_, but speaks of it as infinitely preferable to\nevery thing that is _corruptible_, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. And we may, in some\nmeasure, take an estimate thereof by the worth and excellency of the\nsoul, and as it is conducive to promote its eternal welfare.\n[2.] We are also to consider every saving blessing, as the fruit and\nresult of everlasting love, and as the consequence of God\u2019s eternal\ndesign, in having chosen those, who are the objects thereof, to\nsalvation in Christ, Jer. xxxi. 3. Eph. i. 3, 4. We must also consider\nthese mercies as discriminating, whereby God distinguishes his people\nfrom the world, and herein glorifies the riches of his grace, in those\nwho deserve to have been, for ever, the monuments of his wrath: We might\nhere consider, as an inducement to this grace of thankfulness, the\naggravations of the sin of ingratitude.\n_1st_, It is a virtual disowning our obligation to, or dependence on\nGod, from whom we receive all mercies, and a behaving ourselves in such\na manner as though we were not beholden to him for them, or could be\nhappy without him; as though we were self-sufficient, and did not look\nupon him as the fountain of blessedness.\n_2dly_, It is a refusing to give him the glory of his wisdom, power,\ngoodness, and faithfulness, which are eminently displayed in the\nblessings that he bestows.\n_3dly_, It is disagreeable to the large expectations we have of those\nblessings he has reserved for his people, or promised to them, or that\nhope which he has laid up for them in heaven. Therefore we cannot but\nconclude that ingratitude argues a person destitute of that holiness\nwhich eminently discovers itself in the exercise of the contrary grace:\nAccordingly the apostle joins these two characters together, when\nspeaking of the vilest of men, whom he styles, _unthankful, unholy_, 2\nTim. iii. 2.\n(3.) Another grace, to be exercised in prayer, is faith. This implies an\nhabitual disposition of soul, proceeding from a principle of\nregenerating grace, whereby we are led to commit ourselves, and all our\nconcerns, into Christ\u2019s hand, depending on his merits and mediation for\nthe supply of all our wants, considering him as having purchased, and as\nbeing authorized to apply, all the benefits of the covenant of grace,\nwhich are the subject-matter of our supplications to him. More\nparticularly, faith exerts and discovers itself in prayer,\n[1.] By encouraging the soul, and giving it an holy boldness to draw\nnigh to God, notwithstanding our great unworthiness. If we are afraid to\ncome into the presence of an holy God, and, destruction from him is a\nterror to us, if the threatnings he has denounced against sinners, such\nas we know ourselves to be, discourage us from drawing nigh to him, so\nthat we are ready to say with Job, \u2018Therefore am I troubled at his\npresence; when I consider, I am afraid of him,\u2019 Job xxiii. 15. If his\nalmighty power, that can easily sink us into perdition, overwhelms our\nspirits, and fills us with the utmost distress and confusion, so that we\ncannot draw nigh to him in prayer, considering him as an absolute God;\nwe are encouraged by faith, to look upon him as our covenant God, and\nFather in Christ; and then all his divine perfections will afford relief\nto us. His sin-revenging justice is regarded by faith, as that which is\nfully satisfied by Christ\u2019s obedience and sufferings; and therefore will\nnot demand that satisfaction at our hands, which it has already received\nfrom our surety, who was \u2018made sin for us\u2019 though he \u2018knew no sin, that\nwe might be made the righteousness of God in him,\u2019 2 Cor. v. 21. His\ninfinite power is no longer looked upon, as engaged to destroy us, but\nrather to succour us under all our weakness; and therefore, as Job says,\n\u2018He will not plead against us with his great power; no, but he will put\nstrength in us,\u2019 Job xxiii. 6. We consider it as ready to support us\nunder the heaviest pressures, and so enable us to perform the most\ndifficult duties, and to overcome all our spiritual enemies, who would\nbe otherwise too strong for us: So that this attribute is so far from\ndiscouraging us from drawing nigh to God in prayer, that, by faith, we\nbehold it as delighting to exert and glorify itself, in doing those\ngreat things for us which we have in view, when we engage in this duty.\n[2.] Faith discovers itself in prayer, by enabling us to plead, and\napply to ourselves, the great and precious promises which God has given\nto his people in the gospel. As prayer cannot subsist without a promise,\nso we are enabled, by faith, to apprehend and plead the promises, and to\nsay, \u2018Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me\nto hope,\u2019 Psal. cxix. 49. And hereby we look upon God as ready to bestow\nthe blessings which he has promised, and his faithfulness as engaged to\nmake them good. Accordingly the Psalmist says, \u2018Hear my prayer, O Lord,\ngive ear to my supplications; in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy\nrighteousness,\u2019 Psal. cxliii. 1. There is nothing that we want, or ought\nto pray for, but there are some promises, contained in the word of God,\nwhich faith improves and takes encouragement from in this duty: And\nsince what we pray for, respects either temporal, or spiritual, and\neternal blessings, these are looked upon by faith as promised; as the\napostle says, _godliness has the promise of the life that now is, and of\nthat which is to come_, 1 Tim. iv. 18. This might be very largely\ninsisted on, and many instances given hereof, which are contained in\nscripture; but I shall more especially consider those promises which\nrespect God\u2019s enabling us to pray, and his hearing and answering our\nprayers, which faith lays hold on, and improves, in order to our\nperforming this duty in a right manner.\n_1st_, There are promises of the Spirit\u2019s assistance to enable us to\npray. This the apostle calls his _making intercession for us, according\nto the will of God_, in Rom. viii. 27. And our Saviour says, in Luke\nxii. 13. _If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your\nchildren, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit\nto them that ask him?_\n_2dly_, There are other promises that respect God\u2019s hearing and\nanswering prayer. Thus it is said, in Psal. lxxxvi. 7. _In the day of my\ntrouble I will call upon thee for thou wilt answer me_: And elsewhere in\nPsal. cii. 17. _God will regard the prayer of the destitute and not\ndespise their prayer._ This is considered as being of a very large\nextent: Thus our Saviour says, in John xvi. 23. _Whatsoever ye ask the\nFather in my name, he will give it you_: And in chap. xv. 7. _If ye\nabide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and\nit shall be done unto you_: Which universal expressions of God\u2019s giving\nbelievers _what they will_, are to be understood of his granting their\nlawful and regular desires; and, indeed, faith will never ask any thing\nbut what tends to the glory of God, and that with an entire submission\nto his will; though it is far otherwise with respect to those prayers\nthat are not put up in faith.\nMoreover God has promised to hear and answer all kinds of prayer,\nprovided they proceed from this grace; particularly, united prayers in\nthe assemblies of his saints, as he says to Solomon, after the\ndedication of the temple, in 2 Chron. vii. 15. _Mine eyes shall be open,\nand mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place_; and\nthose prayers that are put up to God in families, where a small number\nare joined together; though it be but _two or three_, Christ has\npromised to be _in the midst of them_, xviii. 20. not only to assist\nthem in this duty, but to give them what they ask for. There are also\npromises made to secret prayer: Thus when our Saviour encourages his\npeople to _pray to their Father, which is in secret_, he tells them, _My\nFather which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly_, chap. vi. 6.\nHere it will be enquired, whether it be necessary in order to our\npraying by faith, that we be assured, at all times, that our prayer\nshall be heard.\nTo this it may be answered,\n_1st_, That it is not our duty to believe that every prayer shall be\nheard; for God heareth not sinners, that is, those who are under the\nreigning power of sin, and consequently are destitute of the grace of\nfaith; nor will he hear those _prayers_ that _proceed from feigned\nlips_: Thus it is said, _If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will\nnot hear me_, Psal. lxvi. 18.\n_2dly_, It is not the duty of those who have the truth of grace, to\nbelieve that their prayer shall be heard, when, by reason of their\ninfirmity, or the weakness of their faith, they ask for that which is\nunlawful, and not redounding to the glory of God and their real good.\n_3dly_, If what we pray for may be for the glory of God, and redound to\nour advantage; yet it is not our duty to determine, with too great\nperemptoriness, that he will certainly grant what we ask for,\nimmediately, or in that particular way which we desire; since he may\nanswer prayer, and yet do it in his own time and way.\n_4thly_, It is not our duty to believe assuredly, that God will give us\nall those temporal blessings that we ask for; especially if they be not\nabsolutely necessary for us, since he may answer such-like prayers in\nvalue, though not in kind, and so give spiritual blessings, instead of\nthose temporal ones, which we pray for; in which case none will say,\nthat he is unfaithful to his promise, though we have not those blessings\nin kind that we desire: Therefore it is our duty, and the great concern\nof faith in prayer, to be assured, that as God knows what is best for\nus, so he will make good his promises, in such a way, that we shall have\nno reason to conclude ourselves to have been disappointed, or that we\nhave asked in faith, but have not obtained.\nI am sensible that there is a difficulty in the mode of expression used\nby the apostle James, in chap. i. 6, 7. _But let him ask in faith,\nnothing wavering; for let not that man think that he shall receive any\nthing of the Lord_: By which, the apostle does not intend, that he who\ndoubts whether his prayer shall be answered, cannot be said, in any\nsense, to pray in faith; for, as assurance of our salvation is not of\nthe essence of faith, so that faith cannot subsist without it; in like\nmanner assurance, or a firm persuasion that the very thing we ask shall\nbe given, is not such an essential ingredient in prayer, as that we\nshould determine, that for want of it, we shall receive nothing that is\ngood from the Lord. Therefore, I conceive, that the apostle, by\n_wavering_ in this text, rather respects our being in doubt about the\nobject of faith; or else our not being stedfast in the grace of faith,\nbut praying with hypocrisy, as he illustrates it by the similitude taken\nfrom a _wave driven with the wind_; which sometimes moves one way, at\nother times the contrary; and he farther explains it, when he says, in\nver. 8. _a double-minded man, is unstable in all his ways_; so that the\nperson, whom he describes as wavering is the same with a _double-minded\nman_, or an hypocrite: Such an one cannot ask in faith; therefore the\napostle does not hereby intend that no one can exercise this grace in\nprayer, but he that has a full assurance that his prayer shall be\nanswered, in that particular way and manner as he expects.\n_Obj._ 1. It is objected by some, that they have no faith; therefore\nsince this grace must be exercised in prayer, they are very often\ndiscouraged from performing the duty of prayer.\n_Answ._ That though the want of a prepared frame of spirit, for any duty\naffords matter of humiliation, yet it is no excuse for the neglect\nthereof; and as for prayer in particular, we are to wait on God therein,\nfor a prepared frame of spirit, that by this means, we may draw nigh to\nhim in a right manner, as well as for a gracious answer from him.\n[2.] If we cannot bring glory to God by a fiducial pleading of the\npromises, or applying them to ourselves; we must endeavour to glorify\nhim by confessing our guilt and unworthiness, and acknowledging that all\nour help is in him.\n[3.] It is possible for us to have some acts of faith in prayer, when we\nare not sensible thereof, and at the same time, bewail our want of this\ngrace.\n[4.] If none were to pray but those who have faith, then it would follow\nthat none must pray for the first grace, which supposes a person to be\nin an unregenerate state; nevertheless, such are obliged to perform this\nduty, as well as they can, and therein to hope for that grace which may\nenable them to do it as they ought.[109]\n_Obj._ 2. It is objected by others, that though they dare not lay aside\nthe duty of prayer, yet, inasmuch as they do not experience those\ngraces, which are necessary for the right performance thereof, nor any\nreturns of prayer, they have no satisfaction in their own spirits.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied;\n_1st_, That there may be faith in prayer, and yet no immediate answer\nthereof. God herein acts in a way of sovereignty, whereby he will have\nhis people know that if he grants their requests, it shall be in his own\ntime and way. Therefore it is their duty to wait for him till he is\npleased to manifest himself as a God hearing prayer, and thereby\nremoving the discouragements that, at present, they labour under.\n_2dly_, There are other ways by which the truth of grace is to be judged\nof, besides our having sensible answers of prayer. Sometimes, indeed,\nGod may give many intimations of his acceptance of us, though, at\npresent we know it not.\n(3.) The next grace to be exercised in prayer, is, love to God: This\nimplies in it an earnest desire of his presence, delight in him, or\ntaking pleasure in contemplating his perfections as the most glorious\nand amiable object. Desire supposes him, in some measure, withdrawn from\nus; or that we are not possessed of that complete blessedness, which is\nto be enjoyed in him; and delight supposes him present, and, in some\ndegree, manifesting himself unto us. Now love to God, in both these\nrespects, is to be exercised in prayer. Is he in any measure withdrawn\nfrom us? we are, with the greatest earnestness to long for his return to\nus, whose loving-kindness is better than life. Is he graciously pleased,\nin any degree, to manifest himself to us as the fountain of all we enjoy\nor hope for? this will have a tendency to excite our delight in him, and\ninduce us to conclude that our happiness consists in the enjoyment of\nhim. These graces are to be exercised at all times, but more especially\nin prayer, which is an offering up of our desires to God; in which we\nfirst press after the enjoyment of himself, and then of his benefits.\nAnd, as we are to bless and praise him for the discoveries we have of\nhis glory, in and through our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to the\nsecuring our spiritual good and advantage; this is to express that\ndelight in him, which is the highest instance of love.\n(4.) Another grace to be exercised in prayer, is submission to the will\nof God; whereby we leave ourselves and our petitions in his hand, as\nbeing sensible that he knows what is best for us. This does not include\nin it a being indifferent whether our prayers are heard or no; for that\nis to contradict what we express with our lips, by the frame of our\nspirits. Whatever may be concluded to be lawful for us to ask, as\nredounding to our advantage, and is expressly promised by God, that we\nought to request at his hand, in prayer; and if we pray for it, we\ncannot but desire that our prayer may be heard and answered; and this is\nnot opposed to that submission to the divine will, which we are speaking\nof, provided we leave it to God to do what he thinks best for us, being\ncontent that the way and manner of his answering us, as well as the time\nof his bestowing those blessings which we want, together with the degree\nthereof; especially if they are such as are of a temporal nature, ought\nto be resolved into his sovereign will. Thus concerning the graces that\nwe are to exercise in prayer.\nThere are other things mentioned in this answer, which are necessary to\nour exercising those graces, _viz._ our minds being enlightened, our\nhearts enlarged, and our having sincerity in the inward part.\n[1.] There must be some degree of understanding, since ignorance is so\nfar from being, as the Papists pretend, the mother of devotion, that it\nis inconsistent with the exercise of those graces, with which we ought\nto draw nigh to God in prayer. The affections, indeed, may be moved,\nwhere there is but a very little knowledge of the doctrines of the\ngospel; but they will, at the same time, be misled; and this can no more\nbe called religious devotion than the words or actions of one that is in\na phrenzy, can be called rational; therefore, as prayer is unacceptable\nwithout the exercise of grace, so grace cannot be exercised without the\nknowledge of the truth, as derived from the sacred treasury of\nscripture.\nHere we might consider, that we must know something of God who is the\nobject of prayer, as well as of all other acts of religious worship. We\nmust also know something of Christ the Mediator, through whom we have\naccess to, as well as acceptance with him; and something of the work and\nglory of the Holy Ghost, on whom we are to depend for his assistance in\npresenting our supplications to God. We must know our necessities,\notherwise we cannot tell what to ask for; and also the promises of the\ngospel, otherwise we cannot be encouraged to hope for an answer.\n[2.] In order to our exercising grace in prayer, we must have some\ndegree of enlargedness of heart; that is, when every thing that tends to\ncontract our affections, abate the ferfency of our spirits, or hinder\nthat importunity which we ought to express for the best of blessings, is\nremoved. Now our hearts may be said to be enlarged in prayer.\n_1st_, When we draw nigh to God in this duty with delight and earnest\nlonging after his presence, and an interest in his love, which we reckon\npreferable to all other blessings.\n_2dly_, When we are affected with a becoming sense of his glorious\nperfections, and our own nothingness, in order to our adoring him, and\ncoming before him with the greatest humility.\n_3dly_, When we have suitable promises given in, and are enabled to\nplead them with a degree of hope, arising from the goodness and\nfaithfulness of God, that he will fulfil them; and that more especially\nas we draw nigh to him as to a covenant-God.\n_4thly_, When our thoughts and affections are engaged without wandering,\nweariness, or lukewarmness, and filled with importunity, agreeable to\nthe importance of the duty, and our absolute need of the blessings we\npray for.\n[3.] In order to our exercising those graces, which are necessary for\nour drawing nigh to God aright in prayer, we must have sincerity of\nheart: This includes in it much more than what is generally so called,\nas opposed to dissimulation, in those who perform some good actions\nmerely to be seen of men, or who take up religion to answer some base\nand vile end, which they have in view; in which respect a sincere person\nis one that is no dissembler: But that sincerity, which we are speaking\nof, consists in a person\u2019s acting from a principle of grace implanted in\nregeneration; or when a person can appeal to God, as Job does, _Thou\nknowest that I am not wicked_, Job x. 7. that is, that there is no\nreigning sin, whereby my heart is alienated from, or set against thee. A\nsincere person is such an one as our Saviour describes, when he speaks\nof Nathaniel, and gives him this character, _Behold an Israelite indeed,\nin whom is no guile_, John i. 48. In this case a person\u2019s heart and\nactions go together; and he may truly say, as David does, _attend unto\nmy cry, give ear unto my prayer, that goeth not out of feigned lips_,\nPsal. xvii. 1. Thus concerning the graces that are to be exercised in\nprayer, and what is necessary in order thereunto.\nWhat is farther observed concerning this duty, is, that we are to\npersevere in prayer; resolving not to desist from waiting on God\ntherein, whatever seeming discouragements may, at present, lie in our\nway. Prayer is not a duty to be performed only at some certain times, as\nthe prophet speaks of those who, _in their affliction will seek God\nearly_, Hos. v. 15. or, as the mariners in Jonah, who _cried, every man\nunto his god_, in a storm; though it is probable, they seldom prayed at\nother times, Jon. i. 5. But we are to _pray always with all prayer and\nsupplication, and_ to _watch thereunto with all perseverance_, Eph. vi.\n18. that is, we ought always to endeavour to be in a praying frame, and,\non all occasions, to lift up our hearts to God for direction,\nassistance, and success in every thing we do, agreeable to his will, and\nfor a supply of those wants which daily recur upon us.\n_1st_, By reason of the deadness and stupidity of our spirits, which we\ncannot bring into a suitable frame for the discharge of this duty; and\ntherefore we are ready to conclude, that while we draw nigh to God with\nour lips, our hearts are far from him. This is, indeed, a very\nafflictive case; but we ought not from hence, to take occasion to lay\naside the duty but rather depend on the assistance of the Spirit, to\nenable us to perform it in a right manner.\n_2dly_, Another discouraging circumstance is, God\u2019s denying us sensible\nreturns of prayer, which he may do for various reasons. Sometimes he\nsees those defects that we are guilty of in prayer, which he is obliged\nto testify his displeasure against; and this he sometimes does by hiding\nhimself, or, as it were, withdrawing from us, and, in all appearance,\nshutting out our prayers, that we may take occasion to search out the\nsecret sin that lies at the root thereof; which we must confess and be\nhumbled for. Thus when Joshua, after a small defeat, which Israel had\nreceived by the men of Ai, fell upon his face, and spread the matter\nbefore the Lord in prayer, God condescends to tell him the reason of it;\n\u2018Get thee up, wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath\nsinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded\nthem; for they have even taken of the accursed thing; therefore could\nthey not stand before their enemies,\u2019 Josh. vii. 10-12. And when the sin\nwas discovered, and Achan, who troubled them punished, what he asked for\nwas granted. Again, God may deny an immediate answer to prayer, out of\nhis mere sovereignty, that hereby we may know, that it is not for us to\nprescribe to him the time or way in which he shall dispense those\nbenefits, which are not owing to our merit, but his free grace.\n_3dly_, Sometimes we pray, but do not use other means, which God has\nappointed for the obtaining the blessing! Thus, when Israel was\ndisheartened, being pursued by Pharaoh and his host, and did not care to\nmove out of their places, Moses addresses himself to God in prayer, and\n_the Lord said unto him, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the\nchildren of Israel, that they go forward_; and then he ordered him to\n_lift up his rod, and stretch it over the sea, and divide it, that they\nmight go through the midst thereof on dry ground_, Exod. xiv. 15, 16. We\nare not only to pray, but to use other means that God has appointed;\nwithout which, we cannot expect that prayer should be answered. Thus\nHezekiah, when sick, prayed to God, who assured him, that he had heard\nhis prayers, and would heal him; nevertheless, he was to use the means\nwhich God had ordered, by _taking a lump of figs and laying it on the\nboil_; which he did accordingly, and was restored to health, Isa.\nxxxviii. 21. Do we pray for a comfortable subsistence in the world? we\nmust, if we expect that God should answer us, use industry in our\ncallings, as well as own him by prayer and supplications. Do we pray for\nany of the graces of the Spirit in order to the beginning or carrying on\nthe work of sanctification? we must, at the same time, attend on the\nmeans of grace, which God has ordained for that purpose: Or, do we pray\nfor assurance of the love of God, and that spiritual comfort which is\nthe result thereof? we must be diligent in the performance of the work\nof self-examination; or else we are not to expect that God will answer\nour prayers.\n_4thly_, Sometimes God delays to answer our prayers, because we have not\ngiven him the glory of former mercies; or else he designs hereby to try\nour patience, whether we are not only inclined to wait upon him, but to\nwait for him; as the prophet says, _I will stand upon my watch, and set\nme upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and\nwhat I shall answer when I am reproved_, Hab. ii. 1. So the Psalmist\nsays, _As the eye of servants look unto the hands of their masters, and\nthe eyes of a maiden unto the hands of her mistress; so our eyes wait\nupon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us_, Psal. cxxiii.\n2. And elsewhere the Psalmist, though he was in great _depths_, and\nstood in need of an immediate answer, when he cried unto the Lord; yet\nhe determines to _wait for him_, and _hope in his word_; that is, while\nhe is expecting a mercy, he does not despair of having it in the end,\nbecause he depends on God\u2019s word of promise; but yet he resolves to\n_wait as those that watch for the morning_, Psal. cxxx. 1, 5, 6, which\ncontains a mixture of two graces, namely, patiently waiting, and yet\nearnestly desiring the blessing expected. This is our indispensable\nduty, whereby we glorify God, as being sensible that it is not for us to\nprescribe to him, when he should fulfil our desires: Whereas we should\nsay, with Jacob, _I will not let thee go, except thou bless me_, Gen.\nxxxii. 26. I will persevere in prayer till thou art pleased to give me\nall the blessings I stand in need of, and bring me into that state in\nwhich I shall be satisfied with thy goodness, and my imperfect prayers\nturned into endless praises.\nFootnote 108:\n  _Many suppose that all those Psalms, in which some particular\n  expressions are referred to in the New Testament, as having their\n  accomplishment in Christ, are to be understood as containing a double\n  reference, namely, to David, as denoting his particular case, and to\n  Christ, of whom he was an eminent type. But as for Psalm xxii. there\n  are several expressions in it, not only applied to Christ in the New\n  Testament; but they cannot well be understood of any other but him. In\n  the first verse he uses the same words that were uttered by Christ on\n  the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\n  and in ver. 8. he trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him; let\n  him deliver him: This was an expression used by those who mocked and\n  derided him, Matt. xxvii. 41, 45. And what is said in verses 14, 17.\n  All my bones are out of joint; I may tell them, they look and stare\n  upon me; does not seem to be applicable to David, from any thing said\n  concerning him elsewhere; but they are a lively representation of the\n  torment a person endures, when hanging on a cross, as our Saviour did;\n  which has a tendency to disjoint the bones, and cause them to stick\n  out. And when it is said, ver. 16, 18. they pierced my hands and my\n  feet; and they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my\n  vesture; the former was fulfilled in Christ\u2019s being nailed to the\n  cross, and his side pierced with a spear; and the latter is expressly\n  referred to as fulfilled in the parting of Christ\u2019s garments, and\n  casting lots upon his vesture, Matt. xxvii. 35. as an accomplishment\n  of what was foretold, by the royal prophet in this Psalm. These\n  expressions cannot, in the least, be applied to David, but are to be\n  understood of our Saviour; therefore, we may conclude that those words\n  in ver. 6. I am a worm, &c. are particularly applied to him._\nFootnote 109:\n  What under one aspect is grace, under another is duty.\n                       Quest. CLXXXVI., CLXXXVII.\n    QUEST. CLXXXVI. _What rule hath God given for our direction in the\n    duty of prayer?_\n    ANSW. The whole word of God is of use to direct us in the duty of\n    praying; but the special rule of direction, is that form of prayer,\n    which our Saviour Christ taught his disciples, commonly called the\n    Lord\u2019s prayer.\n    QUEST. CLXXXVII. _How is the Lord\u2019s prayer to be used?_\n    ANSW. The Lord\u2019s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern,\n    according to which we are to make other prayers, but may also be\n    used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith,\n    reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of\n    the duty.\nAs to what is said in the former of these answers, concerning the word\nof God, being a rule for our direction in prayer, it may be observed,\nI. That we need some direction in order to our performing this duty; for\nman is naturally a stranger both to God and himself. He knows but little\nof the glorious perfections of the divine nature, and is not duly\nsensible of the guilt which he contracts, or of the mercies which he\nreceives; and without the knowledge hereof, we shall be at a loss as to\nthe matter of the duty which we are to engage in. It is certain, many\nhave a general notion of religion, or of some moral duties, which they\nare sensible of their being obliged to perform: Nevertheless, they\ncannot address themselves to God in such a manner as he requires; so\nthat it may truly be said of them, that _they cannot order their speech\nby reason of darkness_, Job xxxvii. 19. We find that the disciples\nthemselves, who were intimately conversant with Christ, and, as it must\nbe supposed, often joined with him in prayer, were, notwithstanding, at\na loss, as to this duty; and therefore they say, _Lord teach us to pray,\nas John also taught his disciples_, Luke xi. 1.\nII. It is farther observed, that the word of God is to be made use of\nfor our direction in prayer. This is evident, inasmuch as we are to ask\nfor nothing but what is agreeable to his revealed will, which is\ncontained therein; and no one, who is well acquainted with it, will have\nreason to say, that he wants sufficient matter for prayer. This is a\nvery useful head, and therefore we shall consider several things which\noccur to us in scripture; which ought to be improved, in order to our\ndirection and assistance in the performance of this duty. And,\n1. The historical parts of scripture, which contain an account of the\nprovidences of God in the world, and the church, may be of use for our\ndirection in prayer, as we are to pray, not only for ourselves, but for\nothers: Therefore his former dealings with his people, will furnish us\nwith matter accommodated to our present observation of the necessities\nof the church of God in our day: Accordingly we find,\n(1.) That the sins which a professing people have committed, have been\nfollowed with many terrible instances of the divine wrath and vengeance:\nThus we have an account, of the universal apostacy of the world from\nGod, which occasioned their being destroyed by a flood; and the\nunnatural lusts of the inhabitants of Sodom, for which they were\nconsumed by fire from heaven; and of the idolatry and other abominations\ncommitted by the Israelites, for which it is said, that _God was wroth,\nand greatly abhorred them_; upon which they were exposed to many\ntemporal and spiritual judgments, so that, as the Psalmist says, _he\nforsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men;\nand delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the\nenemies hand_, Psal. lxxviii. 59-61. From hence we may take occasion to\nenquire, whether we have not been guilty of sins equally great, and, it\nmay be, of the same kind, which are to be confessed, and the judgments\nwhich have ensued to be deprecated by us? And when we read in the New\nTestament, of some flourishing churches, planted by the apostles, in the\nbeginning of the gospel dispensation, that have nothing left but a sad\nremembrance of the privileges which they once enjoyed; in whom, what\nChrist says, concerning his removing _his candlestick out of its place_,\nwas soon fulfilled, Rev. iii. 15. This is of use for our direction in\nprayer, that he would keep his church and people from running into the\nsame sins, and exposing themselves to the same judgments.\n(2.) We have an account, in scripture, of the church\u2019s increase and\npreservation, notwithstanding the darkest dispensations of providence,\nand the most violent persecutions which it has met with from its\nenemies. When it was in hard bondage, and severely dealt with, in Egypt,\nit is observed, that the more the Egyptians _afflicted them, the more\nthey multiplied and grew_, Exod. i. 12. and when they have, in all\nappearance, been nearest to ruin, God has opened a door for their\ndeliverance, and oftentimes done great things in their behalf, which\nthey looked not for. We have also an historical account, in scripture,\nof God\u2019s owning and encouraging his people, so long as they have kept\nclose to him; and of his visiting their iniquities with a rod, when\nbacksliding from him; and, indeed, whatever we read concerning the\nprovidences of God towards particular believers in the Old or New\nTestament, the same may be observed therein, which is of very great use\nfor our direction in prayer; and accordingly their experiences are\nrecorded for our instruction, and their necessities, that we may know\nwhat to pray for, as far as there is an agreement between the account we\nhave of them, and what we find in ourselves.\n2. The word of God, as it is a rule of faith, contains those great\ndoctrines, without the knowledge whereof, we cannot pray aright. Thus we\nhave an account in scripture, not only of the Being and perfections of\nGod, which may be known by the light of nature, but of those glorious\ntruths which cannot be known but by divine revelation: And,\n(1.) Of the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; of the\nFather\u2019s giving all spiritual blessings to his people, in and through a\nMediator; and the Son is considered as invested in this office and\ncharacter, and, as God incarnate procuring for us, by his obedience and\ndeath, forgiveness of sins, and a right to eternal life. We have also an\naccount of the Holy Ghost, as being a divine person, and therefore equal\nwith the Father and Son; yet as subservient to them in his method of\nacting, as the application of redemption attains the end of the purchase\nthereof, in like manner as the purchase of it was a means to bring about\nthat _purpose and grace which was given us in Christ before the world\nbegan_, 2 Tim. i. 9. These doctrines are necessary to direct us in those\nthings which respect the distinct glory which we are to give to the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the method in which we are to hope for\nthe blessings which we ask for in prayer. Thus the apostle, speaking of\nthis duty, supposes that we are acquainted with this doctrine, when he\nsays, _Through him_, that is, Christ, _we have an access by one Spirit\nunto the Father_, Eph. ii. 18.\n(2.) In the word of God, we have not only an account of the works of\nnature and providence, or God\u2019s being the Creator and Governor of the\nworld, which we have some knowledge of, in a method of reasoning from\nthe divine perfections; but we have an account therein of those works\nwhich have an immediate reference to our salvation, and that special\nprovidence in which God expresses a greater regard to the heirs of\nsalvation than to all the world besides: When we draw nigh to God in\nprayer, we are not barely to consider him as the God to whom we owe our\nbeing, as men, but our well-being as christians, delivered from that\nruin which we brought on ourselves, by our apostacy from him; and also,\n_what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward, who believe,\naccording to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in\nChrist, when he raised him from the dead_, chap. i. 18, 19. as the\napostle expresses it in that affectionate prayer put up for the church\nat Ephesus. And when we survey the works of providence, we are not\nbarely to think of God as the Governor of the world in general, but to\nconsider what have been those special acts of providence, by which he\nhas governed man before and since the fall, and to consider the first\ncovenant as made with him in innocency; and the covenant of grace, as\nbeing a dispensation of grace, established in and with Christ, as the\nHead of the elect, in order to their being delivered from that state of\nsin and misery into which they had brought themselves. These doctrines\nwill be of use for our direction in prayer, as hereby we are led to\nacknowledge our fallen state, what we were by nature, and what we should\nhave been, had we been left in that state; and hereby we are also led to\nadore the riches of God\u2019s grace, as he brings the greatest good to his\nsaints out of the greatest evil.\n(3.) The word of God gives us a distinct account of the offices in which\nChrist is invested, as they are suited to the necessities of his people,\nwhich is a means for our direction concerning what we are to ask for,\nwith a particular relation to each of them, and the hope we have that he\nwill grant our request. As he is appointed by the Father, to be our High\nPriest, to make atonement for sin; our Advocate, to plead our cause; our\nProphet, to lead us in the way of salvation; and our King, to subdue us\nto himself, and defend us from the assaults of our spiritual enemies. So\nwe are, in our prayers, to improve these discoveries which we have\nthereof, as a means to direct us in those things which are the\nsubject-matter both of prayer and praise.\n4. The word of God is of use for our direction in prayer, as we have an\naccount therein of those duties which are to be performed by us as men,\nor christians, in every condition of life, and in all those relations\nwhich we stand in to one another. As for that which is matter of duty in\ngeneral, or that obedience which we owe to God, this cannot be performed\nbut by his assistance; which is humbly to be asked in prayer: And\naccordingly we are to say as one does, Lord, work in me that which thou\nrequirest, and then require what thou pleasest. Here we might shew how\nall the duties which God has commanded, may be of use to direct us in\nprayer: that hereby we may be led to apply ourselves to him, that he\nwould enable us to perform them; and all the sins forbidden in\nscripture, may be of use to instruct us what to deprecate, when we pray\nthat God would keep us from our own iniquities, and what we are to\nconfess before him, and implore the forgiveness of; and all those\ncommands which respect instituted worship, _viz._ our attendance on the\nordinances, or the exercise of various graces therein, in the whole\ncourse of our conversation: These are of use for our direction in\nprayer, as hereby we know what to ask for, with relation thereunto; and\nparticularly as to what concerns the advantage we hope to receive, under\nthe means of grace, whenever we draw nigh to God in the way which he has\nappointed.\n5. As the word of God contains many promises and predictions, together\nwith their accomplishment, for the encouragement of our faith and hope\nin prayer, it is of use to direct us in the performance of this duty. As\nfor the predictions that are fulfilled, so far as they respect the\nblessings which God designed to bestow on his church, they are\nequivalent to promises, and we are to take occasion from thence, to\nadore and magnify his faithfulness; and hope that whatever remains to be\ndone for us, or his people in general, shall, in like manner, have its\naccomplishment, which will afford matter of encouragement to us in\naddressing ourselves to him for it.\nThe promises which are contained in scripture, are also a motive and\ninducement to prayer. These are a declaration of God\u2019s will to give the\nblessings, which he sees necessary for us, and therefore are of great\nuse in order to our performing this duty aright. Thus God gives an\nintimation of the great things that he will do for, or bestow upon his\npeople, when he says, in Jer. xxxi. 33. _I will put my law in their\ninward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and\nthey shall be people_: and there are many expressions of the like\nnature, which contain the form of a promise. But besides these, there\nare others which are equivalent to, and may be applied by us in like\nmanner as though they were laid down in the same form, as the promises\ngenerally are; as,\n(1.) When God is said, in his word, to be able to do his people good, or\nbestow some particular blessings upon them, this gives them ground to\nconclude, that he will do it, or that his power shall be engaged in\ntheir behalf: Thus God is said, in Jude, ver. 24. to be _able to keep_\nthem _from falling, and to present them faultless before the presence of\nhis glory with exceeding joy_. And elsewhere it is said, 2 Cor. ix. 8.\nthat _God is able to make all grace abound towards_ his people, _that_\nthey _always having all-sufficiency in all things, may abound to every\ngood work_: This is the same as though it had been said, that he would\ndo this for them.\n(2.) When God is said to glorify any of his perfections in giving those\nblessings that his people want, this is also equivalent to a promise:\nThus, in Exod. xxxiv. 4, 6. when _the Lord passed by before Moses, and\nproclaimed the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and\nabundant in goodness and truth_, &c. it is the same as though he had\nsaid that he would shew mercy to them, since the design thereof is to\nencourage them to hope for it.\n(3.) Whatever blessings are said to be purchased by Christ as our\nRedeemer, or prayed for by him as our Advocate, these may be included in\nthe number of promised blessings; for they will certainly be applied by\nhim, who will not lose what he has purchased by his blood, and is never\ndenied what he asks for.\n(4.) The universal experience of believers, relating to the blessings\nthat accompany salvation, contains the nature, though not the form, of a\npromise; and therefore, when this is recorded in scripture, for the\nencouragement of others, in all succeeding ages, it is as much to be\napplied by us when we are in like circumstances as though it were more\ndirectly promised to us: Thus when God\u2019s faithful servants are said, 1\nPet. i. 5. to be _kept by the power of God, through faith unto\nsalvation_; or, when the Psalmist says, in Psal. xxxvii. 25. _I have\nbeen young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken,\nnor his seed begging bread_; these, and such-like expressions, are to be\napplied by us as promises.\n(5.) That which is proposed to us, or which we are to have in view, as\nthe end of our attending on ordinances, is equivalent to a promise; and\naccordingly, when we are commanded or encouraged to hope and pray for\nany spiritual blessings, when waiting upon God therein, in such a way as\nhe requires, it is the same thing as though he had said, that he would\ngive us those blessings. If a believer is thirsty, and encouraged to\ncome to the waters; or if he wants grace or peace, and is told that\nthese are to be attained in ordinances, the bare intimation that we are\nto seek these blessings in such a way is equivalent to a promise.\n(6.) God\u2019s seeing our distress or knowing our wants, is sometimes to be\nunderstood in scripture, as containing the nature of a promise, relating\nto the supply thereof: Thus our Saviour tells his disciples, in Matt.\nvi. 32. _Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these\nthings_; which is the same as though he had told them, that God had\npromised or designed to bestow those outward blessings upon them: And\nwhen he designed, or promised to deliver his people out of the bondage,\nin which they were in Egypt, he says, _I have surely seen the affliction\nof my people: I know their sorrows_, &c. Exod. iii. 7. Thus concerning\nthe manner in which the promises are laid down in scripture.\nWe shall now consider how they are to be made use of in order to our\ndirection and encouragement in prayer. And here it may be observed, that\nthe promises either respect outward, or spiritual blessings, both of\nwhich we are to pray for: Thus the apostle says, in 1 Tim. iv. 8.\n_Godliness has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is\nto come_; the former respects the temporal dispensations of providence;\nthe latter, grace and glory, or the things that accompany salvation.\n[1.] We shall consider the promises that respect temporal or outward\nblessings which we are obliged to pray for, as we stand in need of them.\nThese are of various kinds;\n_1st_, There are promises of health and strength, whereby our passage\nthrough this world may be made easy and comfortable, and we better\nenabled to glorify God therein: Thus it is said, in Prov. iii. 7, 8.\n_Fear the Lord, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel,\nand marrow to thy bones._ And in Psal. ciii. 5. _Who satisfieth thy\nmouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagles._\n_2dly_, There are promises of food and raiment, or the necessary\nprovisions and conveniences of life, in Psal. xxxvii. 3. _Trust in the\nLord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou\nshalt be fed._ And in Deut. x. 18. _He doth execute the judgment of the\nfatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and\nraiment._\n_3dly_, There are promises of comfort and peace in our dwellings, in Job\nv. 24. \u2018Thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace; and thou\nshalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not sin.\u2019 And, in Psal. xci. 10.\n\u2018There shall no evil befal thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy\ndwelling.\u2019 And in Psal. cxxi. 8. \u2018The Lord shalt preserve thy going out,\nand thy coming in, from this time forth and forevermore.\u2019\n_4thly_, There are promises of quiet and composed rest by night, on our\nbeds, in Job xi. 18, 19. _Thou shalt take thy rest in safety: Also thou\nshalt lie down, and none shall make thee afraid._ And in Prov. iii. 24.\n_When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid; yea, thou shalt lie\ndown, and thy sleep shall be sweet._\n_5thly_, There are promises of success, and a blessing to attend us in\nour worldly callings, in Psal. cxxviii. 2. _Thou shalt eat the labour of\nthine hands: Happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee._ And\nin Deut. xxviii. 4, 5, 12. \u2018Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and\nthe fruit of thy ground, the fruit of thy cattle, and the increase of\nthy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and\nthy store. The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven\nto give the rain unto thy land, in his season, and to bless all the work\nof thine hand: And thou shalt lend unto many nations, and shalt not\nborrow.\u2019 And in Psal. i. 3. \u2018He shall be like a tree, planted by the\nrivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf\nalso shall not wither, and whatsoever he doth shall prosper.\u2019\n_6thly_, There are promises of an intail of blessings on our families,\nin Psal. cxxviii. 3. \u2018Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, by the sides\nof thine house; thy children like olive-plants round about thy table.\u2019\nAnd, in Psal. ciii. 17. \u2018The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to\neverlasting, upon them that fear him; and his righteousness unto\nchildren\u2019s children.\u2019 And, in Psal. cii. 28. \u2018The children of thy\nservants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before\nthee.\u2019 And, in Psal. xlv. 16. \u2018Instead of thy fathers shall be thy\nchildren, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.\u2019\nI might have mentioned many more promises of outward blessings, which\nGod will bestow on his people, though with this limitation, so far as it\nmay be for his glory, and their real good, viz. such as respect riches,\nas in Psal. cxii. 3. \u2018Wealth and riches shall be in his house; and his\nrighteousness endureth for ever;\u2019 or honours, as in 1 Sam. ii. 30. and\nthese accompanied with long life; as, in Prov. iii. 17. \u2018Length of days\nare in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.\u2019 And, in\nPsal. xxxiv. 12, 13. \u2018What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many\ndays, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from\nspeaking guile;\u2019 or, if God does not think fit to give them this, he\nwill take them out of the world in mercy, and gather them into a better,\nto prevent their seeing the evil he designs to bring on the inhabitants\nthereof, Isa. lvii. 1. \u2018The righteous is taken away from the evil to\ncome.\u2019 He has also promised some blessings that respect their good name,\nin Zeph. iii. 20. \u2018I will make you a name and a praise among all people\nof the earth.\u2019 And in Prov. x. 7. \u2018The memory of the just is blessed.\u2019\nBut that which I shall principally add concerning these and such-like\noutward blessings, is, that God has not only promised, that he will give\nthem to his people, but that he will sanctify them to them for their\nspiritual advantage, and enable them to improve them aright to his\nglory, which will render them more sweet and desirable to them. Thus God\nhas promised,\n_1st_, That he will free his people, who enjoy outward good things, from\nthe sorrow which is oftentimes mixed therewith, and tends greatly to\nimbitter them, in Prov. x. 22. \u2018The blessing of the Lord maketh rich,\nand he addeth no sorrow with it.\u2019 He has also promised to give them\ninward peace, together with outward prosperity, in Psal. xxxvii. 11.\n\u2018The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the\nabundance of peace.\u2019\n_2dly_, He has promised to give them spiritual and heavenly blessings,\ntogether with the good things of this life, in Job xxii. 24-26. \u2018Thou\nshalt lay up gold as dust, and the gold of Ophir as the stones of the\nbrooks. Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence, and thou shalt have\nplenty of silver: For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty,\nand shalt lift up thy face unto God.\u2019 And in Psal. xxiii. 5, 6. \u2018Thou\npreparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou\nanointest mine head with oil, my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and\nmercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will, or, I shall,\ndwell in the house of the Lord for ever.\u2019\n_3dly_, God has promised together with outward blessings, to give a\nthankful heart, whereby his people may be enabled to give him the glory\nthereof, in Deut. viii. 10. \u2018When thou hast eaten and art full, then\nthou shalt bless the Lord thy God, for the good land which he hath given\nthee.\u2019 And, in Joel ii. 26. \u2018Ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied,\nand praise the name of the Lord your God, that hath dealt wondrously\nwith you; and my people shall never be ashamed.\u2019\n_4thly_, He has not only promised that he will confer outward good\nthings on his people, but that he will make them blessings to others,\nand thereby enable them to lay out what he gives them for their good, to\nsupport his cause and gospel in the world; and to relieve those that are\nin distress, in Gen. xii. 2. \u2018I will bless thee, and make thy name\ngreat; and thou shalt be a blessing.\u2019 And, in Deut. xxvi. 11. \u2018Thou\nshalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given unto\nthee and unto thine house, thou and the Levite, and the stranger that is\namong you.\u2019 These promises more especially respect those who are in a\nprosperous condition in the world.\nBut there are others which are made to believers, in an afflicted state;\nand, indeed, there is scarce any affliction which they are liable to,\nbut what has some special promises annexed to it. Accordingly,\n(1.) There are promises made to them when lying on a sick bed, in Psal.\nxli. 5. \u2018The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing; thou\nwilt make all his bed in his sickness.\u2019 And, in Deut. vii. 15. \u2018The Lord\nwill take from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases\nof Egypt (which thou knowest) upon thee; but will lay them upon all that\nhate thee.\u2019 And, in Exod. xxiii. 25. \u2018I will take sickness away from the\nmidst of thee.\u2019\n(2.) There are other promises made to believers, when poor and low in\nthis world, in Psal. cxxxii. 15. \u2018I will abundantly bless her provision;\nI will satisfy her poor with bread.\u2019\n(3.) There are other promises that respect God\u2019s giving a full\ncompensation for all the losses which his people have sustained for\nChrist\u2019s sake, in Matt. xix. 29. \u2018Every one that hath forsaken houses,\nor brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or\nlands for my name\u2019s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall\ninherit life everlasting.\u2019 And, in chap. x. 39. \u2018He that findeth his\nlife shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my name\u2019s sake shall\nfind it.\u2019\n(4.) There are other promises made to believers under oppression, in\nPsal. xii. 5. \u2018For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the\nneedy, now will I arise (saith the Lord) I will set him in safety from\nhim that puffeth at him.\u2019 And in Hos. xiv. 3. \u2018In thee the fatherless\nfindeth mercy.\u2019 And, in Psal. lxviii. 5. \u2018A father of the fatherless,\nand a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.\u2019\n(5.) There are other promises made to believers, when reviled and\npersecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake, Matt. v. 11, 12, \u2018Blessed are ye\nwhen men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner\nof evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad;\nfor great is your reward in heaven.\u2019 And, in 1 Pet. iv. 19. \u2018Wherefore\nlet them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of\ntheir souls to him in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator.\u2019\n(6.) There are promises made to God\u2019s people, when they are in distress,\nand, at present, see no way of escape: Thus when Jeremiah was shut up in\nthe court of the prison, he had this promise given him, in Jer. xxxiii.\n3. \u2018Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty\nthings, which thou knowest not.\u2019\n(7.) God has made promises suited to the condition of his people, when\ntheir lot is cast in perilous times: Thus it is said, in Isa. xliii. 2.\n_When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through\nthe rivers, they shall not overflow thee: When thou walkest through the\nfire, thou shalt not be burnt; neither shall the flame kindle upon\nthee._\nNow there are several mercies which God has promised to his people,\nunder the various afflictions which we are exposed to, as,\n(_1st_,) Sometimes he promises to prevent the afflictions which we are\nmost afraid of, in Psal. cxxi. 7. \u2018The Lord shall preserve thee from all\nevils; he shall preserve thy soul.\u2019 And, in Job v. 19. \u2018He shall deliver\nthee in six troubles; yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee.\u2019\n(_2d_,) He has promised to preserve his people from, or defend them in,\na time of trouble, in Gen. xv. 1. \u2018Fear not Abram: I am thy shield, and\nthy exceeding great reward.\u2019 And, in Ezek. xi. 16. \u2018Thus saith the Lord;\nalthough I have cast them far off among the heathen; and although I have\nscattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them a little\nsanctuary in the countries where they shall come.\u2019\n(_3d_,) He has promised to moderate their afflictions, in Isa. xxvii. 8.\n\u2018In measure when it shooteth forth, thou wilt debate with it; he stayeth\nhis rough wind in the day of his east wind.\u2019 And, in Jer. xlvi. 28.\n\u2018Fear thou not, O Jacob, my servant, saith the Lord, for I am with thee,\nfor I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven\nthee, but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in\nmeasure; yet I will not leave thee wholly unpunished.\u2019\n(_4th_,) He has also promised, that if need be, he will shorten the\naffliction, in Psal. cxxv. 3. \u2018The rod of the wicked shall not rest upon\nthe lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto\niniquity.\u2019 And, in Mark xiii. 19, 20. \u2018In those days shall be affliction\nsuch as was not from the beginning of the creation: And except that the\nLord had shortened those days, no flesh could be saved; but for the\nelect\u2019s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.\u2019\n(_5th_,) God has also promised his people that he will enable them to\nbear those afflictions which he lays upon them, in Psal. xxxvii. 24.\n\u2018Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; for the Lord\nupholdeth him with his hand.\u2019 And, in 2 Cor. xii. 9. \u2018He said unto me,\nMy grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in\nweakness.\u2019\n(_6th._) He has promised to shew his people the particular sin that is\nthe cause of the affliction, that they may be humbled for it, in Job\nxxxvi. 8, 9. \u2018If they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of\naffliction; then he sheweth them their work and their transgressions\nthat they have exceeded.\u2019\n(_7th._) He has promised to bring good to them out of their afflictions,\nin Isa. xxvii. 9. \u2018By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be\npurged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin.\u2019 And in Psal.\nxcvii. 11. \u2018light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the\nupright in heart.\u2019 And in Zech. xiii. 9. \u2018I will bring the third part\nthrough the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will\ntry them as gold is tried: They shall call on my name, and I will hear\nthem: I will say, that it is my people; and they shall say, Thou art my\nGod.\u2019 Thus concerning the promises that more especially respect outward\nblessings which God bestows on his people.\n[2.] There are other promises contained in scripture, that relate more\nespecially to spiritual blessings, which are of great use to us, when we\nare asking them of God in prayer.\n_1st_, There are promises that relate more especially to the ordinances\nor means of grace: These are various,\n1. Some respect the duty of prayer, and also the event and success that\nshall attend it, in God\u2019s giving gracious returns, or answers thereof,\nin Psal. xci. 15. \u2018He shall call upon me, and I will answer him.\u2019 And in\nJer. xxix. 12, 13. \u2018Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray\nunto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me,\nwhen ye shall search for me with all your heart.\u2019 And, in Psal. l. 15.\n\u2018Call upon me, in the day of trouble, I will deliver thee, and thou\nshalt glorify me.\u2019\n2. Another ordinance to which promises are also annexed, is meditation\nabout spiritual things, in Prov. xiv. 22. \u2018Mercy and truth shall be to\nthem that devise good.\u2019 And, in Josh. i. 8. \u2018This book of the law shall\nnot depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and\nnight, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written\ntherein; for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou\nshalt have good success.\u2019 There are also promises made to those who read\nthe word of God, to wit, that he will make known his words to them, so\nthat they may understand them, Prov. i. 23. \u2018Turn you at my reproof:\nBehold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words\nunto you.\u2019\n3. There are promises made to those who attend on the public worship of\nGod, in Psal. xxxvi. 8, 9. \u2018They shall be abundantly satisfied with the\nfatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy\npleasures.\u2019 And, in Psal. cxxviii. 5. \u2018The Lord shall bless thee out of\nZion; and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy\nlife.\u2019\n4. There are promises made to religious fasting on special occasions, as\nin Mat. vi. 17. \u2018When thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy\nface; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which\nis in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee\nopenly.\u2019\n5. There are promises made to alms-giving, in Prov. xi. 25. \u2018The liberal\nsoul shall be made fat; and he that watereth shall be watered also\nhimself.\u2019 And, in Eccl. xi. 1. \u2018Cast thy bread upon the waters; for thou\nshalt find it after many days.\u2019\u2014And in 2 Cor. ix. 6, 7, 8. \u2018He which\nsoweth bountifully shall also reap bountifully: God loveth a cheerful\ngiver, and is able to make all grace abound, _&c._\u2019\n6. There are promises made to believers, when they appear in the behalf\nof truth, at those times when it is opposed and perverted, that by this\nmeans it may not be run down, nor they confounded, or put to silence by\nits enemies, Luke xxi. 15. \u2018I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which\nall your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay, nor resist.\u2019\n7. There are promises made to the religious and strict observation and\nsanctification of the Lord\u2019s day, Isa. lvi. 2. \u2018Blessed is the man that\ndoth this; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his\nhand from doing any evil.\u2019\n_2dly_, There are promises, contained in scripture, which respect God\u2019s\ngiving his people special grace, together with that joy, peace and\ncomfort that flows from it, which will be of great use to them, in order\nto their engaging aright in the duty of prayer.\n1. There are promises of the grace of faith, and others that are made to\nit; as it is said, in John vi. 37. \u2018All that the Father giveth to me\nshall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.\u2019\nAnd, in Eph. ii. 8. \u2018By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not\nof yourselves; it is the gift of God.\u2019\n2. There are promises of the grace of repentance, in Rom. xi. 26. \u2018There\nshall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness\nfrom Jacob.\u2019 And, in Ezek. xx. 43. \u2018Ye shall remember your ways, and all\nyour doings, wherein ye have been defiled, and ye shall lothe yourselves\nin your own sight, for all your evils that ye have committed.\u2019\n3. There are promises of love to God: Thus in Gal. v. 2. \u2018The fruit of\nthe Spirit is love.\u2019 And, 2 Tim. i. 7. \u2018God hath not given us the spirit\nof fear, but of power and love, and of a sound mind.\u2019 And, in Rom. v. 5.\n\u2018Hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our\nhearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.\u2019 And, in 2 Thes. iii.\n5. \u2018The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the\npatient waiting for Christ.\u2019\n4. Another grace promised is an holy filial fear of God, in Jer. xxx.\n39, 40. \u2018I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear\nthem for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them.\nAnd I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn\naway from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts,\nthat they shall not depart from me.\u2019 And, in Hos. iii. 5. \u2018They shall\nfear the Lord and his goodness.\u2019\n5. Obedience to God\u2019s commands, which is an indispensable duty, is also\nconsidered as a promised blessing, in Deut. xxx. 8. \u2018Thou shalt return\nand obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I\ncommand thee this day.\u2019\nMoreover, as there are promises of the graces of the Spirit, so the\ncomforts that flow from thence are also promised: Thus it is said in\nIsa. li. 12. _I, even I, am he that comforteth you._ And, in chap. xl.\n1. _Comfort ye, comfort ye my people: Speak ye comfortably to\nJerusalem_, &c. more particularly,\n(1.) There are promises of peace of conscience, which is a great branch\nof those spiritual comforts which God gives his people ground to expect:\nThus it is said in Isa. lvii. 18, 19. \u2018I will restore comforts unto him,\nand to his mourners. I create the fruit of the lips; peace, peace to him\nthat is afar off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord.\u2019 And, in\nchap. xxvi. 4. \u2018Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is\nstayed on thee; because he trusteth in thee.\u2019\n(2.) God has promised a good hope of eternal life, in 2 Thes. ii. 16.\n\u2018Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, who hath\nloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope\nthrough grace, comfort your hearts.\u2019 And, in Rom. xv. 4. \u2018Whatsoever\nthings were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we\nthrough patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope.\u2019\n(3.) God has promised spiritual joy to his people, in Psal. lxiv. 10.\n\u2018The righteous shall be glad in the Lord, and shall trust in him; and\nall the upright in heart shall glory.\u2019 And, in Psal. xcvii. 11, 12.\n\u2018Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.\nRejoice in the Lord ye righteous; and give thanks at the remembrance of\nhis holiness.\u2019\nHere we shall consider a believer, when drawing nigh to God in prayer,\nas depressed and bowed in his own spirit, and hardly able to speak a\nword to him in his own behalf, as the Psalmist says, in Psal. lxxvii. 3,\n4. _I complained and my spirit was overwhelmed. I am so troubled that I\ncannot speak_; and how he may receive great advantage from those\npromises which he will find in the word of God; as,\n(_1st_,) When he complains of the wickedness, hardness and perverseness\nof his heart; in this case God has promised, in Ezek. xi. 19. \u2018I will\nput a new spirit within you, and I will take the stony heart out of your\nflesh, and will give you an heart of flesh.\u2019 And, in Jer. xxiii. 29. \u2018Is\nnot my word like a fire, saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh\nthe rock in pieces.\u2019\n(_2d_,) When a believer is sensible of his ignorance, or, at least, that\nhis knowledge of divine truths bears no proportion to the means of\ngrace, which he has been favoured with, and that he is often destitute\nof spiritual wisdom, to direct his way, and carry him through the\ndifficulties he often meets with, as to what concerns his temporal or\nspiritual affairs: There are promises suited to this case, in Prov. ii.\n3-6. \u2018If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for\nunderstanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her, as\nfor hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord; and\nfind the knowledge of God.\u2019 And in James i. 5. \u2018If any of you lack\nwisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and\nupbraideth not; and it shall be given him.\u2019\n(_3d_,) If they complain of the weakness of their memories, that they\ncannot retain the truths of God when they hear them; Christ has\npromised, in John xiv. 26. that the Holy Ghost shall _teach_ them _all\nthings, and bring all things to their remembrance_.\n(_4th_,) If they complain of their unthankfulness, or that they have not\nhearts disposed to praise God for the mercies they receive, he has\npromised, in Isa. 21. _This people have I formed for myself, they shall\nshew forth my praise._ And, in Psal. cxl. 14. _Surely the righteous\nshall give thanks unto thy name, the upright shall dwell in thy\npresence._\n(_5th_,) There are many who are not altogether destitute of hope that\nthey have the truth of grace, but yet are filled with trouble, as\napprehending that they do not make those advances, in grace, as they\nought, but seem to be at a stand, which they can reckon little other\nthan going backward, and they dread the consequences thereof; such may\ntake encouragement from those promises that respect a believer\u2019s growing\nin grace; as it is said, in John viii. 7. _Though thy beginning was\nsmall, yet thy latter end shall greatly increase._ And, in Isa. xl. 29,\n31. _He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might, he\nincreaseth strength. They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their\nstrength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and\nnot be weary, and they shall walk and not faint._ And if they complain\nof their unprofitableness under the means of grace, and not receiving\nany spiritual advantage by the various dispensations of providence which\nthey are under; there is a promise adapted to this case, in Isa. xlviii.\n17. _Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the holy One of Israel, I am the\nLord thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the\nway that thou shouldest go._\n(_6th_) Are they afraid that they shall fall away after having made a\nlong profession of religion? There is a promise which our Saviour\nhimself took encouragement from, though never liable to any fear of this\nnature, which a believer may apply to himself, as affording relief\nagainst these fears and discouragements, in Psal. xvi. 8. \u2018I have set\nthe Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not\nbe moved.\u2019 And there is another which is more directly applicable to\nthis case, in 1 Cor. i. 8. \u2018Who shall also confirm you unto the end that\nye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u2019 And if he is\nfallen, and, at the same time, afraid that he shall never be able to\nrise again, and recover what he has lost, there is another promise in\nPsal. xxxvi. 24, 28. \u2018Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;\nfor the Lord upholdeth him with his hand. The Lord loveth judgment, and\nforsaketh not his saints:\u2019 And God also says, in Heb. xiii. 5. \u2018I will\nnever leave thee, nor forsake thee.\u2019\n(_7th_,) If a believer be under divine desertion, which he may be, and\nyet kept from apostacy; if he is mourning after the Lord, and earnestly\ndesiring that he would return to him; he may take encouragement from\nthat promise in Psal. xlii. 5. \u2018Why art thou cast down, O my soul; and\nwhy art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God, for I shall yet praise\nhim for the help of his countenance.\u2019 And, in Jer. xxxi. 13, 14. \u2018Then\nshall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together:\nFor I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make\nthem rejoice from their sorrow. And I will satiate the soul of the\npriests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness,\nsaith the Lord.\u2019\n(_8th_,) Is he cast down under a sense of the guilt of sin, and afraid\nof the punishment that will ensue? there are many promises in the word\nof God that respect the forgiveness of sin, in Psal. ciii. 3. \u2018Who\nforgiveth all thine iniquities: who healeth all thy diseases.\u2019 And, in\nPsal. cxxx. 4. \u2018There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayst be\nfeared.\u2019 And, in Isa. xliii. 25. \u2018I, even I am he that blotteth out thy\ntransgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.\u2019\n(_9th_,) Is a believer afraid of the last enemy, death, by reason of the\n_fear_ whereof _he is all his life-time subject to bondage_: Heb. ii.\n15. and Psal. xlviii. 14. \u2018This God is our God for ever and ever; he\nwill be our guide even unto death.\u2019 And, in Psal. xxiii. 4. \u2018Yea, though\nI walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil;\nfor thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.\u2019 And, in\nPsal. xxxvii. 37. \u2018Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright; for the\nend of that man is peace.\u2019 Thus we have considered the promises of God\nas suited to every condition, and, consequently, as affording matter of\nencouragement to us in drawing nigh to him in prayer.\n5. Those reproofs for sins committed, and threatenings which are\ncontained in the word of God, as a means to deter from committing them,\nmay be improved for our direction in prayer.\n(1.) As we are hereby induced to hate sin, beg strength to subdue and\nmortify it, and deprecate the wrath and judgments of God against those\nthat commit it.\n(2.) We are hereby led to see our desert of punishment, while we confess\nourselves to be sinners, and to bless God that he has not inflicted it\nupon us; but especially if he has given us ground of hope that he has\ndelivered us from that condemnation which was due to us for sin.\n(3.) They will be of use to us in prayer, as we are thereby led to have\nan awful sense of the holiness and justice of God, and to draw nigh to\nhim with fear and trembling, lest we should provoke his wrath by our\nunbecoming behaviour in his presence, and thereby bring on ourselves a\ncurse instead of a blessing.\n6. The word of God is of use for our direction in prayer, as it contains\nmany examples of the performance of this duty in a right manner by the\nsaints, whose graces, and the manner in which they have drawn nigh to\nGod, are proposed for our imitation in this duty: Thus we read of\nJacob\u2019s wrestling with God, and his great importunity, when it is said,\nin Hos. xii. 4. \u2018He had power over the angel, and prevailed; he wept and\nmade supplication unto him;\u2019 as referring to what is mentioned in Gen.\nxxxii. 26, 28. \u2018The angel,\u2019 that is, Christ, says, \u2018let me go, for the\nday breaketh,\u2019 _q. d._ cease thy importunity, which thou hast maintained\nto the breaking of the day; during which time I have given thee no\nencouragement that I will grant thy request. Jacob persists in his\nresolution, and says, \u2018I will not let thee go, except thou bless me;\u2019\nthat is, I will not leave off importuning thee, till thou givest me a\ngracious answer: Upon which, our Saviour says, \u2018as a prince hast thou\npower with God,\u2019 that is, with me, \u2018and with men,\u2019 to wit, with Esau thy\nbrother, \u2018and hast prevailed:\u2019 So that he shall do thee no hurt, in ver.\n28. but his heart shall be turned toward thee.\nAgain, we read of Abraham\u2019s humility in prayer, when he says, in Gen.\nxviii. 27. \u2018Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord,\nwhich am but dust and ashes.\u2019 And, in ver. 30. \u2018Oh! let not the Lord be\nangry, and I will speak.\u2019\nWe also read of David\u2019s sincerity, in Psal. xvii. 1. \u2018Attend unto my\ncry, give ear unto my prayer that goeth not out of feigned lips;\u2019 and of\nHezekiah\u2019s addressing himself to God with tears in his sickness; upon\nwhich, he immediately received a gracious answer, in Isa. xxxviii 3, 5.\nand when he was recovered, he gives praise to God, in ver. 19. \u2018The\nliving, the living, he shall praise thee as I do this day: The Father to\nthe children shall make known thy truth.\u2019\nWe have an instance of Jonah\u2019s faith in prayer, when his disobedience to\nthe divine command, had brought him into the utmost distress, in Jonah\nii. 2, 4. \u2018Out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.\nThen I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet will I look again toward\nthy holy temple.\u2019\nWe have also an instance of Daniel\u2019s drawing nigh to God with an\nuncommon reverence, and awful fear of his divine Majesty, and an account\nof the manner in which he addresses himself to him, with confession of\nthose sins which Israel had been guilty of, in Dan. ix. 4, 5. \u2018I prayed\nunto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the\ngreat and dreadful God, keeping the covenant, and mercy to them that\nlove him, and to them that keep his commandments: We have sinned, and\ncommitted iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by\ndeparting from thy precepts, and from thy judgments.\u2019 And we have this\nhumble confession and supplication, continued to ver. 19. and then an\naccount of the success thereof, in the gracious answer that God sent him\nby an angel from heaven.\nWe also read of Joshua\u2019s interceding for Israel, when he \u2018fell upon his\nface before the ark of the Lord, with his clothes rent,\u2019 Josh. vii. 6.\nand we have the plea that he makes use of in ver. 9. \u2018What wilt thou do\nunto thy great name.\u2019\nWe have also an instance of fervency in Moses, (when pleading for the\npeople, after they had worshipped the golden calf,) who prefers God\u2019s\nglory to his own happiness; and had rather have no name in the church,\nor be _blotted out of the book which_ God had _written_, than that his\n_wrath_ should _wax hot against Israel, to consume them_; of which we\nhave an account in Exod. xxxiii. 10, 11, 31, 32.[110]\nThere are many other instances of this nature mentioned in scripture;\nwhich, for brevity sake, I pass over; and, indeed, the whole book of the\nLamentations is of use to direct us in prayer, under pressing\nafflictions, either feared or undergone; and the book of Psalms is a\ndirectory for prayer to the believer, suited to every condition which he\nmay be supposed to be in, and of praise for mercies of all kinds,\nwhether temporal or spiritual. And the same may be said of many other\nparts of scripture.\nFrom what has been said concerning the word of God being a direction to\nus in prayer, we may infer,\n(1.) That, as reading the scriptures in our families and closets, is a\ngreat help to raise our affections, and bring us into a praying frame:\nSo the application of scripture-doctrines and examples to our own case,\nwill supply us with fit matter and expressions upon all occasions, when\nwe draw nigh to God in this duty.\n(2.) The pretence of some that they know not how to pray, or that they\ncannot do it without a prescribed form, arises, for the most part, from\nan unacquaintedness with, or a neglect to study the scriptures, to\nanswer this end.\n(3.) Since the word of God is a directory for prayer, we ought not to\naffect modes of expression, or human strains of rhetoric, which are not\ndeduced from, or agreeable to scripture; but, on the other hand, we are\nto use such a simplicity of style, and spirituality of expression, as we\nfind contained therein; especially in those parts thereof, as are more\ndirectly subservient to this duty.\n(4.) It will be of very great use for us sometimes, in the course of our\nreading scripture, especially in private, to turn what we read into\nprayer, though it do not contain in itself the form of a prayer; as when\nwe read of the presumptuous sins committed by some, and the visible\nmarks of God\u2019s displeasure that ensued hereupon, we ought to lift up our\nhearts to him, to keep us from them; or, if we have reason to charge\nourselves as guilty of them, that we may be humbled, and obtain\nforgiveness from him. And when we read, the excellent characters of some\nof the saints, in scripture, we ought to pray that God would enable us\nto be followers of them herein; or when, in some parts thereof,\nbelievers are represented as praying for particular mercies, we ought,\nat the same time, to lift up our hearts to God for the same: This will\nbe a means, not only to furnish us with matter and proper expressions in\nprayer; but to excite our affections when we engage in this duty, in\nthose stated times which are set apart for it. This leads us to\nconsider,\nIII. That there is a special rule of direction contained in that form of\nprayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called _the Lord\u2019s\nprayer_. This prayer is mentioned only by two of the evangelists, _viz._\nMatthew, in chap. vi. 8,\u201413. and Luke, in chap. xi. 2, 3, 4. in which we\nmay observe, that though there be a perfect harmony between them, as\nthere is between all other parts of scripture, as to the matter or sense\nof them; yet it is obvious to all who compare them together, that there\nis some difference as to the mode of expression; particularly as to the\n_fourth_ and _fifth_ petition, (and that not only in the translation, as\nbeing sufficiently just, but in the original) which there would not have\nbeen, had it been designed for a form of prayer.\n1. In the fourth petition, Luke teaches us to say, _Give us day by day\nour daily bread_: Whereas, in Matthew, it is expressed, _Give us this\nday our daily bread_, in which there are different ideas contained in\nthe respective words. This is very common, when the same sense, for\nsubstance, is laid down in different parts of scripture.[111] _Give us\nthis day our daily bread_, contains a petition for what we want at\npresent; and, Give us _this, day by day_, implies, that these wants will\ndaily recur upon us, in which it will be necessary to desire a supply\nfrom God; and therefore, if both these accounts of this petition be\ncompared together, we are hereby directed to pray, Lord, give us the\nblessings which we want at present; and let these wants be daily\nsupplied, as we shall stand in need of a supply from thee.[112]\n2. In the fifth petition, Luke directs us to pray, _Forgive us our sins;\nfor we also forgive every one that is indebted to us_: Whereas, in\nMatthew, the expression is very different, viz. _Forgive us our debts as\nwe forgive our debtors_.\n3. The evangelist Luke leaves out the doxology, _For thine is the\nkingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen_; which Matthew\nadds.\nFrom hence, I conceive, it may be inferred, that our Saviour\u2019s design,\nin dictating this prayer to his people, was not that they should confine\nthemselves wholly to the mode of expression used therein, without the\nleast variation; for then, doubtless, the two Evangelists would have\nlaid it down in the very same words; but he rather designed it as a\ndirectory respecting the matter of prayer.\nI am sensible it will be objected to this, that the preface, which Luke\nprefixes to it, is, _when we pray, say, Our Father_, &c. which seems to\nintimate that these very words should be used, and no other: But to this\nit may be replied, that the evangelist Matthew, who beyond dispute, laid\ndown this prayer more fully than Luke does, says, by way of preface to\nit, _After this manner pray ye_; which seems to be an intimation that it\nwas designed rather to be a directory, as to the matter of prayer, than\na form of words to be used without the least variation; and therefore I\ncannot but think, that what Luke says, _when you pray, say_, &c. imports\nnothing else but, _pray after this manner_.\nIt farther appears, that our Saviour principally designed this prayer as\na directory, respecting the matter of our petitions, rather than a form;\nbecause it does not explicitly contain all the parts of prayer, nor\nparticularly, confession of sin, or thankful acknowledgment of mercies.\nI say, it does not contain these explicitly, but only implicitly, as a\ndeduction, or inference from the petitions themselves; as when we say,\n_Forgive us our debts_, or sins, this supposes that we acknowledge\nourselves to be sinners. It cannot be denied, but that there are some\nexpressions which contain matter of thanksgiving; as when we pray,\n_Hallowed be thy name_, it implies, a thankful acknowledgment of all\nthose instances in which God has sanctified his name, as well as a\ndesire that he would do it, _q. d._ thou hast, in the various\ndispensations of thy providence; and in all thine holy institutions, set\nforth the glory of thy perfections that thou mayest be adored and\nmagnified by thy creatures; this we own with thankfulness at the same\ntime that we desire the continuance thereof. And when we pray, _Give us\ndaily bread_; we do, in effect, acknowledge the bounty of his\nprovidence, from whence we receive all the comforts of life, and the\nlarge share thereof, which he has communicated to us, whereby our wants\nhave hitherto been supplied. This, I say, is an implicit direction for\nthanksgiving. But if our Saviour had designed that it should be a\nperfect form of words, to be used without varying in the least from\nthem, he would have given us some more full and direct account of what\nsins we are to acknowledge, and what mercies we are to thank him for,\nwhich is more plainly contained in some other scriptures, than it can be\nsupposed to be in this prayer; therefore, it seems to be principally\ndesigned as a rule for our direction what we are to ask for; or how that\npart of prayer, which includes in it petition, ought to be performed,\nagreeably to the mind and will of God.\nMoreover, there is no explicit mention of the Mediator, in whose name we\nare to pray; nor of his obedience, sufferings, or intercession, on which\nthe efficacy of our prayers is founded, which our faith is to have a\ngreat regard unto. These things therefore are to be supplied by what we\nfind in other parts of scripture, all which, taken together, give us a\nperfect directory for prayer; though neither this, nor any other prayers\nused in scripture, sufficiently appear to have been designed as a form\nof words which we are to confine ourselves to, without the least\nvariation from them.\nAs to what is observed in the latter of the answers, under our present\nconsideration, _viz._ that the Lord\u2019s prayer is not only for direction,\nas a pattern, but may be used as a prayer, provided it be done in a\nright manner. It is granted that the Lord\u2019s prayer is of use, as a\npattern and rule for our direction, in common with all other prayers\ncontained in scripture; but the main difficulty relating to this matter,\nis, whether our Saviour designed that his disciples, and the church, in\nall following ages, should confine themselves to the words thereof, so\nfar as that the mode of expression should not be, in the least, altered,\nor any thing added to the petitions contained therein, how agreeable\nsoever it be to the sense, and words of scripture. This does not seem to\nhave been his intention therein; and, as it will not be denied by any,\nthat every one of the petitions contained in it, may be interspersed and\njoined with other petitions to God in prayer, so, when this has been\ndone, or, at least, the sense thereof expressed in other words, it will\nbe very hard to prove that it is absolutely necessary that these\npetitions should be recollected, and prayed over again, in the same\nmethod in which they are laid down in this prayer, barely for the sake\nof our making use of it as a form; especially if this is not expressly\ncommanded by our Saviour, as it does not sufficiently appear to be, if\nwhat was before observed be true, that those words, _When we pray, say,\nOur Father_, &c. implies nothing else but, _pray after this manner_.\nHowever, I would be very far from censuring or blaming the practice\nobserved by many of the reformed churches, who conclude their _ex\ntempore_, or premeditated prayers with it, provided it be done with\nunderstanding, reverence, and suitable acts of faith, as any other\npetition contained in scripture may be made use of by us in prayer; not\nonly in words agreeable thereunto, but in the express words thereof. The\nprincipal thing that I would militate against, is not so much the using\nthe words, as doing this in a formal way, supposing that the bare\nrecital of them doth, as it were, sanctify our other prayers; which,\nthough very agreeable to the sense thereof, are, as some suppose,\nrendered so incomplete, that they will hardly be regarded by God without\nit. And I cannot but conclude the Papists highly to blame, who think the\nfrequent repetition of it, though in a tongue unknown to the common\npeople, is not only necessary, but, in some measure, meritorious. And\nthe practice of some ignorant superstitious persons, who think that it\nmay be made use of as a charm; and that the words thereof repeated, as\nthe Jews of old did their Phylacteries, as a means to drive away evil\nspirits, is not only to be disapproved, but it is a vile instance of\nprofaneness, very remote from the design of our Saviour in giving it.\nFootnote 110:\n  Vide ante vol. I. p. 19. in note.\nFootnote 111:\n  The petition in Luke offered daily, is equivalent to that in Matthew.\nFootnote 112:\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is found only in this prayer, and rather means _necessary_.\n                      Quest. CLXXXVIII., CLXXXIX.\n    QUEST. CLXXXVIII. _Of how many parts doth the Lord\u2019s prayer\n    consist?_\n    ANSW. The Lord\u2019s prayer consists of three parts, a preface,\n    petitions, and a conclusion.\n    QUEST. CLXXXIX. _What doth the preface of the Lord\u2019s prayer teach\n    ANSW. The preface of the Lord\u2019s prayer [contained in these words,\n    _Our Father which art in heaven_] teacheth us, when we pray, to draw\n    near to God with confidence of his fatherly goodness, and our\n    interest therein, with reverence, and all other child-like\n    dispositions, heavenly affections, and due apprehensions of his\n    Sovereign power, majesty, and gracious condescension; as also to\n    pray with, and for others.\nIn this prayer we are taught to begin our prayers with a preface, and\ntherein to make an explicit mention of the name of God, and some of his\ndivine perfections. The preface to this prayer is contained in these\nwords; _Our Father which art in heaven_. In which we may observe, that\nwe are to draw near to God with reverence, and suitable apprehensions of\nhis sovereign power, majesty, and other divine perfections, and with an\nholy confidence of his fatherly goodness; and that we are to pray with,\nand for others, which may be inferred from his being styled, _Our\nFather_; by which we are instructed to begin our prayers with some\nexpressions of reverence, agreeable to the nature of the duty that we\nare engaged in, whereby we express the sense we have of his essential or\nrelative glory, of which we have various instances in scripture, wherein\nGod\u2019s people, in addressing themselves to him, have made mention of his\nglorious names, titles, and attributes, in variety of expressions. Thus\nDavid, in his Psalms, that contain the matter and form of prayers,\nsometimes begins them with the name of God, to whom they are directed;\nas when he says, _God be merciful unto us, and bless us_, &c. Psal.\nlxvii. 1. And elsewhere, _O God! thou art my God_, Psal. lxiii. 1. And\nsometimes he makes mention of his name _Jehovah_; which we translate\n_Lord_: Thus he says, _O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath_, &c. Psal.\nxxxviii. 1. And elsewhere, _I will love thee, O Lord, my strength_,\nPsal. xviii. 1. And, _O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all\nthe earth_, Psal. viii. 1. And Solomon begins his prayer at the\nconsecration of the temple; _Lord God of Israel, there is no God like\nthee in heaven above, or earth beneath; who keepest covenant and mercy\nwith thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart_, 1 Kings\nviii. 23. And Ezra begins his prayer, _O my God! I am ashamed, and blush\nto lift up my face to thee, my God!_ Ezra ix. 6. And Daniel expresses\nhimself thus, in the preface to his prayer, _O Lord, the great and\ndreadful God, keeping the covenant, and mercy to them that love him, and\nto them that keep his commandments_, Dan. ix. 4. These are all\nexpressions, that denote reverence, and adoration; which, together with\nother instances of the like nature, are of use for our direction, as to\nwhat respects the preface, or beginning of our prayers to God; but the\npreface to the Lord\u2019s prayer is somewhat different; in which we are\ntaught,\n1. To address ourselves to God as a Father; which relation includes in\nit,\n(1.) Something common to mankind in general; in which respect we are to\nadore him as our Creator, our Owner, and Benefactor, _in whom we live,\nand move, and have our being_, Acts xvii. 28. as the prophet says, _Have\nwe not all one Father? hath not one God created us?_ Mal. ii. 10. And\nelsewhere it is said, _He formeth the spirit of man within him_, Zech.\nxii. 1. upon which account he is called, _the God of the spirits of all\nflesh_, Numb. xvi. 22. and, _the Father of spirits_, Heb. xii. 9.\n(2.) God being a Father to his people, sometimes denotes that external\ncovenant-relation which they stand in to him, as a people called by his\nname, favoured with the means of grace, and as such, the objects of that\ncare and goodness, which he is pleased to extend to those whom he\ngoverns by laws given by special revelation from heaven, and encourages\nto wait on him in those ordinances, in which they may hope for his\npresence, and also promises all saving blessings to those that give up\nthemselves to him by faith. In this sense we are to understand those\nscriptures, in which God says, _Israel is my son, even my first-born_,\nExod. iv. 22. And, _I have nourished and brought up children, and they\nhave rebelled against me_, Isa. i. 2. And, _Wilt thou not, from this\ntime cry to me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth_, Jer. iii. 4.\n(3.) The relation which God stands in to his people, as a Father, is\nsometimes taken in the highest sense, as implying in it discriminating\ngrace, or special love, which he is pleased to extend to the heirs of\nsalvation. Thus he is called so by right of redemption; in which respect\nChrist is styled, _The everlasting Father_, Isa. ix. 6. as being the\nHead and Redeemer of his people. And the church says, _Thou, O Lord, art\nour Father, our Redeemer; thy name is from everlasting_, chap. lxiii.\n16. And believers are called his children by regeneration; in which\nrespect they are said to be _born of God_, John i. 13. and to be _made\npartakers of a divine_, 2 Pet. i. 4. that is, an holy and spiritual\n_nature_, which had its rise from God, when he was pleased to instamp\nhis image upon them, consisting in holiness and righteousness. They are\nalso called the children of God by adoption; thus he is said to have\n_predestinated them to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to\nhimself_, Eph. i. 5. and they are said to _receive the adoption of\nsons_, Gal. iv. 5. and as such, have a right to the inheritance of\nchildren, Rom. viii. 17. compared with Col. i. 12.\nThese various senses in which God is said to be a Father to man, may\nserve for our direction when we style him, _Our Father_, in prayer.\nUnregenerate persons, when they pray to God, can ascend no higher than\nwhat is contained in their relation to him as a God of nature, and of\nprovidence; who are obliged to adore him for the blessings which they\nhave received from him, as the effects of common bounty, which include\nin them all the blessings which belong to this life, together with his\npatience, forbearance, and long-suffering, which delays to inflict the\npunishment that sin deserves. Therefore, when they say, _Our Father_,\nthey acknowledge that they derive their being from him, and though they\ncannot lay claim to the benefits of Christ\u2019s redemption, yet they\nconfess their obligations to God as their Creator; and consider him as\nhaving given them souls capable of spiritual blessings, and themselves\nas daily receiving the good things of this life from him, and dependent\non him for those things that tend to the comfort and support of life.\nThey also stand in need of those blessings which are suited to the\nnature of the soul, and consequently beg that they may not remain\ndestitute of those things that may conduce to their everlasting welfare;\nand therefore they may use the Psalmist\u2019s words, _Thy hands have made\nme, and fashioned me: Give me understanding, that I may learn thy\ncommandments_, Psal. cxix. 73.\nAs for those who are God\u2019s children, by an external covenant-relation,\nthere is something more implied therein, than barely their being\ncreatures; for herein they are led to adore him for those discoveries\nthat he has made in the gospel, of the way of salvation by Jesus Christ,\nwho calls and invites sinners to come to him, and encourages them to\nhope, that those who are enabled to do so in a right manner, he will, in\nno wise, cast out; therefore, when they call upon God as their Father in\nprayer, it is, in effect, to say; Lord, we cannot conclude ourselves to\nbe thy children, as redeemed, effectually called and sanctified; nor can\nwe lay claim to the inheritance laid up for thy saints in heaven; yet we\nare encouraged to wait on thee in the ordinances of thine appointment,\nand to hope for thy special presence therein, whereby they may be made\neffectual for our salvation. We are, indeed, destitute of special grace,\nand cannot conclude that we have a right to the saving blessings of the\ncovenant; yet, through thy great goodness, we still enjoy the means of\ngrace. We have not been admitted to partake of Christ\u2019s fulness, nor to\neat of the bread of life; yet we are thankful for those blessings of thy\nhouse, which thou art pleased to continue to us; and since thou still\nincludest us in the number of those who are thy children as favoured\nwith the gospel, we humbly take leave, upon this account, to call thee\nour Father, and to wait and hope for thy salvation, and continue to\nimplore that grace from thee, which will give us a right to the best of\nblessings that we stand in need of.[113]\nAs for those who are God\u2019s children in the highest sense, by redemption,\nregeneration, and adoption, they may draw nigh to him, with an holy\nboldness; for these have, as the apostle expresseth it, the _Spirit of\nadoption whereby they cry, Abba, Father_; they have reason to adore him\nfor privileges of the highest nature, that he has conferred upon them,\nand to encourage themselves that he will bestow upon them all the\nblessings they stand in need of as to this, or a better world. These may\ndraw nigh to God with confidence of his fatherly goodness, and their\ninterest therein; which they ought to take notice of and improve, in\norder to their drawing nigh to him, in a right manner, in prayer, as\nwell as to induce them to behave themselves, in the whole course of\ntheir conversation, as those who are taken into this honourable relation\nto him. Accordingly,\n[1.] This should raise their admiring thoughts of him, that they, who\nwere, by nature, strangers and enemies to him, should be admitted to\npartake of this inestimable privilege; as the apostle says, _Behold what\nmanner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be\ncalled the sons of God!_ 1 John iii. 1.\n[2.] We should also take encouragement from hence, to hope that he will\nhear and answer our prayers, though very imperfect, so far as it may\ntend to his glory and our real advantage. Thus our Saviour says, _If ye\nthen, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how\nmuch more shall your Father, which is in heaven, give good things to\nthem that ask him?_ Matt. vii. 11. Do we pray for spiritual blessings,\nsuch as the increase of grace, strength against corruption, and to be\nkept from temptation, or falling by it? we have ground to conclude that\nthese shall be granted us, inasmuch as they are purchased for us by\nChrist, promised in the covenant of grace, as we have the earnest and\nfirst-fruits of the Spirit in our hearts, whereby we are sealed unto the\nday of redemption. And when we pray for temporal blessings, we have\nreason to hope they shall be granted, if they be necessary for us, since\nour Saviour says, _Our heavenly Father knoweth that we have need of all\nthese things_, Matt. vi. 32.\n[3.] This should excite in us those child-like dispositions, which are\nagreeable to this relation, not only when we draw nigh to God in prayer,\nbut in the whole conduct of our lives. And it includes in it,\n_1st_, Humility and reverence, which is not only becoming those who have\nan interest in his love, and a liberty of access into his presence, with\nhope of acceptance in his sight; but it is what we are obliged to, as\nhis peculiar people, and a branch of that honour which is due to him as\nour God and Father. Thus he says, by the prophet, _A son honoureth his\nfather_, Mal. i. 6. whereby he intimates that this is the character and\ndisposition of those that stand in the relation of children to him. And\nthe apostle argues from the less to the greater, when he says, that _we\nhave had fathers of our flesh, which corrected us, and we gave them\nreverence, shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of\nSpirits_, Heb. xii. 9.\n_2dly_, Patience under rebukes, considering our proneness to go astray,\nwhereby we not only deserve them, but they are rendered necessary; and\nespecially when we consider that they flow from love, and are designed\nfor our good; as the apostle says, _Whom the Lord loveth he chastneth,\nand scourgeth every son whom he receiveth_, ver. 6.\n_3dly_, Another child-like disposition is being grieved for our Father\u2019s\nfrowns; especially that we have incurred his displeasure by our\nmisbehaviour towards him; and it contains in it a readiness to confess\nour faults, and a carefulness to avoid them for the future.\n_4thly_, Contentment with the provision of our Father\u2019s house, whatever\nit be. We shall never, indeed, have the least cause to complain of\nscarcity, as the returning prodigal in the parable says, that even the\n_hired servants of his father, had bread enough, and to spare_, Luke xv.\n17. It can hardly be supposed that he who is at the fountain head, can\nperish for thirst; nevertheless, though we are not straitened in God,\nyet we are often straitened in our bowels, through the weakness of our\nfaith, when we are not inclined to receive what God holds forth to us in\nthe gospel; and then we are discontented and uneasy, while the blame\nlies at our own door; whereas, if we behaved ourselves as the children\nof such a Father, we should not only be pleased with, but constantly\nadore and live upon that fulness of grace that there is in Christ; and\nwhether he is pleased to give us more or less of the blessings of common\nprovidence, we should learn, _in whatsoever state we are, therewith to\nbe content_, Phil. iv. 11.\n_5thly_, Obedience to a father\u2019s commands, without disputing his\nauthority, or right to govern us, is another child-like disposition.\nThus when we draw nigh to God as to our Father, we are to express a\nreadiness to do whatever he requires, whereby we not only approve\nourselves subjects under a law, but, as the apostle styles it, _Obedient\nchildren_, as being _holy in all manner of conversation_, 1 Pet. i. 14,\n_6thly_, Another disposition of children is, that they have a fervent\nzeal for their father\u2019s honour, and cannot bear to hear him reproached\nwithout the highest resentment. Thus the children of God, how much\nsoever they may be concerned about their own affairs, when injuriously\ntreated by the world, are always ready to testify their utmost dislike\nof every thing that reflects dishonour on him, or his ways.\n_7thly_, Another child-like disposition is love, which the relation of a\nfather engages to. Thus when we draw nigh to God as our Father, we\nexpress our love to him, which is founded in his divine excellencies,\nwhich render him the object of the highest delight and esteem.\n_8thly_, He that has a child-like disposition, retains a grateful sense\nof the obligations that he is under to his Father. Thus we ought to be\nduly sensible of all the favours which we have received from God, which\nare more than can be numbered; the contrary hereunto, is reckoned the\nbasest ingratitude and disingenuity, altogether unbecoming the temper of\nchildren. Thus Moses says to Israel, _Do ye thus requite the Lord, O\nfoolish people and unwise? Is not he thy Father who hath bought thee?\nhath he not made, and established thee?_ Deut. xxxii. 6. A believer\u2019s\nobligations to God are so very great, that he cannot look back upon his\nformer state, or consider what he was, how vile and unworthy of any\nregard from him, how miserable and unable to help himself, when he first\nhad compassion on him, without seeing himself under the strongest\nengagements to be entirely, and for ever, his; which is a becoming\nbehaviour towards such a Father.\n_9thly_, Love to all that are related to us as children of the same\nFather, is another child-like disposition. In like manner our love to\nthe saints and faithful brethren in Christ, is a temper becoming the\nchildren of God; and, indeed, it is no other than a loving God in them,\nas we behold his image instamped upon them; and hereby we express the\nhigh esteem we have for regenerating grace, whereby God is denominated\nour common Father; and we, being acted by the same principle, are\nobliged and inclined to love as brethren. Thus they who love God, are\ninduced to love his children, as the apostle says, _Every one that\nloveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him_, 1 John\nv. 1. and he also assigns this as an evidence that _we are passed from\ndeath to life, because we love the brethren_, chap. iii. 14. Thus\nconcerning our drawing nigh to God, as to a Father, as we are taught to\ndo in this prayer.\n2. We are directed, in this prayer, to draw nigh to God, as being in\nheaven; which is the most glorious part of the frame of nature, in which\nhis power, wisdom, and goodness is eminently displayed, as he designed\nit to be an eternal habitation for the best of creatures, to whom he\nwould discover more of his glory than to any others; and in this respect\nit is called his _throne_, Acts vii. 49. And this leads us,\n(1.) To have high and awful thoughts of the majesty and greatness of\nGod, whom all the hosts of heaven worship, with the utmost reverence,\nand are satisfied with the immense treasure of his goodness. We\ntherefore take occasion from hence to admire his infinite condescension,\nthat he will look upon creatures here below; thus Solomon, in his prayer\nsays, _Will God, indeed, dwell on the earth? behold the heaven, and the\nheaven of heavens cannot contain thee_, 1 Kings viii. 27. will he\ntherefore look down upon those, who are so mean, deformed, and destitute\nof his image, as we are, who dwell in houses of clay, and deserve to be\nbanished out of his sight?\n(2.) It should also be improved by us to teach us humility and modesty,\nin our conceptions and discourse, concerning God, and divine things: It\nis but a little that we know of the affairs of the upper world, and the\nway and manner in which God is pleased to manifest himself to his saints\nand angels there; and we know much less of his divine perfections, which\nthe inhabitants of heaven adore, being sensible of the infinite distance\nthey stand at from him, as creatures, upon which account they cannot\ncomprehend, or find out the Almighty to perfection; and shall we pretend\nto search out the secrets of his wisdom, or express ourselves in prayer,\nas though we were speaking to one that was our equal, or could fathom\nthe infinite depths of his unsearchable counsels? Thus Solomon\u2019s advice\nmay be well adapted to this case, _Be not rash with thy mouth, and let\nnot thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God; for God is in\nheaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few_, 1 Kings\nviii. 27. We are not to think that we may say what we please, or be rash\nand inconsiderate in what we say, when we are _before the Lord; for he\nis in heaven_: And when it is farther inferred, that _therefore our\nwords should be few_, that is, we should not think that the efficacy of\nour prayers depends upon the multitude of our words; or if we speak more\nor less to God, our expressions ought not to be bold, rash, hasty, or\ninconsiderate, but with a becoming decency and reverence, as those who\nare speaking to the majesty of heaven.\n(3.) It should put us upon meditating frequently on the glory of the\nheavenly state, as those who hope at last, to be joined with that happy\nand numerous assembly, who are, in God\u2019s immediate presence, in heaven:\nand therefore our conversation should be there; and we should profess\nourselves to be sojourners here on earth, seeking a better country,\nlooking and waiting for the glorious appearing of the great God, our\nSaviour; and hoping, that when he comes, he will receive us to heaven,\nwhere our hearts are at present, as our treasure is there.\n3. We are, in this prayer, farther taught, that it is our duty to pray\nwith, and for others, as we say, _Our Father_: Hereby we signify our\nrelation to, and concern for, all the members of Christ\u2019s mystical body;\ntherefore, if we do not join with others in prayer, we are to have them\nupon our hearts, who are the objects of Christ\u2019s special love and care.\nThis argues, that we have a sympathy with all those who are exposed to\nthe same wants and miseries with ourselves; and we take a great deal of\ndelight in considering them as subjects of the same common Lord, joining\nin the same profession with ourselves; concerning whom, we desire and\nhope that we shall be glorified together.\nMoreover, if we join with others in prayer, so that the whole assembly\nmake their supplications by one that is their mouth, to God; this is\nwhat we call social worship: Therefore it is our duty to pray with, as\nwell as for others; and in this case we must take heed that nothing be\ncontained in united prayer, but what the whole assembly may join in, as\nbeing expressive of their faith, desires, or experiences; otherwise\nthere cannot be that beautiful harmony therein, such as the nature and\ndesign of the duty we are jointly engaged in, calls for: and this is\nagreeable to social or united prayers, in which all the petitions are to\nbe adapted to the particular case of every one who addresses himself to\nGod, how numerous soever the worshipping assembly may be; and therefore\nwe are obliged to make use of that mode of expression, in which we are\ntaught to say, _Our Father_.\nThus our Saviour directs us how we should begin our prayers to God; and,\ninasmuch as this ought to be reduced to practice, I shall give a summary\naccount of what is contained in this preface; that we may be furnished\nwith matter taken from thence, in order to our addressing ourselves to\nGod in prayer, in a way agreeable thereunto, when we come into his\npresence with such a frame of spirit as the importance of the duty\nrequires; accordingly we are to express ourselves to this purpose, \u201cO\nour God, we desire to draw nigh to thee with a becoming reverence, and\nan awful sense of thine infinite perfections: When we consider thee as a\njealous God, and ourselves as sinful, guilty creatures, we might well be\nafraid to come before thee; but thou hast encouraged us to approach thy\npresence as to a Father, in, and through the merits and mediation of our\nLord Jesus Christ; and therefore we come with an humble boldness before\nthy throne of grace, confessing that though we are called thy children,\nwe have been very undutiful and rebellious against thee, and therefore\nunworthy of that relation or of the inheritance which thou hast laid up\nfor those whom thou hast ordained to eternal life. Thou, O Lord, hast\nestablished thy throne in the heavens, where there is an innumerable\ncompany of angels and spirits of just men made perfect, who all behold\nthy face, and are made completely blessed in thine immediate presence:\nAs for us, we dwell in houses of clay; but we earnestly beg that we may\nbe made meet for, and then admitted into that happy society, that we may\nworship thee in a more perfect manner than we are capable of doing in\nthis imperfect state. May all the powers and faculties of our souls be\nrenewed, and influenced by thy holy Spirit, that we may have our\nconversation in heaven, whilst we are here below, and in all things, may\nbe enabled to approve ourselves thy children, have a constant sense of\nduty, and the manifold obligations thou hast laid us under, that we may\nlove, delight in, and submit to thee in all things, and have a fervent\nzeal for the honour of thy name as becomes thy children, that we,\ntogether with all thy faithful servants, may be under thy safe\nprotection here, and be received to thy glory hereafter.\u201d\nFootnote 113:\n  Qu. For _Father_ is designed in its appellative sense, and _our_ as a\n  covenant-plea.\n    QUEST. CXC. _What do we pray for the first petition?_\n    ANSW. In the first petition [which is, _Hallowed be thy Name_,]\n    acknowledging the utter inability and indisposition that is in\n    ourselves and all men to honour God aright, we pray that God would,\n    by his grace, enable and incline us, and others, to know, to\n    acknowledge, and highly to esteem him, his titles, attributes,\n    ordinances, word, works, and whatsoever he is pleased to make\n    himself known by, and to glorify him in thought, word, and deed;\n    that he would prevent and remove atheism, ignorance, idolatry,\n    profaneness, and whatsoever is dishonourable to him; and, by his\n    over-ruling providence, direct and dispose of all things to his own\n    glory.\nHaving considered the preface to the Lord\u2019s prayer, the next part of\nwhich it consists, is petitions; and these are six, which are laid down\nin this method.\n1. We are taught to pray for what concerns God\u2019s glory, which is the\nhighest and most valuable end; and therefore ought first to be prayed\nfor: And this is the subject-matter of the three first petitions.\n2. We are directed to pray for what respects our own advantage, which is\ncontained in the three last petitions, in which we are directed to pray\nfor outward blessings, as in the fourth petition, and then for\nspiritual, without which outward blessings would afford us no relish or\nsavour, nor render us truly happy. These spiritual blessings include in\nthem either forgiveness of sin, and this we pray for in the fifth\npetition; or our being sanctified and delivered from the prevalency of\ncorruption and temptation, together with all the evils that sin exposes\nus to; this we pray for in the sixth petition. That which we are more\nparticularly to consider in this answer, is, what we are taught to pray\nfor in the first petition, which is contained in these words, _Hallowed\nbe thy name_. By the _name_ of God we are to understand every thing, by\nwhich he is pleased to make himself known to his creatures, as when he\ndiscovers himself in his divine perfections, which are either essential\nor personal, absolute or relative; and in his glorious titles, as the\nLord of Hosts, the God and Rock of Israel, the hope of Israel, the God\nthat cannot lye, the Father of mercies, the God of all grace and glory,\nthe preserver of man; which have all a tendency to raise in us the\nhighest veneration for, and esteem of him. He has also made himself\nknown by his ordinances, words, and works: These are the subject-matter\nof this petition; and when we pray that they may be sanctified, we are\nnot to understand hereby that they may be made holy; but that the\nholiness and glory thereof may be demonstrated by him, and that we may\nbe enabled to adore and magnify him agreeably thereunto.\nNow the name of God may be said to be sanctified either by himself or by\nhis people in different respects; accordingly,\nI. We pray that God would sanctify, that is, demonstrate the glory of\nhis own name, or proclaim and make it visible to the world, so as to\nexcite that adoration and esteem which is due to him. His name, indeed,\nhas been eminently glorified in all ages, in the various methods of his\nprovidence and grace; whereby his power, wisdom, and goodness have been\nillustrated in the eyes of angels and men; and, in all his works, he has\nappeared to be a God of infinite holiness: We therefore pray that he\nwould continue to glorify these perfections, and enable us to improve\nthe displays thereof to our spiritual advantage.\nThis is a subject of the highest importance, without which we cannot\ngive to God the glory due unto his name; therefore, as praise is joined\nwith prayer, it is necessary for us to take a view of the various ways\nby which God has manifested the glory of his holiness. We might here\nconsider how he did this in his creating man at first, without the least\nblemish or disposition in his nature to sin, and enstamped his own image\nupon him, which principally consisted in holiness, which was the\ngreatest internal beauty and ornament that he could be endowed with.\nBut that which we shall principally consider, is, how the holiness of\nGod is demonstrated in his dealings with fallen man. His suffering sin\nto enter into the world, was not inconsistent with the holiness of his\nnature, since his providence, as has been observed elsewhere, was not\nconversant about it, by bringing any under a natural necessity of\nsinning; and therefore there is not the least ground to charge him, with\nbeing the author of sin. We now proceed to shew how the holiness of God\nwas glorified in the dispensations of his providence towards fallen man,\nand in the methods he took in order to his recovery.\n1. The holiness of God was glorified, or he sanctified his great name,\nin the dispensations of his providence towards fallen man, before he\ngave him any hope of salvation. It cannot be supposed that this\nrebellion against, and apostacy from God, should not be highly resented\nby him; accordingly we read of his proceeding against the rebel as a\njudge, charging his crime upon him, and passing sentence pursuant to the\ndemerit of his sin; and all the miseries that we are exposed to, either\nin this life, or that which is to come, are the result of the display of\nhis holiness, as a sin-revenging Judge. As soon as ever our first\nparents sinned against him, he charged the guilt thereof on their\nconsciences, and thereby filled them with a dread of his wrath: Hence\nproceeded an inclination to flee from his presence; and when they heard\nthe voice of the Lord coming to call them to an account for what they\nhad done, they were afraid.\nThis is God\u2019s usual method in dealing with sinful creatures: He first\nconvinces them of sin by the law, and awakens the conscience, so that\nhis terrors are set in array against it round about, before he speaks\ngood and comfortable words by the gospel: And by this means he\nsanctifies his name, and thereby discovers his infinite hatred of all\nsin: but we shall principally consider,\n2. How God glorifies his holiness in the method he has taken to deliver\nman from that guilt and misery, under which he had brought himself. The\nterms of reconciliation and salvation, were such as tended to secure the\nglory of his justice; and therefore he insisted on a satisfaction to be\ngiven, without making the least abatement of any part of the debt of\npunishment that was due for our sin; and accordingly _he spared not his\nown Son_, Rom. viii. 32. but delivered him over unto death, and obliged\nhim to drink the bitterest part of that cup which was most formidable to\nnature, and which, had it been possible, he would fain have been excused\nfrom drinking; therefore he is represented, by one of the evangelists,\nas praying, that God the Father would _take this cup from him_, Mark\nxiv. 35, 36. and by another, that he would _save him from this hour_,\nJohn xii. 27. Nevertheless, he expresses the utmost resignation to the\ndivine will; and being sensible that this was an expedient to glorify\nthe holiness of God, he does, as it were, give a check to the voice of\nnature, and submits to bear the punishment he came into the world to\nsuffer, how terrible soever it might be; and therefore says, _Father\nglorify thy name_, q. d. ver. 28. take what method is most expedient to\ndemonstrate the glory of thy holiness let the whole debt be exacted on\nme, I am willing to pay the utmost farthing: Upon this God says, by a\nvoice from heaven, _I have glorified it, and will glorify it again_;\nthat is, in every step that has been, or shall be taken, in order to the\nbringing about the work of redemption, I have hallowed my name, and will\ndo it hereafter. And, in this respect, God\u2019s holiness was glorified in\nfinishing transgression, making an end of sin, bringing in everlasting\nrighteousness, and also in the impetration of redemption, by our great\nMediator and Surety.\n3. God has sanctified his name in all the methods which he has taken in\nthe application of redemption, in the various dispensations of his\nprovidence and grace towards his church and people; and in order\nhereunto, he has determined, that _if_ his _children forsake_ his _law,\nand walk not in_ his _judgements; if they break_ his _statutes and keep\nnot_ his _commandments, he will visit their transgression with the rod,\nand their iniquity with stripes_, Psal. lxxxix. 30, 32. And this is done\nto manifest the glory of his holiness: Though he is pleased to pardon\ntheir iniquity for the sake of Christ\u2019s righteousness; yet they shall\nknow, by experience, that he hates it; and therefore, whatever be his\ndesigns of grace, with respect to his redeemed ones, as to the event\nthereof, they shall, notwithstanding, find that their sin shall not\naltogether go unpunished, though this punishment be not of the same kind\nwith that which was suffered by Christ, from the hand of vindictive\njustice demanding satisfaction. Moreover, God has sanctified his name,\nin that he has connected sanctification with salvation; therefore he has\nsaid, _Without holiness no man shall see the Lord_, Heb. xii. 14. He\nfirst makes his people holy, and then happy; every mercy that he\nbestows, is a motive or inducement to holiness; and all the ordinances\nand means of grace are made subservient to answer this end.\nHere we may take occasion to observe the various methods, whereby God\nhas sanctified his name, in all his dealings with his church, in the\nvarious ages thereof, both before and since our Saviour\u2019s incarnation;\n(1.) Under the legal dispensation. The people, whom he chose out of all\nthe nations of the earth, and called them by his name; among whom he\ndesigned to magnify his perfections in such a way, as argued them to be\nthe peculiar objects of his regard above all others, as he designed to\nmake them high in name, in praise, and in honour; these are styled _an\nholy people_, Deut. xxvi. 19. and elsewhere, _holiness unto the Lord_,\nJer. ii. 3. and the wonderful things that he did for them in destroying\ntheir enemies, when he brought them out of Egyptian bondage, gave them\noccasion to celebrate his name, as a God _glorious in holiness, fearful\nin praises, doing wonders_, Exod. xv. 11. and the worship that he\nestablished among them was such, in which he expressly required\nholiness, both in heart and life; and when, at any time, they cast a\nreproach on his perfections, or defiled and debased his holy\ninstitutions, he testified his displeasure against them in the highest\ndegree: Of this we have various instances in the judgments which he has\nexecuted on particular persons for not performing what he had commanded,\nwith the greatest exactness, in those things which related to his\nworship: Thus when Nadab and Abihu _offered strange fire_, they were\n_devoured, before the Lord, by fire from heaven_, Lev. x. 1, 2. And,\nwhen David was bringing the ark of God to Jerusalem, we read, that Uzzah\nput forth his hand to take hold of it to prevent its falling, when\nshaken by the oxen, which he, doubtless, did with a good design, and it\nis therefore called an _error_, rather than a presumptuous sin; yet it\nis said, that _the anger of the Lord was kindled against him, so that he\nsmote him that he died_ by it, 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7. this being contrary to\nan express law which God had given, that the sons of Kohath should _bear\nthe ark, but they should not touch it, or any holy thing_ that was\ncovered, _lest they die_, Numb. iv. 15. And elsewhere we read, that some\nof the men of Bethshemesh, because they had _looked into the ark of the\nLord, were smitten, so that fifty thousand, and threescore and ten of\nthem died_, 1 Sam. vi. 19. inasmuch as God had forbidden that any should\nindulge their curiosity, so far as to look on the holy things on pain of\ndeath, Numb. iv. 20. And he also threatened the children of Israel with\ndeath, if any of them who were not appointed to minister in holy things,\ncame nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, so as to perform that\nservice which they were not sanctified or called to, since this was\nreckoned no other than an instance of profaneness in them. And if Aaron\nhimself, whose office was to go into the holiest of all to perform the\nyearly service, in which he was to make atonement for the sins of the\nwhole congregation, presumed to do this, at any other time but that day\nwhich God had appointed, he was to be punished with death, Lev. xvi. 2.\nAnd, when any thing was brought into the worship of God, contrary to\nwhat he had instituted, which was reckoned no other than a profaning it,\nGod hallowed his own name, by pouring forth his wrath on those who gave\noccasion to, or complied with it. Thus when Jeroboam, set up calves in\nBethel and Dan, _made priests of the lowest of the people, which were\nnot of the sons of Levi, ordained feasts_ like those which God had\nappointed; and, in many other instances, corrupted his worship, whereby\nthe people, who complied with him herein, were led aside from God, it is\nsaid, _This became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off,\nand to destroy it from off the face of the earth_, 1 Kings xii. 29-33.\ncompared with chap. xiii. 34. And when Ahaz _erected an altar, according\nto the pattern of that which he saw at Damascus, and sacrificed to the\ngods of the people_, from whom he had took the pattern thereof, this\nbrought _ruin_ on him and his kingdom, 2 Kings xvi. 10. compared with 2\nChron. xxviii. 23. And when Uzziah usurped the priest\u2019s office, by\noffering incense in the temple, God immediately testified his\ndispleasure against him, by _smiting him with leprosy_; whereby he was\nseparated from the congregation of the Lord, and rendered unfit to\ngovern his people to the day of his death, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 20, 21.\nAnd when holy men, in any instance, have not sanctified his name in the\neyes of the people, God has highly resented it: Thus when Moses and\nAaron _spake unadvisedly with their lips_, upon which account they are\nsaid _not to sanctify the name of God at the waters of Meribah_ he tells\nthem, that therefore they should not _bring the children of Israel into\nthe land of Canaan, but should die in the wilderness_, Numb. xx. 12.\nAnd, as we have many instances of the judgments of God on particular\npersons, for not sanctifying his name; so we have a public and visible\ndisplay of his holiness, in his dealings with the whole nation of\nIsrael, after their many revolts from him, when they served other gods,\nand not only corrupted, but laid aside his institutions, and were guilty\nof those vile abominations, which were inconsistent with the least\npretensions to holiness; God sanctified his own name, not only by\nreproving them by the prophets, but sending those many judgments which\nwere the forerunners of that desolation, which they had reason to\nexpect, and then by delivering them into the hand of those who carried\nthem captive, Israel into Assyria, and Judah into Babylon. This leads us\nto consider,\n(3.) How God has, and still continues to sanctify his name, under the\ngospel-dispensation. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Head and Saviour\nof his church, has, in his whole administration, set forth the glory of\nGod\u2019s holiness. This appears,\n[1.] In that he came into the world, with a commission from his\nFather, to engage in the work of our redemption; and accordingly he\nis said to have been _sanctified and sent into_ it for this very\npurpose, John x. 36. And, when he entered on his public ministry, he\nproduced his commission, and gave undeniable proofs that he was the\nMessiah, the person whom God the Father had _sealed_, and set over\nhis house to manage this great affair. Every miracle which he\nwrought, was a divine testimony for the confirmation of this truth,\nthat the gospel-dispensation took its rise from Christ our great\nMediator, and was a glorious display of the holiness of God; and the\nworld could not have the least ground to think they were imposed on,\nwhen they concluded that this Jesus was he that was to come into the\nworld (according to the predictions of all the holy prophets that\nwent before him) to erect that dispensation in which his own and his\nFather\u2019s glory were eminently to shine forth, and thereby the name\nof God was to be hallowed in a greater degree than it had ever been\nbefore.\n[2.] God sanctifies his own name under the gospel-dispensation, in\nraising Christ from the dead, after he had finished the work which he\ncame into the world about; in which respect it may be said of him,\nthat _for_, or after _the suffering of death, he was crowned with\nglory and honour_, Heb. ii. 9. and put into a capacity of applying the\nredemption which he had purchased, so that God the Father _glorified\nthe Son, that the Son also might glorify him_, John xvii. 1. That this\nwas not done till he had made a full satisfaction to the justice of\nGod, and thereby glorified his holiness to the utmost, has been\nalready considered; after this he entered upon his glory; and from\nthat time the gospel-dispensation might, by way of eminency, be said\nto begin, upon which occasion we may apply the words of the Psalmist,\n\u2018Sing unto the Lord ye saints of his, and give thanks at the\nremembrance of his holiness,\u2019 Psal. xxx. 4.\n[3.] God sanctified or hallowed his name in the method which he took in\nhis dealings with the Jewish nation, after Christ\u2019s ascension into\nheaven, which made way for the establishment of the gospel-church, and\nwas in itself an awful display of his holiness. It must be supposed,\nthat the treatment, which our Saviour met with from that nation, who\nmight be said herein to fill up the measure of their iniquities to the\nutmost, would be followed with some terrible displays of divine\nvengeance; and thus it was, as appeared by the utter ruin of their civil\nand religious liberties, which were the immediate consequence thereof;\nand this is a visible proof of the truth of the Christian religion, and\na very awful instance of God\u2019s being sanctified in them.\n[4.] The holiness of God farther appears in the methods which he took to\npropagate his gospel through the world, which was not to be done by\nmight or power, nor by those methods of secular policy, whereby civil\nstates are advanced; but by his Spirit, whereby they who were called,\nwere sufficiently qualified for this important work; who preached the\ngospel to all nations, according to the commission that was given them,\nconfirmed it by miracles, and were instrumental in gathering a people\nout of the world, that yielded themselves willing subjects to Christ, a\npeople called by his name, and subjected and entirely devoted to him.\n[5.] The holiness of God appears in all those doctrines which were\npreached, on which the faith of the church is built, and those\nordinances in which they were to express their subjection to Christ, and\nhope of salvation by him.\n_1st_, The doctrines of the gospel are all pure and holy; their great\ndesign is to set forth the harmony of the divine perfections, as\ndisplayed in the method of salvation by Jesus Christ; and to induce\nthose who are made partakers thereof, to serve him in holiness and\nrighteousness; and there is no gospel-doctrine that gives the least\ncountenance, or leads to licentiousness. None have a right to claim an\ninterest in Christ\u2019s righteousness, or to hope for that salvation which\nhe has purchased, but they who believe, and none can be said to believe,\nto the saving of the soul, but they who are enabled to perform all those\nduties, whereby it will appear, that they are an holy, as well as an\nhappy people.\n_2dly_, All those ordinances which Christ has instituted in the gospel,\nhave a tendency to set forth the holiness of God. What these are, has\nbeen considered under foregoing answers; as also, that they were\ninstituted by Christ, and that no creature has a right to invent any\nmodes of worship, or make any additions to his institutions, without\nincurring the guilt of depraving and sullying the beauty of\ngospel-worship[114]; and therefore all that I shall add under this head,\nis, that as these are set apart, and sanctified by God, to be means of\ngrace, and pledges of his presence; so they, who engage herein, are to\ndo it with this view, that they may be made holy in all conversation, as\nhe who hath called them is holy; and hereby God sanctifies his own name\nin the dispensations of his providence and grace.\nNow when we pray, _Hallowed be thy name_, with a particular view to what\nGod does in order hereunto, we adore him with an holy trembling, when we\nbehold the displays of his vindictive justice in punishing sin; and if\nhe sees it necessary to secure his own honour as the governor of the\nworld, so that without it he would not appear to be an holy God, nor the\nglory of his truth in those threatenings which he has denounced against\nsin, discovered, we are fully satisfied that all his ways are right, as\nacquiescing in his providence; and when his judgments are made manifest,\nwe say, _Hallowed be thy name_.\nHowever, when we put up this petition, with a particular view to God\u2019s\nexecuting his threatened vengeance on his enemies, several cautions are\nto be used. As,\n_1st_, We are to take heed that we do not do this out of hatred to the\npersons of any, for even they who are the monuments of divine justice,\nin whom God will be glorified as a sin-revenging judge, are the objects\nof our compassion, as they are miserable, how much soever that sin,\nwhich is the cause thereof, is to be hated and detested by us.\n_2dly_, We must always pray, that God would rather convert than destroy\nhis enemies, were it consistent with his purpose, which must be\naccomplished.\n_3dly_, We are never called to pray expressly for the damnation of any\none, how great an enemy soever he may have been to God or us; but\nrather, on the other hand, that God would glorify his name in his\nsalvation by Jesus Christ.\n_4thly_, If we pray that God would prevent those evils, which his church\nis exposed to, through the power or malice of its enemies, and, in order\nthereunto, that he would remove them out of the way, that they may not\nbe able to hurt them; this is to be considered only as an expedient for\ntheir safety, so that if one of the two must suffer ruin, we rather\ndesire that it may be his enemies than his people. We should be glad if\nGod would be pleased to bring about the welfare of his church some other\nway; but if not, when we pray that his name herein may be hallowed, it\nis principally with submission to his will, and an humble acknowledgment\nthat all his judgments are right. Thus concerning God\u2019s sanctifying his\nown name, as the subject-matter of our prayer in this petition.\nII. When we pray, _Hallowed be thy name_, we signify our desire that we\nmay be enabled to glorify God in every thing whereby he makes himself\nknown: In which there is something supposed, namely, that all men are\nutterly unable and disinclined, of themselves, to honour God aright, or\nto improve the various displays of his glory, which we behold in his\nword and works: This arises from the sinfulness of our nature, our\nalienation from, and opposition to an holy God; so that without the\nassistance of his Spirit, we are not able to do any thing that is good;\nand therefore we pray that God would make us holy, by rendering the\nmeans of grace conducive thereunto, that we may give him the glory due\nto his name.\nBut the thing more especially prayed for, with respect to ourselves and\nothers is, that we may be enabled to act suitably to the discoveries\nwhich God has made of his divine perfections; that we may adore his\nwisdom, power, and goodness in all he does, and worship him in all\nordinances in an holy manner, or, as the Psalmist expresses it, _Worship\nthe Lord in the beauty of holiness_, Psal. xxix. 2. We are also to\ndesire that all his holy institutions may be made means of grace to us,\nthat we may be sanctified by his truth, that beholding, as in a glass,\nthe glory of the Lord, we may be transformed into his image, consisting\nof holiness and righteousness, that we may have an high esteem of every\nthing whereby he makes himself known, and glorify him in thought, word,\nand deed.\n1. That we may never think or speak of the divine perfections, but with\na becoming reverence, and suitable acts of faith, agreeably thereunto;\nthat when he discovers himself as a God of infinite wisdom, we may not\nonly admire the traces and footsteps thereof, as they are visible in all\nhis works, but desire that we may thereby be made wise unto salvation.\nWhen we conceive of him as a God of infinite power, we are to desire\nthat he would enable us to have recourse to him, to work all that grace\nin us which can be effected by none but him with whom all things are\npossible. And, when he discovers himself as a God of infinite goodness\nand mercy, that we may be encouraged to hope that we shall be made\npartakers thereof, by his communicating to us the blessings that\naccompany salvation. And when he reveals himself as a God of infinite\nholiness, that we may be conformed to him, in some measure, so as to be\nenabled to hate and fly from every thing which is contrary thereunto;\nand that all sin, which contains in it a reflection on the purity of his\nnature, as well as a contempt of his authority, may be abhorred and\ndetested by us. And when he discovers himself as a God of infinite\nfaithfulness, a God that keepeth covenant and mercy, to them that fear\nhim, who has made many promises respecting their salvation, and will\ncertainly accomplish them, that we may depend upon, and put our trust in\nhim; that he would remember his good word unto us, upon which he hath\ncaused us to hope. When he makes himself known as our Creator, he the\nPotter, and we the clay, that we may be well pleased with all the\ndispensations of his providence towards us, as considering that he has a\nright to do what he will with his own. And when he reveals himself as\nour Redeemer, we are to pray, that we may be able to conclude, that we\nare bought with that invaluable price, which Christ gave for his elect:\nAnd if we have a comfortable hope concerning our interest therein, that\nwe may walk as becomes those who are hereby laid under the highest\nobligations to love him, and live to him.\n2. That we may worship him in a right manner, in all his ordinances:\nAccordingly, when he encourages us to attend to what he imparts therein,\nas in hearing, or reading the word, we pray, that we may be enabled to\nreceive the truth in the love thereof, and improve it as that which is\nnot _the word of men, but of God, which effectually worketh in them that\nbelieve_, 1 Thess. ii. 13. that we may esteem it as the only infallible\nrule of faith and duty; that we may be enabled to _hide it in our\nhearts, that we may not sin against him_, Psal. cxix. 11. And when we\nshould draw nigh to him in prayer, in which he requires, that we should\nsanctify his name as a God all-sufficient, on whom we depend for the\nsupply of our wants; or when we bless and praise him for what we have\nreceived, that the frame of our spirits may be suited to the\nspirituality and importance of the duty we are engaged in, that we may\nnot be like those whom our Saviour speaks of, who _draw nigh to him with\ntheir mouths, and honour him with their lips, while their heart is far\nfrom him_, Matt. xv. 8.\n3. As God makes himself known to us by his works, we are to beg of him,\nthat in the work of creation, we may see and admire his eternal power\nand Godhead, and in his works of common providence, as upholding and\ngoverning all things, we may take occasion to adore the manifold wisdom\nof God, his almighty power, and the inexhaustible treasure of his\ngoodness which appears therein: But more especially when he discovers\nhimself in the gracious dispensations of his providence, in those things\nwhich have an immediate reference to our salvation, we are to beg of\nhim, not only that he would enable us to look on them with admiration;\nbut, particularly, to express our love and thankfulness to Christ our\ngreat Mediator and Advocate, as those who humbly trust and hope that we\nhave an interest in him by faith. Thus concerning our requesting these\nthings for ourselves.\nWe might here observe something concerning our doing it for others, for\nwhom we are to pray, that they may have the highest esteem for God in\nall those respects and consequently that his name may be known\nthroughout the whole world, not barely as the God of nature, but as he\nhas revealed himself in his word; and therefore we are to pray, that the\nway of salvation, by Christ, may be known, and his name adored and\nmagnified as a Redeemer and Saviour in those parts of the world, which\nare, at present, destitute of gospel-light; and that, where the word is\npreached, it may be received with faith and love, that they who are\ncalled Christians may walk more becoming that relation which they stand\nin to the blessed Jesus. Thus concerning the subject-matter of our\nrequests in this petition, respecting God\u2019s enabling us and others, to\nglorify him in every thing by which he makes himself known.\nThere are two things inferred from hence in the close of this answer.\n(1.) That when we pray, that God would sanctify his name, it is, in\neffect, to desire that he would prevent and remove every thing which is\ndishonourable to it. Some things tend to cast so great a reproach on the\nname of God, that sinners are hereby hardened in their opposition to\nhim; as David, by his sin, is said to have _given great occasion to the\nenemies of the Lord to blaspheme_, 2 Sam. xii. 14. And God is highly\ndishonoured by those open and scandalous sins which are committed by\nsuch as make a profession of religion; whereby it appears that they are\nstrangers to the power thereof, and lay a stumbling-block in the way of\nthose who are too ready to take an estimate of the ways of God, from the\nconversation of them, who in words profess, but in works deny him. Some\ndeny the very being, perfections and providence of God, or being\nignorant of him, worship they know not what; and there are others who\ntreat things sacred with profaneness and scurrility; and, instead of\nsanctifying the name of God, openly blaspheme and cast a contempt on all\nhis sacred institutions. Therefore,\n[1.] We are to pray, that God would prevent and remove atheism. When\npersons not only act as though there were no God, but, with blasphemy,\nand daring insolence, express this in words: These are generally\nhardened in their iniquities, and bid defiance to his justice; as though\nthey were, as it is said of the Leviathan, _made without fear_, Job xii.\n33. and were not apprehensive of any ill consequences that will ensue\nhereupon. These are not to be convinced by arguments, though there is\nnothing that occurs in the works of creation and providence, but what\nmight confute and put them to silence, did they duly attend to it:\nTherefore we are to pray, that God would assert his divine being and\nperfections, and give them some convincing proof thereof, by impressing\nthe dread and terror of his wrath upon their consciences, that hereby\nthey may learn not to blaspheme; or that he would give them that\ninternal light, by which they may be brought to adore and sanctify his\nname. And whereas there are multitudes of practical atheists, who behave\nthemselves as though there were no God to observe what they do, or\npunish them for it, therefore they presumptuously conclude, that they\nmay rebel without being called to an account; we are to pray, that God,\nby his grace, would prevent and fence against prevailing impiety, by\nworking a thorough reformation in the hearts of men, to the end that\npractical godliness may be promoted, and thereby he may be glorified.\n[2.] We are to pray, that God would prevent and remove that ignorance\nwhich is inconsistent with persons sanctifying his name. This respects,\nmore especially the not knowing or enquiring into those great doctrines,\nwhich are of the highest importance, and more directly tend to the\nadvancing the glory of God, and the obtaining eternal life. In these who\nare destitute of divine revelation, this ignorance is invincible;\ntherefore, with respect to such, we are to pray, that God would grant to\nthem the means of grace, by sending his gospel among them; that they who\nsit in darkness, and in the region and shadow of death, may have a\nglorious light shining about them, whereby they may be made acquainted\nwith the way of salvation by Jesus Christ: But there are others who sit\nunder the sound of the gospel, and yet remain strangers to the great\ndoctrines thereof, who have no love to the truth, and act as though it\ndid not belong to them, to study the scriptures; these are wilfully\nignorant, like those who are said to _hate knowledge, and not to choose\nthe fear of the Lord_, Prov. i. 29. We are to pray, with regard to such,\nthat in order to their sanctifying the name of God, they may be led into\nthe knowledge of those great doctrines, in which the glory of the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, is set forth, as it is in the work of\nredemption by Christ, together with the way in which righteousness and\nlife may be attained; and that they may know what are those graces which\nare inseparably connected with, and necessary to salvation.\n[3.] We are to pray, that God would prevent or remove idolatry; and that\neither such as is more gross and practised by the Heathen and others,\nwho give that worship to creatures, that is due to God alone; or else,\nthat idolatry which may be observed in the hearts and lives of many, who\nthough they abhor the grosser acts thereof, are, nevertheless, guilty of\nthis sin, in that they love the creature more than God. This is what we\nall are either chargeable with, or in danger of, which is directly\ncontrary to our sanctifying the name of God: Therefore we are to pray,\nwith respect to the former, that he would convince them what they\nfalsely call worship, is a dishonour to, and abhorred by him; and, with\nrespect to the latter, that he deserves our supreme love, and will not\nadmit of any thing to stand in competition with him; and that he would\nenable us to love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength: And,\nin order hereunto, that he would deliver us from the iniquity of\ncovetousness, or those inordinate affections, whereby we are inclined\nimmoderately to pursue after the world, which is inconsistent with an\nheavenly conversation; and that we may be kept from self-seeking, or\ntrusting to our own righteousness for justification, or giving that\nglory to any other which is due to God alone.\n[4.] We are also to pray for the preventing and removal of that\nprofaneness which is contrary to the sanctifying the name of God; that\npersons may not give themselves that liberty, which many do, to treat\nthings sacred in a common way, or make religion the subject of wit and\ndrollery; which is very disgustful to the ears of those who have an awe\nof God on their spirits, and altogether unbecoming persons professing\ngodliness. We are also to beg, that God would deliver us from engaging\nin religious duties in a formal way, as though his name were to be\nsanctified only by an external shew or appearance of religion, without\nthat internal frame or disposition of heart which is required in all\nthose who draw nigh to him in an holy manner; and also that we may be\nkept from making any innovation in the worship of God, and thereby\nprofane it, while we pretend to add to the beauty thereof, and its\nacceptableness in his sight; which is so far from hallowing his name,\nthat it is highly provoking to him.\n(2.) Another thing inferred from the account we have had of those\nmethods by which the name of God is said to be sanctified, is, that we\nare to beg of him, that, by his overruling providence, he would direct\nand dispose of all things to his own glory. This is his immediate work;\nwithout which his name would not be sanctified by his creatures. And it\nconsists in his bringing a revenue of glory to himself, out of those\nthings that seem to be subversive of it. It is one of the glories of\nprovidence, that hereby God brings good out of evil, and renders some\nthings subservient to his interest, which, in themselves, have a\ntendency to overthrow it.\nThis may be observed in several things consequent upon the sins and\npersecutions of the church. Thus when Israel revolted from God, by\nmaking the golden calf in the wilderness, he first humbled them greatly\nfor it, and then spirited them with zeal to execute judgment on those\nwho did not repent of it; and afterwards, when, at Moses\u2019s intreaty, he\nforgave this sin, he filled them with a zeal for the establishing his\nworship equal to that which had been expressed before in profaning his\nname; so that, as they then parted with their golden ear-rings, to make\nthe idol which they worshipped, Exod. xxxii. 2, 3. now they make a very\nlarge contribution for the building of the tabernacle, chap. xxxv.\n21-29. and xxxvi. 5, 6. And when, by their abominable idolatry, they had\nprovoked God to give them into the hands of those that carried them\ncaptive into Babylon: This was so far over-ruled by his providence, as\nthat they were never guilty of idolatry afterwards, whatever temptations\nthey had to it therein; so that when they were returned from captivity,\nhow much soever they were chargeable with want of zeal for the building\nthe temple, and setting up public worship in it, Hag. i. 9. or, for many\nother crimes, in that the priests sought their secular interest rather\nthan the glory of God, in performing several branches of their office in\na profane manner, and thereby rendering the public worship contemptible,\nand offering the _refuse of the flock_ in sacrifice to God, for which\nthey were reproved by him, Mal. i. 10. _& seq._ yet we never find them\nreproved for idolatry after their captivity. This some think to be the\nmeaning of that vision which the prophet Zechariah had of the woman who\nwas called _wickedness, sitting the midst of Ephah_; and this being\n_born_ by _two women_ that _had wings like the wings of a stork_ into\n_the land of Shinar_, viz. Chaldea, to build an house for it, Zech. v.\n7,-11. so that it might there be _established, and set upon her own\nbase_, intimating that the idolatry of the Heathen should not spread\nitself among the Israelites as it had done, but be confined to those\nparts of the world which had set it up before; and therefore this is\nconsidered as what was the proper seat thereof, and not the church. And\nthis seems also to be foretold by the prophet Hosea, when he says, that\n_the children of Israel_, after they had _been many days without a king,\nwithout a priest, and without a sacrifice_; adds, that _they should be\nwithout an image_, Hos. iii. 4. The former was an affliction, and\ndenotes, that they should have their civil and religious state broken\nand discontinued; the latter seems to intimate, that providence would so\nfar over-rule this, that they should be disinclined and averse to\nidolatry, as they are at this day, though, in other respects, altogether\nalienated from God.\nAnd all the persecutions which the church has met with from its enemies,\nwith a design to bring about its ruin and destruction, have been\nover-ruled for the furtherance of the gospel. Thus when Saul, before his\nconversion, _made havock of the church, entering into every house, and\nhaling men and women, committed them to prison_; so that _a great\npersecution_ was raised against it by his instigation; and the people of\nGod could not meet safely at Jerusalem, but were _scattered abroad\nthroughout the regions of Judea and Samaria_, Acts viii. 1,-5. this was\nordered, by the providence of God, for the greater spread of the gospel,\nso that the Samaritans received the word of God. And in following ages,\nwe may observe, that whatever attempts have been made against the\ninterest of Christ in the world, they have, contrary to the design of\nhis enemies, been made subservient to the promoting its greater\nadvancement, as some have observed, that the blood of the martyrs has\nbeen the seed of the church; and herein the Psalmist\u2019s prediction has\nbeen fulfilled, _Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee_, and _the\nremainder of wrath shalt thou restrain_, Psal. lxxvi. 10. and\noftentimes, when the gospel has, like the sea, lost ground in one part\nof the world, it has gained it in another.\nMoreover, we may observe, that God glorifies his holiness by over-ruling\nthe falls and miscarriages of particular believers, as hereby they are\nmade more humble, watchful, and circumspect for the future; and, when\nrestored from their backslidings, put upon admiring his grace, and\nexcited to thankfulness, which the nature of the thing requires. They\nalso take occasion from hence, to warn others, lest they be entangled in\nthe same snare, out of which they have escaped; or, if fallen, to\nrecommend to them those methods of divine grace where they have been\nrecovered. This improvement the Psalmist made of the dealings of God\nwith him, when he speaks of his being _brought out of an horrible pit,\nout of the miry clay; his feet set upon a rock, and his goings\nestablished_; he adds, _many shall see it and fear, and shall trust in\nthe Lord_, Psal. xl. 2, 3. And when God\u2019s people have been greatly\ndejected under the troubles they have met with; he has over-ruled this\nfor the restoring comforts to them, and then enabling them to comfort\nothers, in like afflictions, which, as the apostle expresses it,\n_redounds to their consolation and salvation_, 2 Cor. i. 6. Thus\nconcerning the first petition of the Lord\u2019s prayer, as it is explained\nin the answer before us.\nWe shall now consider how it may be reduced into practice, that we may\nbe directed in our addressing ourselves to God in those things that\nconcern the glory of his name. Accordingly, it is as though we should\nsay, \u201cWe adore thee, O our God, that thou hast been pleased to make such\ndiscoveries of thyself to thy people, as thou hast done in all ages; and\nin particular, we give thanks at the remembrance of thine holiness: Thou\nmightest, indeed, have glorified thy name in the everlasting destruction\nof the whole race of fallen man; but thou hast sanctified thy name, and\nadvanced thy perfections in bringing about the work of our redemption by\na Mediator, in which justice and mercy are met together, righteousness\nand peace have embraced each other; and thou hast hereby a greater\nrevenue of glory redounding to thy name, than by all thine other works,\nor than could have been brought to thee by the united services of the\nmost excellent creatures. We also bless thee that thou hast been pleased\nto make those bright discoveries of thyself in thy word, which thou hast\nmagnified above all thy name; that thou hast given us thy gospel, and\nall the ordinances and means of grace, that hereby thou mayest gather to\nthyself a people out of the world, who might be holy in all\nconversation, as thou who hast called them art holy. We confess, that we\nhave not sanctified thy name as we ought, nor attended on thine\nordinances with that reverence and holy fear that is due to thy divine\nMajesty, for which thou hast testified thy displeasure against us, in\nwithdrawing thy presence from thine own institutions. We acknowledge\nthat herein thou art righteous, and hast punished us less than our\niniquities have deserved; for thou mightest have removed thy candlestick\nout of its place, or taken thine ordinances from us, as thou hast done\nfrom many, who once worshipped thee, as we do at this day, but are now\nwholly estranged from thee. Revive thy work, O Lord, we beseech thee,\nand hereby sanctify thy great name: Let thy word have free course, and\nbe glorified: Set up thy standard against every thing that opposes thine\ninterest in the world; send forth thy light and thy truth, whereby the\nignorant may be instructed in the way of salvation by Christ. Give a\ncheck to that atheism, profaneness, and irreligion that abounds among a\nprofessing people; and let all the dispensations of thy providence have\na tendency to bring about the work of reformation, that thereby thou\nmayest be glorified, and thy people enabled, more and more, to sanctify\nthee in every thing, whereby thou makest thyself known.\u201d\nFootnote 114:\n  _See Quest. CLIV. page 79._\n    QUEST. CXCI. _What do we pray for in the second petition?_\n    ANSW. In the second petition, [which is, _Thy kingdom come_,]\n    acknowledging ourselves, and all mankind to be, by nature, under the\n    dominion of sin and Satan; we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan\n    may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the\n    Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in, the church\n    furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from\n    corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate,\n    that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed and made\n    effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and\n    the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are\n    already converted; that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and\n    hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for\n    ever; and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his\n    power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.\nIn this petition there are,\nI. Some things supposed, relating to the sovereignty and dominion of God\nover men, and the position that it meets with, which, how great soever\nit be, shall not hinder its advancement in the world.\nII. There are several things which we are directed to pray for, relating\nthereunto.\nI. As to those things that are supposed, we may consider,\n1. That God is a great and glorious King. This is the necessary result\nof his being the Creator of all things; from whence arises an universal\npropriety in them, and a right to dispose of them at his pleasure, in\nthe methods of his providence, so that he can no more lose his right to\ngovern the world, than he can cease to be God. It may be farther\nobserved, that the subjects governed are intelligent creatures; for,\nthough all other things are upheld by him, and made use of to fulfil his\npleasure; yet they cannot be said to be under a law, or the subjects of\nmoral government. Therefore God is more especially related to angels and\nmen as their King; and as to that branch of his government, which is\nexercised in this lower world, it principally respects men. Now when God\nis said to be their King, the exercise of his dominion is variously\nconsidered, according to the different circumstances in which they are.\n(1.) As men, they are the subjects of his providential kingdom; in which\nrespect they are not only the objects of his care and common goodness,\nwhich extends itself, as the Psalmist says, to _all his works_, Psal.\ncxlv. 9. or, as he _gives to all, life and breath, and all things_, Acts\nxvii. 25. But, whatever he does in the world, is, some way or other,\ndesigned for their use or advantage, either as subservient to their\nhappiness, or as objects, in which they behold the glory of his divine\nperfections that shines forth therein; and, in this respect, as the God\nof nature, he is King over the whole world, whose glory infinitely\nsurpasses that of the greatest monarch on earth. When men are said to\nhave dominion, they derive it from his will and providence: It is also\nlimited; whereas his is universal. And they are accountable to him for\nthe administration of that authority, which he commits to them: But he\ngiveth no account of his matters to any one; inasmuch as there is none\nsuperior to him. Moreover, there are many flaws and imperfections in the\ngovernment of the best kings on earth; because their wisdom, holiness,\npower, and justice are imperfect; and sometimes the most desirable ends\nare not attained thereby: But, on the other hand, the divine government\nis such as tends to set forth God\u2019s glorious perfections, and answer the\nhighest ends, to wit, the advancement of his own name, in promoting the\nwelfare of his creatures. We may also observe, that the greatest\npotentates on earth, are not only mortal, but their government is often\nsubject to change, and liable to be resisted and controuled, by other\nkings like themselves: Whereas God has none equal with him; therefore\nhis government cannot be controuled; and being all-sufficient, he cannot\nbe destitute of what is necessary to fulfil his purpose, or advance his\nglory. Again, none but God has a right to give laws to the consciences\nof men; and, indeed, no government is properly spiritual, and such as\nreaches the heart like his; nor does the honour that is due to any\nother, contain in it, the least right to divine worship or adoration\nwhich belongs only to him.\n(2.) As God has a peculiar people in the world, who are the objects of\nhis grace, these are the subjects of Christ\u2019s mediatorial kingdom, in\nwhich respect he is styled King of saints. This is not only a divine\nhonour which we ascribe to him; but it belongs to him in particular as\nour Redeemer: and so it is to be understood whenever he is called a King\nin scripture, as denoting that kingdom which he has received from his\nFather; whereas his right to govern the world, which is styled his\nprovidential kingdom, necessarily belongs to him as God, and is no more\nconferred upon him by the will of his Father, than his divine nature or\npersonality: We do not therefore pray in this petition, that he would\ngovern the world; for we may all well address ourselves to him, that he\nwould be an infinite Sovereign, and act agreeably to his divine nature,\nwhich he cannot but be and do. But the kingdom which is here intended,\nwhich we have a more immediate regard to, as the subject-matter of this\npetition, is, that which belongs to him as Mediator, which he received\nfrom the Father; who is said, in this respect, to have _set him_ as _his\nKing upon his holy hill of Zion_, Psal. ii. 6. concerning whom it was\nforetold, that _the government_ should _be upon his shoulder_, Isa. ix.\n6. This is therefore not only an honour, but an office which he is\ninvested with, having received a commission from the Father, to execute\nit; and whenever he is said to do any thing in the methods of his\nprovidence, which have an immediate reference to the salvation of his\npeople, it contains in it the exercise of his dominion, or is a branch\nof the glory of his Mediatorial kingdom; and this is what we have a\npeculiar regard to, when we desire that his kingdom may come. In this\nrespect we pray, that all the dispensations of his providence may tend\nto the application of that redemption which is purchased for his people;\nand in particular, that he would subdue them to himself, take possession\nof their hearts, govern them by his laws, defend them by his power,\nrestrain and conquer all their enemies, and, at last, admit them to\ninherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world.\nIn the New Testament Christ\u2019s kingdom is generally taken for the\ngospel-dispensation; in which he is represented as sitting on a throne\nof grace, and sinners are invited to come and bow down before him, and\nreceive the blessings that he encourages them to expect, as their\nmerciful Sovereign. This kingdom of grace shall not cease to be\nadministered by him, till all his redeemed ones are made willing, in the\nday of his power, and, pursuant thereunto, brought into a better world;\nand then it will receive another denomination, as called, the kingdom of\nheaven. It is true, the gospel-dispensation is often so called in the\nNew Testament, as it respects the administration of his gracious\ngovernment begun and carried on in this world; whereas, in heaven, it\nwill be administered in a most glorious manner, agreeably to that state\nof perfection to which his saints shall be brought; But these things\nhaving been particularly insisted on under a foregoing answer, in which\nChrist\u2019s Kingly office was explained[115]; we shall pass them over at\npresent, and proceed to consider another thing supposed in this\npetition, _viz._\n2. That though God be the only supreme and lawful Sovereign, yet there\nare some who pretend to stand in competition with, and usurp that\ndominion which belongs only to him. Accordingly man no sooner rebelled\nagainst him, but he was under the dominion of sin, and was inclined to\nserve divers lusts and pleasures, and willingly gave himself over as a\nvassal of Satan, who, from that time, was styled _the prince_, or god\n_of this world, the spirit that worketh in the children of\ndisobedience_, John xii. 31. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Eph. ii. 2. We must not\nsuppose that he has the least right to this kingdom, or dominion, in\nwhich he sets himself against the divine government; yet sinners who\nrebel against God, are said to be Satan\u2019s subjects. Where the gospel is\nnot preached, he reigns without controul; and false churches, that\noppose the faith contained therein, are called, _Synagogues of Satan_,\nRev. ii. 9. and, indeed, in all those places, where Christ\u2019s kingdom of\ngrace doth not extend itself, there persons are said to be subjects of\nSatan\u2019s kingdom; which is opposed to it. These two kingdoms divide the\nworld; therefore, when we pray, that Christ\u2019s kingdom may be advanced,\nthis includes in it an earnest desire, that whatsoever has a tendency to\noppose it, may be ruined and destroyed. And this leads us to consider,\nII. What we are to pray for in this petition. Here let it be observed,\nthat we are not to pray, that God would govern the world, or exercise\nhis providential kingdom, for that he cannot but do; neither are we to\npray that Christ\u2019s kingdom may come, in the same sense in which the\nchurch prayed for it, before the gospel-dispensation, which is called\nhis kingdom, was erected; since that would be, in effect, to deny that\nthere is such a kingdom; or, that our Saviour has a church, in which he\nexercises his government in the world: Nevertheless, we are to pray,\nthat God would eminently display his perfections for the good of his\npeople, in his providential government of the world, and over-rule all\nthe dispensations thereof, for the advancement of his own name, and the\nhappiness of his church and people; and though (as we have but now\nobserved) we are not to pray that the gospel-dispensation may be\nerected; yet we are to pray that Christ\u2019s spiritual kingdom may be\nfarther extended, subjects daily brought into it, and the blessed fruits\nand effects thereof, which tend to promote his own glory, and his\npeople\u2019s happiness may be abundantly experienced by them: But, that we\nmay more particularly explain the several things contained in this\nanswer, which respect the subject-matter of our prayers, when we say,\n_Thy kingdom come_, we express our desire,\n1. That the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed: This Christ will\ncertainly do in his own time, inasmuch as it is directly opposite to his\nkingdom. The Devil\u2019s chief design is to draw Christ\u2019s subjects off from\ntheir allegiance to him: Therefore he will certainly plead his own\ncause, that his enemies may not take occasion to insult him, as though\nthey had gained a victory over the Almighty. Moreover, his holiness and\njustice obliges him to do this; for since Satan\u2019s kingdom is supported\nby sin\u2019s gaining strength, and this tends to cast a reproach on the\ndivine perfections; it must be destroyed. And to this we may add, that\nevery one who is converted, is, (as the apostle says) _delivered from\nthe power of darkness, and delivered into the kingdom of God\u2019s dear\nSon_, Col. i. 13. Therefore we pray, that Christ\u2019s interest may flourish\nin the world, which includes in it a desire, that whatsoever is contrary\nto it, may be thrown down.\nThere are various steps and degrees whereby Satan\u2019s kingdom has been,\nand shall be weakened, till it shall be, at last, wholly destroyed.\n(1.) It met with a great shock when the first gospel promise was given\nto Adam in paradise, relating to the _seed of the woman bruising the\nserpent\u2019s head_, Gen. iii. 15. or Christ\u2019s coming to defeat this\ndeep-laid design against the interest of God in the world, by giving him\na total defeat to him that was at the head thereof. Till this promise\nwas given, there could not be the least hope of salvation for fallen\nman; whose condition was not only deplorable, but desperate, and, in all\nappearance, remediless; but by this first display of divine grace, a\ndoor of hope was opened, and Satan\u2019s kingdom began to be broken and\ndemolished.\n(2.) It met with a farther shock, when men began to lay hold of, and\ntake encouragement from this promise, and public worship was set up in\nthe world; and the coming of the Messiah, who was expected to appear in\nour nature, and in the fulness of time, to destroy the works of the\nDevil, was farther made known to the church, and clearer intimations\ngiven of the glory of his Person, and the offices he was to execute, by\nwhich means he was regarded as the object of their faith, who waited\nfor, and earnestly desired the gospel-day, when all the types and\nprophesies relating thereunto, should have their accomplishment.\n(3.) Satan\u2019s kingdom met with a very great defeat, when Christ, who was\nthe desire of all nations, took our nature, and dwelt among us, and, in\nthe whole course of his ministry, discovered the way of salvation to his\npeople, more clearly than it had been in former ages, and finished the\nwork of redemption in his death, whereby he paid an infinite price for\nhis elect, to divine justice; and at the same time, _destroyed him that\nhad the power of death, that is the Devil_, Heb. ii. 14. or, as it is\nexpressed elsewhere, _spoiled principalities, and powers, openly\ntriumphing over them in his cross_, Col. ii. 17. And when he was raised\nfrom the dead, whereby the work that he came about was brought to\nperfection, Satan\u2019s kingdom was so effectually destroyed, that he shall\nnot be able to maintain that dominion which he had over them, who before\nwere his vassals, but are now become Christ\u2019s subjects by right of\nredemption.\n(4.) The success of the gospel, in the various ages since our Saviour\nwas here on earth; his gathering and building up his church, defeating\nall the attempts of his enemies, who have threatened its ruin; so that\nthe gates of hell have not been able to prevail against it; and its\nhaving been favoured with his special presence, and the means of grace\nbestowed upon, and continued to it, together with the various instances\nof that success that has attended them, have all had a tendency to\nweaken and destroy Satan\u2019s kingdom.\n(5.) All the victories that believers are enabled to obtain over sin,\nand Satan\u2019s temptations; and all the graces that they have exercised,\nand comforts that they have experienced, are a gradual weakening of\nSatan\u2019s kingdom, though the victory over him, at present, be not\ncomplete, inasmuch as he has too great an interest in the hearts of\nGod\u2019s people, through the remainders of corruption; yet they shall, at\nlast, be made more than conquerors over him; and the fruits and\nconsequences of the victory that Christ has obtained over him, shall be\nperfectly applied.\n2. In desiring that Christ\u2019s kingdom may come, we pray that the gospel\nmay be propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, and the\nfulness of the Gentiles brought in. When the gospel-dispensation,\nwhich is Christ\u2019s kingdom was first erected; the apostles, who were\nemployed in this important work, were to fulfil that commission which\nhe gave them, in preaching the gospel to all nations, which\naccordingly they did, and, by the extraordinary hand of God that\nattended it, it was spread, in a short space of time through a\nconsiderable part of the world; many of the Jews were called, among\nwhom all that were ordained to eternal life, believed; and as for the\nGentiles, who, before this, were unacquainted with the way of\nsalvation, they had Christ preached to them, and many churches were\ngathered from among them; by which means his kingdom was advanced, and\na foundation laid, for the propagation and flourishing state of the\ngospel in all succeeding ages, the effects whereof are experienced at\nthis day. Therefore, when this petition relating to the coming of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom, was used by those who lived at this time, when our\nSaviour gave this direction about it; that which was principally\nintended thereby, was, that Christ might be preached to the Gentiles,\nand believed on in the world; that the veil, or the face of the\ncovering that was spread over all nations, might be taken away, and\nthe way of salvation might be known by them, who, before this, sat in\nthe region and shadow of death: Though, when it is used by us, we\nsignify our desire that this invaluable blessing may be still\ncontinued, and the promises relating to the greater success thereof,\nmay have a more full accomplishment. The apostles, indeed, in\nexecuting their commission, are said to have preached the gospel to\nall nations, that is, to a very considerable part of the heathen\nworld: However, it does not appear that every individual nation of the\nworld has been yet favoured with this privilege; and therefore, what\nwas foretold concerning the _earth\u2019s being full of the knowledge of\nthe Lord, as the waters cover the sea_, Isa. xi. 9. and other\npredictions to the like purpose, do not seem hitherto to have had\ntheir full accomplishment[116]. And it is very evident, that many\nnations, who once had the gospel preached to them by the apostles, are\nnow wholly destitute of it. And though it is true, a considerable\nnumber of the Jews at first, believed in Christ; yet the greatest part\nof that nation were cast off, and all remain, at this day, strangers\nand enemies to him: Therefore we cannot but suppose, that those\nprophecies which respect their conversion, in the latter day, together\nwith the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, shall be more\neminently accomplished than they have hitherto been[117]. This is\ntherefore what we are to pray for when we say, _Thy kingdom come_;\nand, in order thereto, we are to be importunate with God,\n(1.) That his interest may be still maintained, and the glory may not\ndepart from his church; but that it may still enjoy the ordinances of\nhis grace, and those privileges by which it is distinguished from the\nworld, notwithstanding all the attempts of hell, and persecuting powers\nto undermine and overthrow it. And, though it be brought to a very low\nebb at this day, that he would revive his work in the midst of the\nyears, till he be pleased to cause that glorious day to dawn, which his\npeople are now desiring, waiting and hoping for; and in order hereunto,\nwe are to pray,\n(2.) That there may be a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, which is\nabsolutely necessary to the advancement of Christ\u2019s kingdom; a farther\nreformation of the church, and a greater spread of the gospel in those\nnations where it is not known at present.\n(3.) We are to pray, that the church may be furnished with all\ngospel-officers and ordinances that are necessary hereunto. Not that we\nare to pray, that new ordinances may be instituted, which, at present,\nare not known, which we have no warrant from scripture to expect; but\nthat God, by the good hand of his providence, would send his ordinances,\nnamely, the word, sacraments and prayer, which are his outward and\nordinary means of salvation, into those parts of the world, which are,\nat present, strangers to them. Accordingly we are to pray,\n[1.] That whereever God has a people who thirst after the word, but\nenjoy not the preaching thereof, especially with that zeal and clearness\nas is necessary to their spiritual advantage and edification in Christ,\nthat he would send faithful labourers among them, that their souls may\nnot pine, starve, and be in danger of perishing, for lack of knowledge.\n[2.] That where the word of God has been preached with success, so that\nmany believe in Christ, who, nevertheless, have not the advantage of\nwalking together, for their mutual edification, in a church-relation,\nthat God would over-rule and order matters so, that they who have given\nup themselves to the Lord, may encourage and strengthen the hands of one\nanother, by joining together in religious societies, owning Christ\u2019s\nkingly government, and worshipping him in all those ordinances which he\nhas given to his churches. And,\n[3.] That there may be proper officers, spirited, qualified, and raised\nup, in subserviency thereunto; that there may be a constant supply of\n_pastors according to his heart, which shall feed with knowledge and\nunderstanding_, Jer. iii. 15. These are necessary to the well-being of a\nchurch; and though extraordinary gifts are not to be expected, in like\nmanner as God was pleased to bestow them on his apostles in the first\nplanting of the gospel; yet there are some gifts which Christ has\npurchased, and we are to pray for, that are particularly adapted to the\nfurnishing them, who are called to minister as officers in his churches,\nfor the promoting his cause and interest therein, and thereby advancing\nhis spiritual kingdom.\n(4.) We are to pray, that the church may be purged from those\ncorruptions that tend to defile, and are a great reproach to it, and\nvery unbecoming the relation that it stands in to Christ. It is not,\nindeed, to be supposed, that any church in the world, is so pure that\nthere are no corruptions in it, which appear to the eye of the\nheart-searching God: But some are visible to the world, being notorious\nand inconsistent, not only with the purity, but, if allowed of, with the\nvery being of a church of Christ; which are matter of lamentation to the\ngodly, and a reproach to those who are chargeable therewith; and, as the\napostle styles them, _a root of bitterness springing up and troubling_\nthem, whereby many are _defiled_, Heb. xii. 15. These corruptions are\neither such as respect the faith, or conversation of professors.\n[1.] As to what respects corruption in matters of faith. These consist\nin the denying the most important doctrines, which are necessary to be\nknown and believed, in order to our salvation; and with respect\nhereunto, we are to pray, that Christians may not depart from the faith,\nwhich was once delivered to the saints, being _carried about with divers\nand strange doctrines_, chap. xiii. 9. or, as it is said elsewhere,\n_soon removed from him that called them into the grace of Christ unto\nanother gospel_, Gal. i. 6. We are also to pray, that he would root out\nthose errors and heresies which are inconsistent with the church\u2019s\npurity; and have a greater tendency to bring about its ruin than all the\npersecutions it can meet with from its most enraged enemies.\n[2.] There are other corruptions that more especially respect the\nconversation of those who are called Christians, that walk not as\nbecomes the gospel of Christ, by which means there is no visible\ndifference between the church and the world: Thus the apostle tells the\nchurch at Corinth, 1 Cor. iii. 3. that some of them were _carnal and\nwalked as men_; that is, notwithstanding the profession of religion that\nthey made, in their conversation they differed little from the men of\nthe world: And he also speaks of others who _profess that they know God,\nbut in works deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and unto every\ngood work reprobate_, Tit. i. 16. Now, with respect to these, we are to\npray, that their profession may be adorned by a holy life; that none may\ncast a stumbling-block in the way of these who watch for their haltings,\nand are glad to take all opportunities to improve the falls and\nmiscarriages of Christians against them; and that God, by his\nprovidence, or rather, by his Spirit, poured out from on high, would\nrefine and purify his church, _purge away the dross, and take away all\nthe tin_, as the prophet expresses it, Isa. i. 25.\n(5.) We are farther to pray, that the ordinances of Christ may be purely\nadministered, without any mixture of human inventions, which tend to\ndebase, and are far from adding any beauty or glory to them. It is\nnatural, indeed, for man to be fond of, and pleased with, those\nordinances, which take their rise from himself; but God, who is jealous\nfor the purity of his own worship, can in no wise approve of them, and\nthey are so far from advancing Christ\u2019s kingdom, that God reckons it no\nother than _setting our threshold by his thresholds_, and _our post by\nhis_, which he calls _a defiling his holy name, by the abominations\nwhich they_ herein _commit_, which will be the ground and reason of his\n_consuming them in his anger_, Ezek. xliii. 8. Therefore, we are to\npray, that whatever intrudes itself into any branch of the worship of\nGod, as not receiving any warrant or sanction from himself, may be\nremoved out of the way, that hereby his church may be reformed, and its\ndestruction prevented.\n(6.) We are to pray, that the church may be encouraged by civil\nmagistrates, that their government may be subservient to Christ\u2019s\nspiritual kingdom; that, according to God\u2019s promise, _kings may be_ its\n_nursing fathers, and their queens_ its _nursing mothers_, Isa. xlix.\n23. that, by this means, it may have peace and safety, and not be\nexposed, as it has often been, to the rage and fury of persecuting\npowers; and also, that magistrates may be guardians, not only of the\ncivil, but religious liberties of their subjects, which is necessary to\ncomplete the happiness of a nation, and bring down many blessings from\nGod upon it. We are also to pray, that God would not only incline them\nto advance religion, by rendering the administration of civil\ngovernment, subservient thereunto, but that, by a steady adherence to it\nthemselves, they may strengthen the hands of the faithful, and encourage\nmany others to embrace it: And if, on the other hand, they are disposed\nto exercise their power, in such a way, as tends to the discountenancing\nreligion, and weakening the hands of those who profess it; we are to\npray, that God would over-rule their counsels, and incline them to deal\nfavourably with those who desire stedfastly to adhere to it.\n(7.) We are taught, in this petition, to pray, that the means of grace\nmay be made effectual to the converting of sinners, and to the\nconfirming, comforting, and building up of believers; that a great and\neffectual door may be opened for the success of the gospel, and that it\nmay _come not in word only, but also in power_, 1 Thess. i. 3. so that,\nby this means, the Lord would be pleased to add to the church daily,\nsuch as shall be saved, that hereby Christ\u2019s government, or spiritual\nkingdom, may be promoted in the hearts of his people, and they enabled\nto testify a ready and willing subjection to his authority, and yield\nobedience to him, with all the powers and faculties of their souls.\n(8.) We are to pray for the advancement of Christ\u2019s kingdom, at his\nsecond and glorious coming; when the work of grace shall be brought to\nits utmost perfection; and all the elect, who shall have lived from the\nbeginning to the end of time, shall be gathered together, and brought\ninto Christ\u2019s kingdom of glory, as they have formerly been into his\nkingdom of grace, when the highest honours shall be conferred upon them,\nand they shall reign with him for ever and ever. As the church, under\nthe Old Testament-dispensation, prayed that Christ\u2019s kingdom of grace\nmight come, _viz._ be administered, as it has been, and now is, under\nthe gospel-dispensation, and, as it is expressed, that he would _be like\na roe, or like a young hart upon the mountains of Bether_, Cant. ii. 17.\nor, that the desire of all nations would fill his house with glory: So\nthe New Testament-church is represented as praying, that Christ would\n_come quickly_, according to his promise, Rev. xxii. 20. and put a final\nperiod to every thing that has had a tendency to detract from the glory\nof his kingdom, or the happiness of his subjects; and, in order\nhereunto, we must pray, that the elect, who are Christ\u2019s mystical body,\nmay be gathered, and brought in to him; and then we may be sure that he\nwill hasten his coming. And, till this is done, we are to wait\npatiently, as the _husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the\nearth_, in the desired harvest, James v. 7. and, in the mean time, we\nare to pray, that he would be pleased to exert his power, and make the\ndispensations of his providence in the world, conducive to answer these\nends, and more particularly, with respect to ourselves; that hereby we\nmay have, not only an habitual, but an actual meetness for the heavenly\nkingdom; that when our Lord shall come, we may not be like those virgins\nmentioned in the parable, who _all slumbered and slept_, Matt. xxv. 5.\nbut, upon the first alarm, may go out to meet him with joy and triumph;\nand, as an evidence hereof, that we may be enabled to walk as _strangers\nand pilgrims on the earth_, or, as those who _desire a better country,\nthat is, an heavenly_, Heb. xi. 13, 16. and that we may keep up an\nintercourse with Christ, that we may be ready to entertain him with\ndelight and pleasure, whenever he comes; that when he, who is our Life,\nour Hope, and Saviour, as well as our King, shall appear, we may appear\nwith him in glory. Thus concerning the administration of Christ\u2019s Kingly\ngovernment, as the subject-matter of this petition: And, that we may be\nfarther assisted in directing our prayers to God agreeable thereunto, we\nmay consider his children as addressing themselves to him to this\npurpose: \u201cWe adore and magnify thee, O God our Saviour, as the Governor\nof the world; who dost according to thy will in the armies of heaven,\nand amongst the inhabitants of the earth. Thy power is irresistible, and\nthy works wonderful: But it is matter of the highest astonishment, that\nthou should exercise that gracious government, in which thou\ncondescendest to be called the King of saints. What is man, that thou\nshouldst thus magnify him, and set thine heart upon him; that they, whom\nthou mightest have dealt with as traitors, and enemies to thy\ngovernment, and, as such, have ruled them with a rod of iron, and broken\nthem in pieces, like a potter\u2019s vessel, should be admitted to partake of\nthe privileges which thou art pleased to bestow on thy servants and\nsubjects! Thou hast often invited us, by holding forth thy sceptre of\ngrace, to come and acknowledge thee to be our Lord and Sovereign; but\nour hearts have been filled with rebellion against thee. We have served\ndivers lusts and pleasures, and been in confederacy with hell and death,\nyielding ourselves slaves to Satan, thine avowed enemy: But now, we\ndesire to cast ourselves down before thy foot-stool; and, while we stand\namazed at thy clemency, we accept of the overture of a pardon which thou\nhast made in the gospel, with the greatest thankfulness, accounting it\nour highest privilege, as well as our indispensable duty, to be thy\nsubjects. Write thy law, we beseech thee, in our hearts; bring down\nevery high thought and imagination, which sets itself against thine\ninterest, and make us entirely willing to be thy servants, devoted to\nthy fear. We also beg, that thou wouldst take to thyself thy great power\nand reign. Let Satan\u2019s kingdom be destroyed, thy gospel propagated\nthroughout the world. May thine ancient people, the Jews, who now refuse\nthat thou shouldst reign over them, be called and inclined to own thee\nas their King; and may the dark parts of the earth see thy salvation.\nReform thy churches; let them be constantly supplied with those who\nshall go in and out before them, and shall feed them with knowledge and\nunderstanding. May they be purged from those corruptions which are a\nreproach to thy government; let not the commandments of men be received,\ninstead of thine holy institutions; may thine ordinances be purely\ndispensed, that thy people may have ground to hope for thy presence\ntherein; and may they be made effectual for the converting of sinners,\nand establishing thy saints in their holy faith. And let all the\ndispensations of thy providence in the world, have a tendency to advance\nthy kingdom of grace, that, as thou hast, in all ages, appeared in the\nbehalf of thy church and people; so it may be preserved and carried\nthrough all the difficulties that it meets with, and be secured from the\nattempts of thine enemies against it, till they who rejoice in thy\ngovernment here, shall be received into thy heavenly kingdom hereafter.\u201d\nFootnote 115:\n  _See Vol. II Quest. XLV. page 353._\nFootnote 116:\n  _See Vol. II. page 376._\nFootnote 117:\n  _See Vol. II. page 376, &c._\n    QUEST. CXCII. _What do we pray for in the third petition?_\n    ANSW. In the third petition, [which is, _Thy will be done on earth\n    as it is in heaven_] acknowledging that, by nature, we, and all men,\n    are not only utterly unable and unwilling to know and do the will of\n    God, but prone to rebel against his word, to repine and murmur\n    against his providence, and wholly inclined to do the will of the\n    flesh, and of the Devil: We pray, that God would by his Spirit, take\n    away from ourselves and others, all blindness, weakness,\n    indisposedness, and perverseness of heart, and by his grace make us\n    able and willing to know, do, and submit to his will in all things,\n    with the like humility, cheerfulness, faithfulness, diligence, zeal,\n    sincerity, and constancy, as the angels do in heaven.\nFor the understanding of this petition, we must enquire,\nI. What is meant by the will of God, and how it is said to be done by\nus. We have, under a foregoing answer, considered[118], that this is\ndistinguished into his secret and revealed will, and shewn that as the\nformer of these is the reason of his own actings, and determines the\nevent of things; the latter is what we are more especially concerned\nabout, as it is a rule of duty to us. It is also farther distinguished\ninto his perceptive and providential will; the former of which we are to\nobey; the latter, to admire, submit to, and be well pleased with:\nAccordingly, when we pray, _Thy will be done_, we desire, that his laws\nmight be obeyed, and thereby his universal dominion, and right to govern\nthe world, practically acknowledged; and that, by this means, sin might\nbe prevented, and this earth might not become so much like hell as it\nwould be, in this method, which God has taken to direct our actions, and\ngive a check to our corruptions, were wholly disregarded by us. When we\nconsider God as the Creator of man, the next idea we have of him is,\nthat he exercises his dominion and sovereignty in giving laws to him;\nwhich he is under a natural obligation to obey; otherwise he disowns\nhimself to be a creature, or a subject, which is the highest affront\nthat can be offered to the divine Majesty, and exposes him to that\npunishment which is due to those who are found in open rebellion against\nhim: This is what we are to pray against in this petition, in which\nthere is something supposed, namely,[119]\n1. That his will must be known by us, otherwise it cannot be obeyed. And\nthis supposes the law to be promulgated; which has been already done;\nparticularly as it was written by God on the heart of man at first, in\nsuch legible characters, that our apostacy from him has not wholly\nerased it. But besides this, there must be an internal impression made\non the minds and consciences of men, whereby they may be brought to see\nthe excellency and glory thereof, and their indispensable obligation to\nyield obedience thereunto.\n2. It is farther supposed, that the will of man is naturally averse, and\ndisinclined, to obey the divine commands, which is the result of our\nfall and apostacy from God; and, through the corruption of our nature,\nwe are prone to say, _Who is lord over us_, Psal. xii. 4. and, _What is\nthe Almighty, that we should serve him_, Job xxi. 15. This is the source\nof all that opposition which the heart of man expresses against the laws\nof God, while sinners entertain a fixed resolution to give laws to\nthemselves; and, on the other hand, are wholly inclined to do the will\nof the flesh and of the Devil: This the apostle calls _fulfilling the\ndesires of the flesh and of the mind_; while at the same time, they\n_walk according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that\nworketh in the children of disobedience_, Eph. ii. 2, 3. This will of\nthe flesh is agreeable to the dictates of Satan, by whom it is content\nto be kept in perpetual bondage; his suggestions are agreeable to the\ncorruption of nature; whereas, the command of God being contrary to it,\nas containing in them the signatures of his holiness, are grievous and\nburdensome to fallen man; the law is spiritual, and therefore it cannot\nbe agreeable to those who are carnal, and, as it were sold under sin.\nAnd this discovers itself,\n(1.) In that, sinful man is determined to do, not what is lawful, but\nwhat is pleasing to himself, not considering what he ought to do, as\nbeing accountable to God, the judge of all for his behaviour in this\nworld; but whether it is agreeable to his own inclinations, and affords\nsome present delight to his carnal appetite.\n(2.) As for Satan, he uses his utmost endeavours to strengthen these\nresolutions, and increase the depravity and corruption of our nature;\nand, for this end, daily presents objects to our imaginations, that are\nagreeable to the desires of the flesh; and these are received with\npleasure and delight, whereby a snare is laid for the ruin of the soul,\nso that it becomes more and more alienated from the life of God; and not\nonly indifferent, as to matters of religion, but utterly averse to them.\nThis is the reason of all the dishonour that is brought to God in the\nworld; whereby it appears, that his will is not done therein, as it\nought to be.\nMoreover, as the will of man sets itself against the commanding will of\nGod, so it expresses the same aversion to his providential will; which\nis not said indeed, to be done, but it ought to be submitted to, by us.\nWe are as much inclined to find fault with what God does in the world,\nas we are to rebel against his law. This appears in our being\ndiscontented and uneasy with the allotments of providence, especially\nwhen we are under the afflicting hand of God; whereby we are apt to\ncharge him as dealing hardly with us, because we have not those\nopportunities, we desire, to fulfil the lusts of the flesh, or some\ncheck is given to our corrupt appetites or inclinations. How ready are\nwe to complain of injuries done us, as though God were obliged to give\nus whatever we would have, how contrary soever it may be to our real\ngood and advantage, as well as his own glory! Of this we have many\ninstances, in the perverse behaviour of the children of Israel in the\nwilderness, who were frequently complaining of the hardships they\nendured; and, by their murmuring against God, provoked him to send those\nterrible judgments which, as they might have foreseen, would be the\nconsequence thereof. This is the most unreasonable behaviour towards\nhim, who has a right to do what he will with his own, and directly\ncontrary to that temper of mind which the gospel suggests; whereby we\nare taught, in whatsoever state or condition of life we are, therewith\nto be contented. It is, in both these respects, that we are instructed,\nin this petition, to pray, that _the will of the Lord_ may _be done_.\nWhich leads us to consider,\nII. The subject-matter of what we are taught to pray for in this\npetition, when we say, _Thy will be done_. And,\n1. With respect to God\u2019s commanding will, we are to pray, that he would\nincline and enable us to yield obedience to it; and accordingly,\n(1.) We are to be earnest with him, that he would remove the ignorance\nand blindness of our minds, that we may see a beauty and glory in every\nthing that he commands; for, next to the Sovereignty of God, which is\nthe first motive hereunto, the excellency of what he commands is to be\nconsidered as an inducement to obedience. Therefore we are to be\nconvinced, that his _law is holy, his commandment holy, just, and good_,\nRom. vii. 12. or, that duty and interest are herein inseparably\nconnected, so that the one can never be secured without the other. This\nis the work of the Spirit of God, when he directs and leads us in the\nway wherein we ought to walk.\n(2.) We are to pray, that God would take away the obstinacy and\nperverseness of our wills, that our obedience may be matter of choice,\nand performed with delight, otherwise it cannot be pleasing to him; and\naccordingly we are to pray,\n[1.] That it may be performed with the utmost sincerity, as approving\nourselves not to men, but God, who searcheth the heart; and that it may\nproceed from a principle of spiritual life and grace, and be done with a\nsingle eye, to his glory, whose we are, and whom we desire to serve.\n[2.] We are to pray, that our obedience may arise from a filial fear of\nGod, and a love to him, and not barely a dread of punishment, or fear of\nhis wrath, as the consequence of our rebellion against him; or from a\nmercenary frame of spirit, that looks at nothing farther than some\nadvantages which we expect to receive from him; and that it may also\nproceed from a sense of gratitude for the many benefits which we receive\nfrom him, whereby we are, as it were, constrained to do his will.\n[3.] This obedience ought to be universal, with respect to the matter\nthereof, and constant, with respect to our perseverance therein. We are\nnot to choose to obey some of the divine commands, and refuse others; or\nto perform those duties which are most easy, and reject those that are\ndifficult; or to obey the will of God, so far as it comports with our\nsecular interest, and indent with him to be excused in those things that\nare inconsistent therewith: but we must leave it to him alone, to\nprescribe the matter of duty, and express an entire compliance\ntherewith, whatsoever it be that he requires. Thus the Psalmist says,\n_Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect unto all thy\ncommandments_, Psal. cxix. 6.\nMoreover, this obedience must be constant, without our growing cold and\nindifferent therein, or desisting from it, according as our condition in\nthe world is altered, as though we had nothing to do with God and\nreligion, but when we are under some pressing difficulties; for that is\nto set our faces heaven-ward for a time, and afterwards to draw back\nunto perdition.\n(2.) We are to pray that God would enable us to submit to his disposing\nwill, as being satisfied that all the dispensations of his providence\nare right; and accordingly to say, with David, _Here am I, let him do to\nme as seemeth good to him_, 2 Sam. xv. 26. This consists,\n[1.] In maintaining a quiet, easy, composed frame of spirit, fitted for\nthe exercise of religious duties, though under trying dispensations of\nprovidence.\n[2.] When we justify God, and lay the blame on ourselves, whatever\nafflictions we are exercised with. Thus the Psalmist speaks of himself\nas deserted, and God as _far from helping him_, he acknowledges the\nequity of his dispensations, when he says, _Thou art holy, O thou that\ninhabitest the praises of Israel_, Pal. xxii. 1. 3. or, as he elsewhere\nexpresses himself, _The Lord is upright, he is my rock, and there is no\nunrighteousness in him_, Psal. xcii. 15.\n[3.] When we are disposed to bless God, at the same time, when he takes\naway outward mercies, as well as when he gives them: Thus Job, when he\nwas stripped of all he had at once, says, _The Lord gave, and the Lord\nhath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord_, Job i. 24. We are now\nto consider,\nIII. The manner in which the will of God is to be done: Accordingly we\nare taught to pray, that it may be _done in earth as it is in heaven_;\nnot that we are to suppose that the best of saints can arrive, while in\nthis world, to the perfection of the heavenly state; so that it is\npossible for them to do the will of God in the same manner, or degree,\nas it is done in heaven: Therefore the particle as respects similitude,\nrather than equality, and all that we can infer from hence is, that\nthere is some analogy or resemblance between the obedience of the saints\nhere, and that of the inhabitants of heaven. This implies in it a\ndesire,\n1. That it may be done with great humility and reverence. Thus the\nangels, who have the character of Seraphims, are represented, in that\nemblem or vision which the prophet Isaiah saw, of the _Lord sitting on\nhis throne_, Isa. vi. 1, 2. and the _Seraphims_ attending him, as having\ntheir _faces covered with their wings_, in token of reverence and\nhumility. And others are described as _casting their crowns before the\nthrone_, Rev. vi. 10. intimating, that all the glory that is put upon\nthem, is derived from him that sits on the throne, and that their honour\nis not to be regarded or mentioned, when compared with him who is the\nfountain thereof.\n2. This expression farther implies in it a desire to do the will of God\nwith all cheerfulness. Some think that this is intended in the vision\nwhich John saw concerning the seven angels, who were employed to inflict\nthe seven last plagues on the church\u2019s enemies, when they are\nrepresented as doing it with _harps in their hands_, and as singing the\npraises of God at the same time, Rev. xv. 1-3.\n3. We are said to do the will of God on earth, as it is done by the\nangels in heaven, when we do it with faithfulness: Thus when they are\nrepresented as ministering to God\u2019s people, and, as such, having the\ncharge over them to keep them in all their ways, they are spoken of as\ndoing this faithfully; as it is said, _They shall bear thee up in their\nhands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone_, Psal. xci. 11, 12.\n4. The angels are farther represented as a pattern of diligence in doing\nthe will of God: Thus it is said of the angel Gabriel, that when the\nword of command was given him to carry a message to Daniel, he _fled\nswiftly_, being expeditious in fulfilling the work he was employed\nabout, Dan. ix. 21.\n5. They are said to do the will of God, with zeal and fervency; and, for\nthis reason, some think they are called, in the scripture but now\nmentioned, _seraphims_; or, as they are elsewhere styled, _A flaming\nfire_, Psal. civ. 4.\n6. The angels are said to do the will of God sincerely: Thus the\ninhabitants of heaven are represented, as having _no guile found in\ntheir mouths_, and _being without fault before the throne of God_, Prov.\nxxii. 2.\n7. They are said to do the will of God with constancy: Thus we read of\nthem as _serving him day and night in his temple_, chap. vii. 15. and\nthe angels, which are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister unto\nthe heirs of salvation, are said _always_ to _behold the face of God in\nheaven_, Mat. xviii. 10. that is, they never give out, or are weary of\nhis service: We have herein an excellent example set before us, and are\nexhorted to pray, that in our measure we may yield the like obedience to\nGod, though we fall very short of doing it, as they do who are in a\nperfect state. We are therefore herein taught to lift up our hearts to\nGod, in a way of adoration, confession, and supplication, _q. d._ \u201cWe\nacknowledge, O Lord, that thou hast a right to the obedience of all\ncreatures, and hast been pleased to give them thy law as the rule\nthereof. It is our glory, as well as our happiness, to be thy servants;\nfor thy law is holy, thy commandment holy, just and good: But we\nacknowledge and confess before thee, that we have rebelled against thee,\nand have refused to yield obedience to thy commands: And when we behold\nthe universal corruption of human nature, we blush and are ashamed to\nthink how little glory is brought to thy name, by the service and\nobedience of thy creatures here below. In heaven thy will is done\nperfectly, by those who serve thee with the greatest delight and\npleasure; but on earth thou hast but little glory; it is an instance of\ncondescending goodness that thou hast not, long since, abandoned and\nforsook it, and thereby rendered it like hell: But, we beseech thee,\ntake to thyself thy great power, and reign in the hearts of men; subdue\ntheir wills thyself, that they may cheerfully and constantly obey thy\ncommanding will, and submit to thy providential will, as being satisfied\nthat all thy dispensations are right, and shall tend to thy glory, and\nthe welfare of all that fear thy name.\u201d\nFootnote 118:\n  _See Vol. I. Quest. xii. p. 471._\nFootnote 119:\n  It has been said, that there cannot be any reason or motive to pray,\n  or make any petition, to an _unchangeable God_, whose design cannot be\n  altered, and who has fixed all events, without a possibility of any\n  change.\n  Before any attempt is made to remove this objection, and supposed\n  difficulty, it must be observed, that it equally lies against the\n  _foreknowledge of God_. For if God certainly foreknows every thing\n  that will take place, then every event is fixed and certain, otherwise\n  it could not be foreknown. \u201cKnown unto God are all his works from the\n  beginning of the world.\u201d He has determined, and passed an unchangeable\n  decree, with respect to all that he will do to eternity. Upon the plan\n  of the objection under consideration, it may be asked, What reason or\n  motive can any one have to ask God to do any thing for him, or any one\n  else, since he infallibly knows from the beginning what he will do,\n  and therefore it is unalterably fixed? Therefore if it be reasonable\n  to pray to an _omniscient_ God, it is equally reasonable to pray to an\n  _unchangeable_ God. For the former necessarily implies the latter. But\n  in order to show that the objection is without foundation, the\n  following things must be observed.\n  1. If God were not omniscient and unchangeable, and had not\n  foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, he would not be the proper\n  object of worship, and there would be no foundation, reason, or\n  encouragement to make any petition to him.\n  This, it is presumed, will be evident to any one who will well\n  consider the following observations.\n  _First._ If there were no unchangeable, omniscient Being, there would\n  be no God, no proper object of worship. A being who is capable of\n  change, is necessarily imperfect, and may change from bad to worse,\n  and even cease to exist, and therefore could not be trusted. If we\n  could know that such a being has existed, and that he was once wise,\n  and good, and powerful, we could have no evidence that he would\n  continue to be wise or good, or that he is so now, or that he is now\n  disposed to pay any regard to our petitions, or is either willing or\n  able to grant them; or even that he has any existence. What reason of\n  encouragement then can there be to pray to a changeable being? Surely\n  none at all. Therefore, if there be no reason to pray to an\n  _unchangeable God_, there can be no reason to pray at all.\n  _Secondly._ If God be infinitely wise, and good, and omnipotent,\n  supreme and independent; then he certainly is unchangeable, and has\n  foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. This has been proved above, or\n  rather is self-evident. But if he be not infinitely wise and good, &c.\n  then he cannot be trusted; he cannot be the object of that trust and\n  confidence which is implied, and even expressed, in praying to him.\n  _Thirdly._ The truly pious, benevolent, devout man would not desire,\n  or even _dare_, to pray to God for any thing, if he were changeable,\n  and disposed to alter his purpose and plan, in order to grant his\n  petitions. Therefore he never does pray to any but an _unchangeable\n  God_, whose counsel stands forever, and the thoughts of his heart to\n  all generations. He is sensible that he is a very imperfect creature;\n  that his heart, his will, is awfully depraved and sinful; that he\n  knows not what is wisest and best to be done in any one instance; what\n  is best for him, for mankind in general, for the world, or for the\n  universe; what is most for the glory of God, and the greatest general\n  good; and that it would be infinitely undesirable and dreadful to have\n  his own will regarded so as to govern in determining what shall be\n  done for him or any other being, or what shall take place. If it could\n  be left to him to determine in the least instance, he would not dare\n  to do it, but would refer it back to God, and say, \u201cNot _my will_, but\n  _thine_ be done.\u201d But he could not do this, unless he were _certain_\n  that the will of God was unchangeably wise and good, and that he had\n  decreed to do what was most for his own glory, and the greatest good\n  of the whole; at the same time infallibly knowing what must take\n  place, in every instance, in order to answer this end; and\n  consequently must have fixed upon the most wise and best plan,\n  foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass. Therefore, whatever be his\n  petitions for himself, or for others, he offers them to God, and asks,\n  _on this condition_, always either expressed or implied, _If it be\n  agreeable to thy will_: for _otherwise_ he would not have his\n  petitions granted, if it were possible. And he who asks any thing of\n  God, without making this condition, but sets up his own will, and\n  desires to have it gratified, whether it be for the glory of God, and\n  the greatest good of his kingdom, or not; and would, were it in his\n  power, compel his Maker to grant his petition, and bow the will of God\n  to his own will; he who prays to God with such a disposition, is an\n  impious enemy to God, exercises no true devotion, and cannot be heard;\n  and it is desireable to all the friends of God that he should be\n  rejected. Resignation to the will of God always supposes his will is\n  unchangeably fixed and established, which it could not be, unless he\n  has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.\n  Thus it appears that if God were changeable, and had not foreordained\n  whatsoever comes to pass, there would be no foundation for religious\n  worship, or reason for praying to him; or that there can be no reason\n  or encouragement for prayer and petition to any but an _unchangeable_\n  God.\u2014I proceed to observe,\n  2. There is good reason, and all desirable and possible encouragement,\n  to pray to an unchangeable God, who has from eternity determined what\n  he will do, in every instance, and has foreordained whatsoever comes\n  to pass.\n  This will doubtless be evident, to him who will duly, consider the\n  following particulars.\n  _First._ Prayer is as proper, important, and necessary, in order to\n  obtain favour from an unchangeable God, as it could be were he\n  changeable, and had not foreordained any thing.\n  Means are as necessary in order to obtain the end, as if nothing were\n  fixed and certain. Though it was decreed that Paul and all the men in\n  the ship should get safe to land, when they were in a storm at sea;\n  yet this must be accomplished by means, and unless the sailors had\n  assisted in managing the ship, this event could not take place, and\n  they could not be saved. Prayer is a means of obtaining what God had\n  determined to grant; for he has determined to give it in answer to\n  prayer, and no other way. \u201cAsk, and ye shall receive,\u201d says our\n  Saviour. When God had promised to do many and great things for Israel,\n  he adds, \u201cThus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of\n  by the house of Israel, to do it for them:\u201d [_Ezek._ xxxvi. 37.] The\n  granting the favours, which God had determined to bestow, was as much\n  suspended on their asking for them, as if there had been nothing\n  determined and fixed about it. There is as much regard had to prayer\n  in granting favours, and the prayer is heard, and God gives them, as\n  really and as much in answer to it, as if there were nothing\n  determined and foreordained respecting them: for the decree includes\n  and fixes the means, as much as the end; the method and way by which\n  events are to take place, as much as those events themselves. The one\n  depends on the other, as much as if there were no decree, and nothing\n  fixed; yea, much more: for the decree _fixes_ the dependence and\n  connexion between the means and the end: whereas if there were no\n  decree, and nothing fixed, there would be no established connexion,\n  but all would be uncertain, and there would be no reason or\n  encouragement to use means, or do any thing to obtain an end.\n  Surely, then, there is as much reason and encouragement to pray to an\n  unchangeable God, and this is as important and necessary, as if there\n  were nothing fixed by the divine decrees, and much more: yea, the\n  unchangeable purposes of God are the necessary and only proper ground\n  and reason of prayer.\n  _Secondly._ Though prayer is not designed to make any change in God,\n  or alter his purpose, which is impossible; yet it is suited and\n  designed to have an effect on the petitioner, and prepare him to\n  receive that for which he prays. And this is a good reason why he\n  should pray. It tends to make the petitioner to feel more and more\n  sensibly his wants, and those of others for whom he prays, and the\n  miserable state in which he and they are: for in prayer these are\n  called up to view, and dwelt upon: and prayer tends to give a sense of\n  the worth and importance of the favours asked. It is also suited to\n  make persons feel, more and more, their own helplessness, and entire\n  dependence on God for the favours for which they petition, of which\n  their praying is an acknowledgment: and therefore tends to enhance\n  them in the eyes of the petitioner, when given in answer to prayer,\n  and make him more sensible of the free, sovereign goodness of God in\n  granting them.[120] In sum, this is suited to keep the existence and\n  character of God in view, and impress a sense of religious truths in\n  general on the mind, and to form the mind to universal obedience, and\n  a conscientious watchfulness and circumspection, in all religious\n  exercises.\n  _Thirdly._ It is reasonable, and highly proper and important, and for\n  the honour of God, that the friends of God should express and\n  acknowledge their entire dependence on him, and trust in him, for all\n  they want for themselves and others, and their belief in the power,\n  wisdom and goodness of God; and all this is acknowledged, expressly or\n  implicity, in prayer to God. It is also reasonable and proper that\n  they should express their _desire_ of those things which are needed by\n  themselves or others, and which God alone can give or accomplish: and\n  such desires are expressed in the best way and manner by petitioning\n  for them. And in asking for blessings on others, and praying for their\n  enemies, they express their benevolence, which is an advantage to\n  themselves, and pleasing to God, even though their petitions should\n  have no influence in procuring the favours which they ask. And in\n  praying that God would honour himself, and advance his own kingdom,\n  and accomplish all the great and glorious things which he has promised\n  to do for his own honour, and the good of his people, they do not\n  express any doubts of his fulfilling his promises, but are certain he\n  will grant their petitions; but they hereby express their acquiescence\n  in these things, and their earnest desire that they may be\n  accomplished; and also profess and express their love to God, and\n  friendship to his people and kingdom; and do that which the feelings\n  of a pious, benevolent heart will naturally, and even necessarily,\n  prompt them to do.\n  We have many examples of such petitions and prayers for those things\n  and events, which the petitioners, antecedent to their prayers, knew\n  would certainly be accomplished. We have a decisive and remarkable\n  instance of this in David, the king of Israel, in the following words:\n  \u201cAnd now, O Lord God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy\n  servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, _and do as\n  thou hast said_. And let thy name be magnified forever, saying, The\n  Lord of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant\n  David be established before thee. For thou, O Lord of hosts, God of\n  Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, _I will build thee an\n  house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this\n  prayer before thee_. And now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy\n  words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant.\n  Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant,\n  that it may continue forever before thee; for thou, O Lord God, hast\n  spoken it, and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be\n  blessed forever:\u201d [_2 Sam._ vii. 25-29.] Here David not only prays God\n  to do that which at the same time he knew and acknowledges God had\n  promised to do; and therefore it was established as firm as the throne\n  of the Almighty, and decreed that it should take place; but he says\n  that this promise of God, making it certain, was the reason, motive,\n  and encouragement to him to make this prayer: \u201cThou, O Lord, hast\n  revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house. And now,\n  O Lord God, thou art that God, _and thy words be true, and thou hast\n  promised this goodness unto thy servant_; THEREFORE HATH THY SERVANT\n  FOUND IN HIS HEART TO PRAY THIS PRAYER BEFORE THEE.\u201d We hence are\n  warranted to assert that it is reasonable and proper to pray for that\n  which God has promised; and that the certainty that it will be\n  accomplished is a motive and encouragement to pray for it. How greatly\n  then do they err, who think that if every event is made certain by\n  God\u2019s decree, there is no reason or encouragement to pray for any\n  thing!\n  Our Saviour, in the pattern of prayer which he has dictated, directs\n  men to pray that God would bring to pass those events which are\n  already fixed and decreed, and therefore must infallibly take place;\n  \u201cOur Father, who art in heaven, _hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom\n  come, thy will be done_,\u201d &c.\n  Christ himself, in the 17th chapter of John, prays for those whom the\n  Father had given to him, that he would keep them through his own name,\n  and that they might be _one_, as the Father and Son were one; might be\n  kept from the evil in the world, and be sanctified through the truth;\n  that they might be with him in heaven forever, and behold his glory.\n  At the same time he knew that all this was made certain to them; for\n  he had before said, that all that were given to him should come to\n  him, and he would raise them up at the last day; that he would give\n  unto them eternal life, and not one of them should perish, as none\n  should be able to pluck them out of his hands, or his Father\u2019s. He\n  prays, \u201cFather, glorify thy name;\u201d not because this event was\n  uncertain, but to express his earnest desire of that which he knew was\n  decreed, and could not but take place, and his willingness to give up\n  every thing, even his own life to promote this. Again, Christ prays in\n  the following words: \u201cAnd now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine\n  own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.\u201d\n  The event for which Christ prays in these words was decreed from\n  eternity, and the decree had been long before published, in the 2d and\n  110th Psalms: \u201cI will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me,\n  Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will\n  give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts\n  of the earth for thy possession. Sit thou at my right hand, until I\n  make thine enemies thy foot-stool.\u201d And he had declared the certainty\n  of that for which he here prays, since his incarnation. He had said,\n  that all power in heaven and earth was given unto him; that \u201cthe\n  Father had committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should\n  honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.\u201d St. Paul, when\n  speaking of God, often introduces the following words: \u201cTo whom be\n  glory forever, Amen;\u201d which is not to be considered as a mere\n  doxology, by which glory is _ascribed_ to God; but it is rather a\n  _wish_, or _desire_, that God may be glorified forever; and the _Amen_\n  corroborates it: as if he had said, \u201cLet it be so; this is the most\n  ardent desire of my soul, including the sum of all my petitions.\u201d Here\n  then the Apostle utters a desire and petition for that which he knew\n  was decreed, and would take place.\n  The last words of Christ to his church are, \u201cSurely I come quickly.\u201d\n  Upon which promise the following petition of the church, and of every\n  friend of his, is presented to him: \u201cAmen, even so come Lord Jesus.\u201d\n  Here is a petition, in which all Christians join, praying Christ to do\n  what he has promised; and which therefore was as certain as a declared\n  decree could possibly make it; and the petition is grounded on this\n  promise and decree published by Christ, in which the petitioners\n  express their hearty approbation of the coming of Christ, and earnest\n  desire of this important and happy event. And if it be reasonable thus\n  to pray for an event which is fixed and made certain by an\n  unchangeable decree, and cannot be altered, as in the instance before\n  us; then it is reasonable and proper to pray for any thing or any\n  event which appears to us desirable and important, though we know God\n  is unchangeable, and that all things and every event are fixed by an\n  unalterable decree.\n  The apostle John says, \u201cAnd this is the confidence that we have in\n  him, that if we ask any thing _according to his will_, he heareth us.\n  And if we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we\n  have the petitions that we desired of him:\u201d [_1 John_ v. 14, 15.] To\n  ask for any thing _according to his will_, is to ask for those things\n  which it is agreeable to his will to grant; and this is to be known\n  only by what he has revealed. When we ask him to do what he has\n  declared he will do, then we know we ask for that which is according\n  to his will; and consequently that we have our petitions. But it will\n  be asked, What are these things? I answer, that God will glorify\n  himself in all things, and make the brightest display of his\n  perfections and character forever; that he will promote and effect the\n  greatest possible good of the universe; that he will make his church\n  and kingdom perfectly happy and glorious forever; that he will\n  accomplish all his designs and predictions, and fulfil all his\n  promises to his church and people: and cause all things to work for\n  the good of those who love him; and give his holy Spirit to all who\n  ask him. These, I think, must be the things we ask, when we know that\n  we pray for any thing _according to the will of God_, and consequently\n  know that he heareth us, and that we have the petitions that we\n  desired of him. But in all these instances we ask for that which God\n  has said he will do, that is, has decreed that he will do them. And as\n  it has been said before, if a decree in these instances does not\n  render it unreasonable or improper to pray for their accomplishment;\n  then, if God has decreed _whatsoever comes to pass_, this is not in\n  the least inconsistent with our praying for whatever appears to us\n  desirable and good, and may not be contrary to the will of God to\n  grant. But here it must be observed, that when we ask for any\n  particular things or events which, though it may not be contrary to\n  the will of God to grant, yet he has in no way revealed that it is his\n  will to grant our petitions; when we ask for any such thing, we must\n  do it with an express or implicit reserve\u2014_If it be according to the\n  will of God_. Otherwise, or if it be not according to his will, we\n  must withdraw our petition, and not desire to have it granted.\n  Resignation to the will of God, whatever it may be, in all such\n  instances, is essential to the pious petitions of a benevolent friend\n  of God. And by thus referring to the will of God, and resigning to\n  that, desiring it may be done in all cases, whatever petitions we may\n  make, we do refer to the decrees of God, by which he has determined\n  what he will do in every particular instance; for his will and his\n  decrees are in this case one and the same, being fixed and\n  unchangeable.\n  _Fourthly._ It is not only proper and important that the worshippers\n  of God should express their desires of those things which they want,\n  in praying for them; but were this not true, and were not asking for\n  them the means and way of obtaining them; yet the pious friends of God\n  would esteem it a privilege and enjoyment to be allowed and invited,\n  \u201cby prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, to make known their\n  requests unto him.\u201d To them prayer is not a _task_, from which they\n  would be glad to be excused, but they practise it with pleasure.\u2014They\n  have great support, enjoyment and happiness, in casting their cares\n  upon God, and expressing the desires of their hearts to him. While\n  others restrain prayer before God, and say, \u201cWhat is the Almighty,\n  that we should serve him? and what profit should we have if we pray\n  unto him?\u201d the benevolent friend of God would pray, were it only for\n  the enjoyment which he has in the exercise; and says in his heart, \u201cI\n  will call upon God as long as I live. And though he is certain that\n  God is unchangeable, and that nothing is done, or will come to pass,\n  which is not foreordained by him, this does not tend to prevent or in\n  the least abate the pleasure and enjoyment he has in making known his\n  requests to God, or his desire constantly to practise it: but this\n  truth gives him support and consolation, and increases his delight in\n  calling upon God, and renders it more desirable and pleasant unto him:\n  yea, were not this a truth, he could not find any reason for making\n  his requests known to him, or any delight in doing it; and would not\n  have any encouragement, or even _dare_, to ask for any thing, as has\n  been observed and shewn.\u201d\n  And now this matter is to be left to the judgment of every one who\n  will attend to it. It is hoped that it appears evident, beyond all\n  dispute, from the light in which this subject has been now set, that\n  the doctrine of God\u2019s decreeing whatsoever comes to pass is not only\n  consistent with all the exercises of true piety, but is the proper\n  foundation for this, and is suited to excite and promote these\n  exercises, and that there can be no real piety which is not consistent\n  with this truth.\n  [HOPKINS\u2019S SERMONS.]\nFootnote 120:\n  A kind and wise father, who designs to give his child some particular\n  favour, will bring the child to ask for it before he bestows it, and\n  will suspend the gift upon this condition, for the benefit of the\n  child, that what he grants may be a real advantage to him, and a\n  greater than if it were given before the child was better prepared to\n  receive it, by earnestly and humbly asking for it; and that the father\n  may hereby receive a proper acknowledgment from the child, and be\n  treated in a becoming manner. And in this case, the petition of the\n  child is as really regarded, heard and granted, and the child\u2019s\n  application and prayer to the father is as much a means of obtaining\n  the favour, and as proper, important, and necessary, as if the father\n  had not previously determined the whole affair. And when the children\n  of such a father know that this is his way of bestowing favours on\n  them, they will have as proper motives, and as much encouragement, to\n  ask for all they want, as if he had not determined what he would do\n  antecedent to their asking him; yea, much more.\n    QUEST. CXCIII. _What do we pray for in the fourth petition?_\n    ANSW. In the fourth petition, [which is, _Give us this day our daily\n    bread_,] acknowledging, that in Adam, and by our sin, we have\n    forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and\n    deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them\n    cursed to us in the use of them; and, that neither they of\n    themselves are able to sustain us, nor we to merit, or by our own\n    industry, to procure them, but prone to desire, get, and use them\n    unlawfully; we pray for ourselves and others, that both they and we,\n    waiting upon the providence of God from day to day, in the use of\n    lawful means, may, of his free gift, and, as to his fatherly wisdom\n    shall seem best, enjoy a competent portion of them, and have the\n    same continued and blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use\n    of them, and contentment in them; and be kept from all things that\n    are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.\nIn order to our understanding this petition, we must first consider what\nis meant by _bread_. Some have thought that our Saviour hereby intends\nspiritual mercies, as denoting that bread which is suited to the\nnecessities of our souls, and particularly that we may have an interest\nin Christ, who is called, _The bread of life_, John vi. 35. _The living\nbread which came down from heaven_, ver. 51. But though it must be\nallowed, that this is a blessing far exceeding all those that are of a\ntemporal nature, as much as the happiness of the soul is preferable to\nthat of the body; and it is, doubtless, to be made the subject of our\ndaily and importunate requests to God, _q. d._ give me an interest in\nChrist, or else I can have no delight or pleasure in any of the\nenjoyments of life: Yet this does not seem to be intended by our Saviour\nin this petition; but that bread which we pray for has a more immediate\nrespect to the blessings of this life, which, according to the\nscripture-mode of speaking, are often set forth by _bread_. Thus God\ntells Adam, after his fall, _In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat\nbread_, Gen. iii. 19. by which we are to understand, that he should take\na great deal of pains to provide for himself the necessaries of life. So\nwhen God promises outward blessings to his people, he tells them, that\n_bread shall be given_ them, and their _waters shall be sure_, Isa.\nxxxiii. 16. And elsewhere, _I will abundantly bless her provision; I\nsatisfy her poor with bread_, Psal. cxxxii. 15. This is what we are\ntaught to pray for in this petition; in which we may observe,\nI. That there are some things supposed, namely,\n1. That, by our sins, we have forfeited a right to the outward blessings\nof this life. This was the consequence of the forfeiture of life itself;\nand it was a part of the curse, that we were exposed to by our rebellion\nagainst, and apostacy from God. If he should deprive us of all the\nconveniences of life, and thereby imbitter it to us; so that we should\nbe almost inclined to make that unhappy choice that Job did, of\n_strangling and death, rather than life_, Job vii. 15. there would be no\nreason to say, there is unrighteousness with God.\n2. It is farther supposed, that outward blessings are God\u2019s free gift to\nus. Whether we have a greater or a smaller portion thereof, they are to\nbe acknowledged as the fruits of divine bounty: It is God that spreads a\ntable for us; to some he gives a small measure, and to others a larger\nshare of temporal good things; but, whatever we enjoy, it is to be owned\nas the effect of his providential goodness. This, indeed, does not\nexclude the use of those means that are ordained for the preserving of\nlife, and our obtaining the good things thereof; but we must, at the\nsame time, acknowledge, that all that wisdom, industry, and success that\nattends our endeavours, is from God; it is he that _giveth power to get\nwealth_, Deut. viii. 18. or, as it is elsewhere said, _The rich and poor\nmeet together_; that is, they both agree in this, that _the Lord is the\nMaker of them all_, Prov. xxii. 2. that is, whatever be their\ncircumstances in the world, it is he that provides, what they have, for\nthem. And if what we enjoy is sweetened and sanctified to us for our\ngood, so that we have not only the conveniences of life, but a blessing\nwith them, and are enabled to make a right use and improvement of them,\nto the glory of God and the advantage of ourselves and others; this must\nalso be reckoned an instance of divine favour, or the gift of God.\n3. It is farther supposed, that temporal good things may lawfully be\nprayed for. As the providence of God does not, as was before observed,\nexclude the use of means; so it is not inconsistent with, but rather an\ninducement to prayer; and, indeed, prayer is an ascribing glory to God,\nas the fountain of all we enjoy; without which, it would be an affront\nto the divine Majesty, to expect any blessing from him. This is\napplicable to prayer in general, and, in particular, to our making\nsupplication for outward blessings.\nI. We shall consider the subject-matter of the petition, or what we are\nto understand when we say, _Give us this day our daily bread_.\n1. The thing prayed for, is _bread_; whereby our Saviour intimates, that\nwe are to set due bounds to our desires, when we are pressing after\noutward blessings. He does not order us to importune with God for the\ngreat things of this life; but rather for those things which are\nnecessary, in the enjoyment whereof, we may the better be enabled to\nglorify him: He does not put his followers upon asking for crowns and\nsceptres, as though his kingdom were of this world, as some, who were\ninfluenced by carnal motives, fondly imagined, being ready to expect\nthat many worldly advantages would accrue from their adhering to him;\nand, when they found themselves mistaken, shamefully deserted his cause,\nand relinquished the profession that they once made of him: But Christ\nnever gave his people ground to expect that their secular interest\nshould be promoted by embracing the gospel: Accordingly, when any one\nseemed desirous of being his disciple, he generally put this trying\nquestion to him; whether he was content to leave all, and follow him, or\nto lead a mean life in the world, and be hated of all men for his name\u2019s\nsake? His disciples, indeed, were sometimes filled with too great\nsolicitude about their future circumstances in life; but he encourages\nthem to hope for necessary provisions, when he says, _Your heavenly\nFather knoweth that ye have need of all these things_, Matt. vi. 32. and\nit is always found, that where there is the greatest degree of faith, it\ntends to moderate our affections as to the things of this world; and if\nat any time, they are apt to exceed their due bounds, it gives a check\nto them, as the prophet says to Baruch: _Seekest thou great things for\nthyself? seek them not_, Jer. xlv. 5. We have an admirable instance of\nthis in Jacob; who, when he was in a most destitute condition, flying\nfrom his father\u2019s house, to Padan-aram, did not know what entertainment\nhe should meet with there. The principal thing which he desires,\ntogether with the divine presence and protection, is, that he might have\n_bread to eat, and raiment to put on_, Gen. xxviii. 20. He does not ask,\nthat people and nations might bow down to him; or that God would take\naway the life of his brother Esau, whose malicious design against him,\noccasioned his present hazardous journey; he is not anxiously concerned\nfor the great things of this world, but only desires that he may have\nthe necessaries of life. And Agar\u2019s prayer is not unlike this, who says,\n_Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for\nme_, Prov. xxx. 8. Such a frame of spirit our Saviour supposes them to\nhave, who thus address themselves to God in prayer for bread, or the\noutward accommodations of life.\n2. It is called, _our bread_; the meaning of which is, that there is a\ndistinct property which every one has, by the allotment of providence,\nin those outward blessings which God has given him, whatever be the\nmeasure or proportion thereof: This we are taught to acknowledge with\nthankfulness, _q. d._ Thou didst not design that one man should take\npossession of the whole world, or engross to himself all its stores, and\nthat the rest should starve and perish for want of the necessaries of\nlife; herein thy wisdom and sovereignty appears, and to this it is\nowing, that there are some things which we have a right to, distinct\nfrom others: not without, but by the gift and blessing of providence.\nAnd therefore, whatsoever God thinks fit that we should receive, we call\nour own, and as such, pray for it; otherwise we are not in the least to\ndesire or covet it, inasmuch as we are taught to pray only for that\nwhich we may call ours, as having a natural or civil right to it, which\nwe have not to that which belongs to another.\nNow there are two ways by which we are said to receive outward\nblessings, which we may call our own from the hand of God, which are\nmore especially included in this petition.\n(1.) As God, by his distinguishing hand, gives us that measure of\noutward blessings which he sees convenient for us, and that either, by\nsucceeding our endeavours, or by supplying our wants in some way which\nwas altogether unexpected by us, and thereby making provision for the\ncomfort of our lives.\u2014There is sometimes a chain of providences\nconcurring hereunto; as God speaks of his _hearing the heavens_, Hos.\nii. 21, 22. that, when they want store of water, he may furnish them\ntherewith, and _they may hear the earth_, so as to moisten it with\nshowers, when parched, and becoming unfruitful; and _that the earth may\nhear the corn, and the wine, and the oil_, so as to produce them; and\nthat _these may hear_, that is, may be distributed among God\u2019s people,\nas he sees they want them; and the Psalmist says, _He watereth the hills\nfrom his chambers: The earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.\nHe causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of\nman; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh\nglad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread\nwhich strengthened man\u2019s heart_, Psal. civ. 13-15. So that there are\nvarious causes and effects, subservient to each other, which are all\nowing to the blessing of providence, whereby we come to possess that\nportion of the good things of this life, which are allotted for us.\n(2.) The outward blessings of this life may be called ours when God is\npleased to make them blessings to us, and give us the enjoyment thereof.\nHe must add his blessings to all the mercies he bestows, or else they\nwill not conduce to our happiness; nor can the general end, designed\nhereby, be answered; without this, the bread we eat, would no more\nnourish us, than husks or chaff; our garments, without this, could no\nmore contribute to our being warm, than if they were put upon a statue;\nand the air we breathe, would rather stifle than refresh us. Thus it is\nsaid, _Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word which\nproceedeth out of the mouth of God_, Deut. viii. 3. that is, not barely\nby second causes, or the means we use, in order to the maintaining life\nand health, or any of the comforts thereof; but, by the blessing of God,\nor his power and providence, that these ends are answered.\nAnd it is he alone who can give us the comfortable enjoyment thereof:\nThis all have not; their tables are plentifully furnished, but they want\nthat measure of health which is necessary for their taking in, or\nreceiving advantage from them; as it is said of the sick man, that _his\nlife abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat_, Job xxxiii. 20. Such\ndo, as it were, starve in the midst of plenty. And there are others,\nwho, though they have a great deal of the world, and are not hindered\nfrom the enjoyment of it by the weakness or decays of nature; yet they\nare made unhappy by the temper of their minds; as there are some that\nabound in riches, who may, nevertheless be said to be poor, because they\nwant an heart to use what they have, which is God peculiar blessing:\nThus the wise man says, _Every man to whom God hath given riches and\nwealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his\nportion, and to rejoice in his labour, this is the gift of God_, Eccl.\nv. 19. For these things we are dependent on him; and this is what we\nintend, when we pray that God would _give us our bread_.\n3. We are farther taught to pray, that God would give us our bread _this\nday_, thereby denoting that we are to desire to have our present\nnecessities supplied, as those who cannot be certain that we shall live\ntill to-morrow. How often does God break the thread of our lives in an\ninstant, without giving us any notice of it beforehand? And therefore we\nmay truly say in the midst of life, we are in death, and are advised to\ntake no thought for the morrow, but to leave that entirely to the\nprovidence of God: Food nourishes but for a day, so that what we now\nreceive will not suffice us to-morrow. Nature is always craving\nsupplies, and therefore we are taught to have a continual recourse to\nGod by prayer for them: And, if we look farther than this present time,\nit is to be with this condition, that the Lord has determined to prolong\nour lives, and thereby renders it necessary for us to pray for those\nthings that will be needful for the support thereof: This seems to be\nthe meaning of that variation of expression, which the evangelist Luke\nmakes use of, when he says, _Give us day by day our daily bread_, Luke\nxi. 3. And it may obviate an objection, as it will be inferred by some,\nthat if we are not to pray for what respects our future condition in\nthis world, we are not to make provision for it: Whereas, this is\ncontrary to what we are exhorted to do, by being led to consider the\nprovision which the smallest insects make for their subsistence; _The\nant provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the\nharvest_, Prov. vi. 8. And the apostle says, _If any provide not for his\nown, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the\nfaith, and is worse than an infidel_, 1 Tim. v. 8. This therefore we\nought to do; and accordingly we are to pray, that God would succeed our\nlawful endeavours, in order thereunto; though we must do it with this\nlimitation, as maintaining a constant sense that our times are in his\nhand, so that if he should be pleased to grant us a longer or shorter\nlease of our lives, which to us is altogether uncertain, we are to beg\nof him, that we may never be destitute of what is necessary for our\nglorifying him therein.\n4. This petition is to be considered as respecting others as well as\nourselves; _Give us_, &c. whereby we express a concern for their\nadvantage in what respects the good things of this life. The blessings\nof providence flow from an inexhaustible fountain; and therefore we are\nnot to think that, by desiring that others may have a supply of their\nwants, there will not be enough remaining for us.\nAnd this should always teach us to bear our part in relieving others,\nthat they may not, through our neglect, perish for want of the\nnecessaries of this life: Thus we are exhorted _to deal our bread to the\nhungry_, to _bring the poor that are cast out to_ our _houses, and when\nwe see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide_ ourselves _from_ our\n_own flesh_, Isa. lviii. 7. And Job having been severely accused by his\nfriends, as though all those afflictions that befel him, were in\njudgment for his having oppressed and _forsaken the poor_, and\n_violently taken away an house which he builded not_, as Zophar\ninsinuates, Job xx. 19. vindicates himself from the charge in the\nstrongest terms, when he says, _I have not withheld the poor from their\ndesire, nor caused the eyes of the widow to fail; nor eaten my morsel\nmyself alone_, so that _the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; nor seen\nany perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering_, chap.\nxxxi. 16-19. This is not only to pray, that God would give others their\ndaily bread; but to help them, so far as it is in our power, which is\nvery agreeable to what we pray for in their behalf, as well as our own,\nwhen we say, as in this petition, _Give us this day our daily bread_.\nThus concerning the matter of this petition, as explained in this\nanswer; of which we shall give a summary account in the following\nmeditation, which may be of use for the reducing our Saviour\u2019s direction\ninto practice: Accordingly we address him in this manner, \u201cOur eyes wait\non thee, O thou preserver of men, who givest to all their meat in due\nseason. We are poor, indigent creatures, whose necessities oblige us to\nrequest a daily supply, for our outward as well as spiritual wants. Thou\nhast granted us life and favour; and, having obtained help from thee, we\ncontinue unto this day. Thou preparest a table for us; our cup runneth\nover; we have never been wholly destitute of those outward blessings\nwhich tend to make our pilgrimage, through this world, easy and\ncomfortable: We therefore adore thee for the care and goodness of thy\nprovidence, which continues to us forfeited blessings. We have, by our\nsins, deserved to be deprived of all the good things we enjoy, which we\nhave not used to thy glory, as we ought to have done. We acknowledge\nourselves less than the least of all thy mercies; yet thou hast\nencouraged us to pray and hope for the continuance thereof: We leave it\nto thine infinite wisdom, to chuse that condition of life which thou\nseest best for us. It is not the great things of this world that we are\nsolicitous about, but that portion thereof which is necessary to our\nglorifying thee therein. Thou hast made it our duty, and accordingly we\ndesire, to use that industry which is necessary to attain a comfortable\nsubsistence in the world; yet we are sensible that the success thereof\nis wholly owing to thy blessing: We therefore beg, that thou wouldst\nprosper our undertaking; since it is thy blessing alone that maketh\nrich, and addeth no sorrow therewith. Keep our desires after the world\nwithin their due bounds; and enable us to be content with what thou art\npleased to allot for us, that our hearts may not be turned aside\nthereby, from an earnest pursuit after that bread which perisheth not,\nbut endureth to everlasting life. If thou art pleased to give us the\nriches of this world, let not our hearts be set upon them; and if thou\nhast ordained that we should be in low circumstances therein, may the\nframe of our spirits be suited thereunto, and this condition of life be\nsanctified, that it may appear, that we are not too low to be the\nobjects of thy special regard and discriminating grace; that having\nnothing, we may really possess all things, in having an interest in thy\nlove. As to what concerns our future condition in this world, though\nthou hast made it our duty to use a provident care that we may not be\nreduced to those straits that would render the last stage of life\nuncomfortable; yet we would do this with a constant sense of the\nuncertainty of life, since our times are in thy hand, our circumstances\nin the world at thy disposal, and we rejoice that they are so: Therefore\nwe earnestly beg, that if it be thy sovereign will to call us soon out\nof it, that we may be as well pleased to leave, as ever we were to enjoy\nit, as being blessed with a well-grounded hope of a better life: And, if\nit be consistent with thy will, that our lives be prolonged in the\nworld, _Give us day by day our daily bread_, that we may, at all times,\nexperience, that thou dost abundantly bless our provision, and satisfy\nus with those things which thou seest needful for us, till we come to\nour journey\u2019s end, and are possessed of that perfect blessedness which\nthou hast reserved for thy saints in a better world.\u201d\n    QUEST. CXCIV. _What do we pray for the fifth petition?_\n    ANSW. In the fifth petition, [which is, _Forgive us our debts as we\n    forgive our debtors_] acknowledging that we, and all others, are\n    guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors\n    to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature,\n    can make the least satisfaction for that debt. We pray for ourselves\n    and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience\n    and satisfaction of Christ apprehended and applied by faith, acquit\n    us both from the guilt and punishment of sin, accept us in his\n    Beloved, continue his favour and grace to us, pardon our daily\n    failings, and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more\n    and more assurance of forgiveness, which we are the rather\n    emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect when we have this\n    testimony in ourselves, that we, from the heart, forgive others\n    their offences.\nHaving been directed, in the former petition, to pray for outward\nblessings; we are now led to ask for forgiveness of sin; and it is with\nvery good reason that these two petitions are joined together, inasmuch\nas we cannot expect that God should give us the good things of this\nlife, which are all forfeited by us, much less, that we should have them\nbestowed on us in mercy, and for our good, unless he is pleased to\nforgive those sins, whereby we provoke him to withhold them from us:\nNeither can we take comfort in any outward blessings, while our\nconsciences are burdened with a sense of the guilt of sin, and we have\nnothing to expect, as the consequence thereof, but to be separated from\nhis presence; therefore we are taught to pray, that God would _forgive\nus our sins_, as one evangelist expresses it, or our _debts_, as it is\nin the other.\nFrom whence it may be observed, in general, that sin is a debt. As it is\ncontrary to the holiness of God, it is a stain and blemish, a dishonour\nand reproach to us; as it is a violation of his law it is a crime; and,\nas to what respects the guilt which we contract hereby, it is called _a\ndebt_; which is the principal thing considered in this petition. There\nwas a debt of obedience demanded from us as creatures: and, in case of\nthe failure hereof, or any other sin committed by us, there was a\nthreatening denounced, pursuant to the sanction of the law, from whence\narises a debt of punishment; and in this respect it is that we are\ndirected, more especially, in this petition, to pray for forgiveness.\nThere are several things which respect the nature of forgiveness, as\nfounded on the satisfaction given by Christ, as our Surety: which have\nbeen largely insisted on under some foregoing answers[121]: Therefore,\nthe method we shall observe, in considering the subject-matter of this\npetition, shall be,\nI. To take a view of sinful man as charged with guilt, and rendered\nuneasy under a sense thereof.\nII. How he is to address himself to God by faith and prayer for\nforgiveness. And,\nIII. The encouragement which he has to hope that his prayer will be\nanswered. Under which head we shall take occasion to consider how far\nthat disposition which we have to forgive others, is an evidence hereof.\nI. Concerning the charge of guilt upon us, and that uneasiness which is\nthe consequence thereof. Here we consider the sinner as apprehended and\nstanding before God, the Judge of all; an accusation brought in against\nhim, in which he is charged with apostacy and rebellion against his\nrightful Lord and Sovereign, and, as the consequence thereof, his nature\nis vitiated and depraved, his heart deceitful above all things, and\ndesperately wicked; from whence proceed all actual transgressions, with\ntheir respective aggravations, which, according to the tenor of the law\nof God, deserve his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which\nis to come[122]. And this charge is made good against him by such\nconvincing evidence, that he must be very much unacquainted with\nhimself, and a stranger to the law of God, if he does not see it: But if\nwe suppose him stupid, and persisting in his own vindication, through\nthe blindness of his mind, and hardness of his heart, and ready to say\nwith Ephraim, _In all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me,\nthat were sin_, Hos. xii. 8. yet the charge will, notwithstanding,\nappear to be just, and every mouth shall be stopped, and they are forced\nto confess themselves guilty before God: Upon this, conscience is\nawakened, and trembles at the thoughts of falling into the hands of an\nabsolute God, who appears no otherwise to him than as a consuming fire;\nhis terrors set themselves in array against him, and this cannot but\nfill him with the greatest anguish, especially because there is no\nmethod which he can find out, to free himself from that misery, which he\ndreads as the consequence thereof.\nIf he pretends to extenuate his crimes, it will not avail him; and if\nhis own conscience does not come in as a witness against him, as having\nbeen a party concerned in the rebellion, it is an argument that it is\nrendered stupid by a continuance therein: Nothing that it can allege in\nits own vindication, will be regarded in the court of heaven, but rather\ntend to add weight to the guilt he has contracted; for the omniscience\nof God will bring an unanswerable charge against him, as being a\ntransgressor of his law, and thereby liable to condemnation, upon which,\nvindictive justice will demand satisfaction.\nIf he makes an overture to pay the debt, he must either yield sinless\nobedience, which is impossible, from the nature of the thing; or bear\nthe stroke of justice, and suffer the punishment that is due to him,\nwhich, if he is content to do, he knows not what it is to fall into the\nhands of the living God, or to be plunged into an abyss of endless\nmisery. If he thinks that he shall be secure by flying from justice,\nthis would be a vain attempt, since God is omnipresent; and _there is no\ndarkness or shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide\nthemselves_, Job xxxiv. 52.\nNothing therefore remains, but that he make supplication to his Judge,\nthat he would pass by the crimes he has committed, without demanding\nsatisfaction: But this is to desire, that he would act contrary to the\nholiness of his nature; which would be such a blemish on his\nperfections, that he is obliged to reject: What is this but to\nrelinquish his throne, deny his sovereignty, and act contrary to his own\nlaw, which is the rule of his government, whereby sinners will take\noccasion to transgress, expecting that they may do this with impunity?\nBut, is there no intercessor that will plead his cause, or appear for\nhim in the court of heaven? this cannot be done but by one who is able\nto make an atonement, and thereby secure the glory of divine justice, by\nhaving the debt transferred or placed to his account, and giving a full\nsatisfaction for it; but this belongs to none but our Lord Jesus Christ,\nwho has obtained redemption and forgiveness through his blood; and none\ncan take encouragement from hence, but he that addresses himself to God\nby faith, which we are now considering the sinner as destitute of, and\ntherefore the charge of guilt remains upon him. And it is certain, that\nthe consequence hereof is such, as will tend to fill him with the\ngreatest uneasiness under the burthen that lies on his conscience, which\nhas a perpetual dread of the execution of the sentence that is in force\nagainst him. This wounds his spirits; and it is impossible for any one\nto apply healing medicines, but by directing him according to the\nprescription contained in the gospel, to seek forgiveness in that way in\nwhich God applies it, in and through a Mediator.\nII. We are now to consider, how a person is to address himself to God by\nfaith and prayer for forgiveness, which is the principal thing designed\nin this petition. Here it is to be acknowledged, that when we draw nigh\nto God, it is with a sense of guilt, and, it may be, with great distress\nof conscience, arising from it; yet it differs very much from what was\nobserved under the last head, when we considered a sinner as standing\nbefore an absolute God, without any hope of obtaining forgiveness, since\nthat cannot but fill him with dread and horror; whereas, this is an\nexpedient for his obtaining a settled peace of conscience; and, indeed,\nthere is nothing of greater importance, than our performing this duty in\na right manner. And, in order thereunto, let it be considered,\n1. That when we pray for forgiveness of sin it is supposed, that none\ncan bestow this blessing upon us but God. No one has a right to forgive\nan offence, but he against whom it is committed: This will appear, if we\nconsider sin as a neglect or refusal to pay a debt of obedience, which\nis due from us, to God, and consequently it would be an invading his\nright, for any one who had no power to demand it, to pretend to give a\ndischarge to the sinner as an insolvent debtor: This would be to act\nlike the person mentioned in the parable, who was appointed indeed, to\nreceive his lord\u2019s debts, but not to cancel them; and therefore, our\nSaviour calls him an _unjust steward_; and he is said to have _wasted\nhis lord\u2019s goods_, by compounding the debts which were owing to him\nwithout his order, Luke xvi. 1. _& seq._ Now, since obedience, as it is\na religious duty is due to God alone; it is only he that can give a\ndischarge to those who have not performed it: and since it belongs to\nhim as a judge and law-giver, to punish offenders, it would be the\nhighest affront to him for a creature to pretend to this prerogative;\nand therefore God appropriates it to himself, when he says, _I even I am\nhe that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake_, Isa. xliii.\n25. which expression is to be understood of him exclusive of all others;\naccordingly, when the Jews charge our Saviour with blasphemy on his\nforgiving sins, and say, _Who can forgive sins but God only?_ the\nproposition was true, how false soever the inference, which they deduce\nfrom thence to disprove his Deity, might be. We shall now consider,\n2. That all ought to pray for forgiveness, and in what sense this is to\nbe done,\n(1.) All ought to pray for forgiveness: One would think, that this is so\nevident, and agreeable to the condition of fallen man, as well as\nfounded on many scriptures, and expressly commanded in this petition,\nwhich we are explaining, that it is needless to give a farther proof of\nit; but this we are obliged to do, inasmuch as some have asserted that a\njustified person ought not to pray for pardon of sin, since this is what\nis already done: This is an inference from what they advance, who plead\nfor actual justification from eternity; and therefore it is, as they\nsuppose, equally absurd for such an one to pray, that God would forgive\nhim, as it is to pray that he would choose them to eternal life, or that\nChrist would satisfy divine justice for the sins of his people, which he\nhas already done. It is, indeed, not very easy to understand what some\npersons mean, when they insist on this subject, inasmuch as they lay\ndown propositions, without sufficiently explaining them; and whatever\nthey allege in their vindication, that they intend nothing else hereby\nbut what is agreeable to the sentiments of the reformed churches, it is\ncertain, that they advance several things, or, at least, make use of\nsuch unguarded expressions as are altogether disowned by them; and, at\nthe same time, give occasion to some, to run into the contrary extreme,\nwho, for fear of being thought to assert eternal justification, deny the\neternal purpose of God relating thereunto.\nBut whatever they intend when they say, that a justified person ought\nnot to pray for pardon of sin; the contrary to this is sufficiently\nevident from scripture. For every believer is a justified person;\ntherefore, if we have any instance of believers praying for the pardon\nof sin, this sufficiently confutes that absurd notion which we are\nopposing. Now that many have prayed for pardon of sin, who have, at the\nsame time, been true believers, is evident, from David\u2019s praying for the\npardon of sin, as he often does: Thus he says, in Psal. xxv. 11. _For\nthy name\u2019s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great_; and\nyet, at the same time, he expresses himself like a justified person; _O\nmy God, I trust in thee_, ver. 2. and ver. 5. _Thou art the God of my\nsalvation_: And, in Psal. cxliii. 2. he prays, _Enter not into judgment\nwith thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified_;\nyet, at the same time, he appears to be a believer; for he speaks, in\nver. 8. of his _trusting in_, and _lifting up his soul to God_, and\n_fleeing to him_, that he would _hide him_, ver. 9. which are all acts\nof justifying faith; and, in Psal. li. 1. he prays, _Have mercy upon me,\nO God, according to thy loving-kindness; according to the multitude of\nthy tender mercies blot out my transgressions_; and, in ver. 9. _Hide\nthy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities_: Whereas he had\nan intimation before from God, that he had pardoned his sin, 2 Sam. xii.\n13. which, as appears by the preface to this Psalm, was the occasion of\nits composure; so that the Spirit of God hereby put words into his\nmouth, and taught him, notwithstanding the assurance he had from him of\nhis having obtained forgiveness, to pray for it: And the apostle Paul\nwas in a justified state, when he expressed his earnest desire of being\n_found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, but that which is\nthrough the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by\nfaith_, Phil. iii. 9. This might also be argued from all those\nscriptures, that represent believers as praying for salvation, which\ncannot be done without praying for forgiveness of sin, as being\ninseparably connected therewith. I shall therefore add no more\nconcerning the obligation which all are under, to pray for the pardon of\nsin, but proceed to consider,\n(2.) In what sense we are to pray for it. This may, without much\ndifficulty, be determined, if we rightly state the doctrine of\njustification, which, if it be considered as an immanent act in God, or\nthe eternal purpose of his will, not to impute sin, which is what\ndivines call decretive justification, it is to be allowed, that this is\nno more to be prayed for than eternal election; neither are we to pray,\nthat Christ may be constituted the Head and Surety of his elect, or,\nthat he might finish transgressions, make an end of sin, and bring in an\neverlasting righteousness, for that is already done. But, inasmuch as\nthe scripture often speaks of justification as consisting in the\napplication of Christ\u2019s righteousness, or that right we have to lay\nclaim to it, which is styled justification by faith, and is the only\nfoundation on which we build our hope, that we have an interest in what\nChrist did and suffered, and are thereby discharged from guilt and\ncondemnation. This cannot be before we believe; and in this sense we\npray that God would justify us: Now since forgiveness of sin is a branch\nof justification, it is, in this sense that we pray for the pardon of\nsin. And this includes in it,\n[1.] An earnest desire that God would not lay those sins to our charge\nthat we daily commit; or, that he would not, as the Psalmist says,\n_enter into judgment_ with us, Psal. cxliii. 2. And, as the consequence\nhereof, we pray, that God would not punish us as our iniquities deserve.\nThis is to pray for the application of Christ\u2019s righteousness as the\nground and foundation of our claim to forgiveness.\n[2.] We are to pray for the comfortable fruits and effects of\nforgiveness, that _being justified by faith, we may have peace with God\nthrough our Lord Jesus Christ_, and _access by faith, into this grace\nwherein we stand_, Rom. v. 1, 2. or, that we may be able to conclude,\nthat our persons and services are accepted in the Beloved; and that\nChrist hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.\n[3.] We are to pray for the assurance or comfortable sense hereof, that\nhereby we may rejoice in hope of the glory of God: And, inasmuch as we\ndaily contract guilt, we are to pray that this blessing may be daily\napplied to us, and that, both living and dying, we may be dealt with as\nthose who are interested in Christ\u2019s righteousness as our Surety and\nRedeemer.\nIf it be objected, that pardon of sin is a blessing that every believer\nhas; and therefore he ought not to pray for it. To this I answer, that\nthere are many privileges which God does, or will certainly bestow upon\nhis people, which they are, nevertheless, to pray for; otherwise they,\nwho are in a state of grace, are not to pray for perseverance in grace;\nbecause they are assured that it shall be maintained unto salvation,\naccording to God\u2019s promise: And, indeed, whatever promises are contained\nin the covenant of grace, a believer ought not, according to this method\nof reasoning, to pray that God would apply them to him, and so glorify\nhis faithfulness in accomplishing them, since he is certainly persuaded\nthat he will do it; whereas, all allow that we are to pray for this\nprivilege: Therefore, if we have a full assurance that God has forgiven\nour sins; yet, inasmuch as we daily contract guilt, we are daily to\npray, that he would not lay it to our charge, or deal with us as our\niniquities deserve.\n3. We shall now consider, how we are to address ourselves to God, or\nwhat views we are to have of him when we pray for forgiveness of sin.\nThis depends on the idea we have of those perfections which he glorifies\nin bestowing this privilege; and these are, more especially, his mercy,\ngrace and faithfulness, in accomplishing what he has promised in the\ncovenant of grace. As for his justice, that is considered, as will be\nobserved under a following head, as having received a full satisfaction;\nbut this is concerned in the purchase, not in the application of\nforgiveness; and therefore, though God, in this respect, appears with\nthe glory of a Judge, resolving to make no abatements of the debt which\nwas contracted, that he may thereby express his utmost detestation of\nthe sins committed: in this sense forgiveness is not to be obtained by\nentreaty; for it is inconsistent with the character of a Judge, to be\nmoved thereby, and contrary to the demands of law and justice. But, on\nthe other hand, when we draw nigh to him, we consider him as a Father\nwho delights in mercy, as it is particularly intimated in the preface to\nthis prayer; and therefore we do not come before him as summoned to\nstand at his tribunal, and to be weighed in the balance by him, in which\nrespect we would be found wanting, and, if our iniquities should be\nmarked by him, could not stand; but we consider ourselves as invited to\ncome into his presence, in hope of obtaining this privilege; and we\nconsider him as he has revealed himself in the gospel, in which we are\ntold, that there is forgiveness with him, that he may be feared, not as\nthe criminal fears his judge, who is ready to pass sentence upon him;\nbut as a child comes into his father\u2019s presence with such a fear as\nproceeds from love, and is the result of that encouragement which is\ngiven him, that he should be accepted in his sight: And, the great\ninducement hereunto, is the intimation that he has given thereof in the\npromises of the covenant of grace, and particularly those that respect\nforgiveness, in which he has discovered himself as a God ready to\npardon, _gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness_,\nNeh. ix. 17. with whom is _plenteous redemption_, Psal. cxxx. 7. he also\nstyles himself, _Our God, who will abundantly pardon_, inasmuch as _his\nthoughts and ways are above ours, as the heavens are higher than the\nearth_, Isa. lv. 7-9. and he has likewise promised that he will _cast\nall the sins_ of his people _into the depths of the sea_: Therefore they\nconsider him not only as glorifying his mercy, but as _performing his\ntruth_, and acting agreeably to his faithfulness, Micah vii. 19, 20.\nand, all this depends entirely on the discoveries he has made of himself\nto us through a Mediator: This leads us to consider,\n4. The way in which God bestows this blessing, and we are to seek it at\nhis hand by faith and prayer. We have before observed, that it would be\nan affront to the divine Majesty, to suppose that he will extend mercy\nto guilty sinners, without securing the glory of his vindictive justice;\nand this depends wholly on the satisfaction that Christ has given to it:\nTherefore we are to beg forgiveness for his sake, whom God has set forth\nto be a propitiation for his sake, that he might be just, and the\njustifier of him that believeth in Jesus; we are therefore first\nconsidered as having his righteousness imputed to us, and then this\nblessing, which we pray for, is applied to us. In this method of praying\nfor forgiveness, we take occasion to adore the wisdom of God, which has\nfound out this expedient to hallow or sanctify his own name, as well as\nsecure to us an interest in his love, and, at the same time, we express\nthe high esteem we have for the person of Christ, who has procured it\nfor us, as also the infinite value of the price he paid in order\nthereunto; and we refer our cause to him, that, as our Advocate, he\nwould appear on our behalf, in the merit of his obedience and\nsufferings; that our petition may be granted in such a way, that God\nhereby may have the highest revenue of glory redounding to himself, and\nwe receive the blessings consequent thereupon.\n5. We are now to consider the frame of spirit with which we are to pray\nfor forgiveness. There is no grace but what is to be exercised in\nprayer, agreeably to the subject-matter thereof; and it is evident, from\nthe nature of the thing, that when we pray for forgiveness, it ought to\nbe with a penitent frame of spirit: Accordingly repentance and\nforgiveness of sins are often connected in scripture. Thus it is said,\n_Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out_, Acts iii.\n19. not that we are to suppose that repentance, or any other grace, is\nthe cause of God\u2019s secret purpose or determination to forgive sin, or,\nthat he accepts of it as any part of that atonement or satisfaction\nwhich his justice requires to be made for it; for this is to ascribe\nthat to it which belongs entirely to Christ\u2019s righteousness; yet\nrepentance is so far necessary to forgiveness, that it would be a very\npreposterous thing for any one to ask this favour either of God or man\nwithout it. Not to repent of a crime committed, is, in effect, a\npleading for it, and a tacit resolution to persist in it, which\ndisqualifies us from pleading a pardon; and it would be contrary to the\ndivine perfections for God to give it to those who hereby do, as it\nwere, practically disown their need of it.\nNow the necessity of repentance, in those who are praying and hoping for\nforgiveness, appears from the connexion that there is between it, and\nall other graces; which, though distinguished, are not separated from\nit, and they are, all of them, necessary to salvation, which we can, by\nno means attain to, without being forgiven.\nIII. We proceed to consider, the encouragement that they, who plead for\nforgiveness with the exercise of faith, repentance and other graces,\nhave to expect, that they shall be heard and answered; and more\nparticularly, how far that disposition, which we have to forgive others\nis an evidence thereof.\n1. Grace exercised, is an evidence of forgiveness. This appears, in that\nit is a work and fruit of the Spirit, a branch of sanctification, and an\nearnest of eternal life; and, in this respect, that good work may be\ntruly said to be begun, which God will certainly carry on, and perfect\nin glory: of this, I say, every grace, provided it be true and genuine,\nis an evidence, from whence we may conclude our right to forgiveness, or\njustification, which is inseparably connected with it; as the apostle\nsays, _Whom he called, them he justified; and whom he justified, them he\nalso glorified_, Rom. viii. 30.\n2. We are now to consider how far, or in what respect, our exercising\nforgiveness towards others, is an evidence of our having obtained\nforgiveness from God, which is the sense given in those words, _as we\nforgive our debtors_. We may here observe the variation of the\nexpression in Matthew and Luke; in the former it is said, _Forgive us\nour debts as we forgive our debtors_; and, in the latter, _Forgive us\nour sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us_. There\nis a little difficulty contained in the sense of the particles, AS and\nFOR, which must be so explained, that the sense of the petition, in both\nevangelists may appear to be the same: Therefore, when Matthew says,\n_Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors_, the particle AS, is\nnot a note of equality, but of similitude; and accordingly it signifies,\nthat we are to forgive others, even as God, for Christ\u2019s sake, has\nforgiven us; or, as we hope to obtain forgiveness from him; though, if\nwe compare these two together, there is an infinite disproportion\nbetween them, as to the injuries forgiven, and other circumstances that\nattend the action. The injuries that are done to us are very small, if\ncompared with the crimes that we commit against God; and when we are\nsaid to forgive them, there is no comparison between it and that\nforgiveness which we desire from the hand of God. God\u2019s forgiving us is,\nindeed, a motive to us to forgive others, but one is not the measure, or\nstandard of the other: It therefore implies, that while we ask for\nforgiveness, we ought to do it with a becoming frame of spirit, as those\nwho are inclined to forgive others, and, at the same time to bless God,\nthat he has wrought this disposition in us; and, so far as we make use\nof it, as an argument in prayer, the meaning thereof is, that since he\nhas made it our duty, and we trust, has also given us this grace to\nforgive others; we hope, that he will, in like manner, _forgive us our\ntrespasses_.\nWe are now to consider the petition as laid down by the evangelist Luke;\n_Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to\nus_: which is, for substance, the same with that in Matthew, as but now\nexplained: Accordingly the particle FOR, is not causal, but\ndemonstrative; and therefore we are not to understand it as though our\nforgiving others were the ground and reason of God\u2019s forgiving us, since\nthat would be to put it in the room of Christ\u2019s righteousness; but the\nmeaning is, that we are encouraged to hope that he will forgive us, from\nthis demonstrative evidence; since he has given us that grace which\ninclines and disposes us to forgive others; from whence we have ground\nto conclude, that we shall obtain the blessing we pray for.\nThis leads us to consider the nature and extent of forgiveness, as\nexercised by us, and our obligation to perform this duty; and when this\nmay be said to be an evidence of our obtaining forgiveness from God.\n_First_, Concerning the nature and extent of forgiveness, as exercised\nby us; for the understanding of which, let it be premised,\n[1.] That the injuries that are done us, are to be considered either as\nthey contain an invasion upon, or denying us those rights which belong\nto us, agreeably to that station and condition in life, in which the\nprovidence of God has fixed us: these must be reckoned injuries, because\nthey are detrimental to us, and acts of injustice; or, they may be\nfarther considered, as crimes committed against God, inasmuch as they\ninfer a violation of the law of nature, which is instamped with his\nauthority; whereby the rights of every particular person are determined,\nand to deprive us of them, is a sin against God, in the same sense in\nwhich sins immediately committed against men, are said to be committed\nagainst him. And by this we may be farther led to consider,\n[2.] That injuries are only to be forgiven by us, as they are against\nourselves; whereas God alone can forgive them as they are against him;\nand the reason hereof is, because no one can dispense with that\npunishment which is due for the violation of a law, but the supreme\nauthority. The precept that is to be obeyed, and the sanction that binds\nover the offender to suffer for his violation of it, must be established\nby the highest authority. And therefore, inasmuch as the creature cannot\ndemand that obedience which is due to God alone; for the same reason he\ncannot remit that debt of punishment which belongs only to God to\ninflict. However, we are to desire, that God would pardon, rather than\npunish those that have injured us: And this is the only sense in which\nwe may be said to forgive others those crimes that are committed against\nGod, if this may be called forgiveness. But, so far as any injury\nrespects ourselves, as being detrimental to us, it is our duty to\nforgive it, and not to exercise that private revenge which is\ninconsistent with the subject-matter of this petition.\n[3.] So far as an injury, which more especially respects ourselves,\ncontains in it a violation of human laws, whereby the offender has\nrendered himself obnoxious to a capital punishment; it does not belong\nto us, as private persons, to forgive the criminal, so as to obstruct\nthe course of justice, since this is a matter that does not concern us,\nas not having the executive part of human laws in our power; and to\npretend to this, would be not only to violate the laws of men, but to\ncommit an offence against God, who has established the just rights of\ncivil government; therefore, that forgiveness which we are obliged to\nexercise towards others, does not extend itself to this matter. Nor are\nwe obliged, when we forgive those that have injured us, to be\nunconcerned about doing justice to ourselves, when it is possible, or at\nleast easy, for us to have redress in the course of law or equity;\nespecially if the damage we sustain hereby, be, in a very great degree,\nprejudicial to ourselves or families. And if it affects our good name in\nthe world, the forgiving those reproaches that are cast upon us, is not\ninconsistent with our using endeavours to vindicate our own reputation;\nthough it may be, this can hardly be done without exposing him that has\ndone us the injury, to suffer that shame which he brought on himself\nthereby.\nThese things being premised, we proceed to consider, the nature and\nextent of forgiveness, as it is to be exercised by us, so far as the\ninjury committed respects ourselves. This is opposed to our bearing the\nleast degree of malice against the offender, or carrying our resentments\ntoo far, by magnifying lesser injuries, and meditating revenge: Nor\nought we to be so partial in our own cause, as to deny, or altogether\noverlook those things that are, in other respects commendable in him, as\nthough a crime committed against us, were altogether inconsistent with\nthe least degree of virtue or goodness in him that has committed it. If\nhe has done injustice to us, this does not excuse any act of injustice\nto his person or character in other instances, which have not an\nimmediate relation to ourselves; which is to see things through a false\nmedium, or to infer consequences that cannot fairly be deduced from any\nthing that he has done, how injurious soever it may have been to us.\nMoreover, we are not to take occasion from the ill treatment we have met\nwith, from any one, to endeavour to ruin him, as to his estate or\ncharacter in the world; since that is not a proper expedient, either to\ndo justice to ourselves, or bring him, who has done us the injury to\nrepentance.\nHere we may take occasion to enquire, how far a person that is injured\nby another, may demand satisfaction? and, whether it is our duty to\nforgive him, though it be neither in his power nor inclination to make\nit?\nThe answer that I would give to this, is; that the law of God and\nnature, does not prohibit us from demanding satisfaction in proportion\nto the injury received; since this is a debt we ought to claim, in\njustice to ourselves, and our character in the world: Nevertheless, it\nmust be considered,\n_1st_, That it may sometimes be out of his power to make full\nsatisfaction; in which case we must be content, and forgive the injury\nwithout it; and we are to deal with him in like manner, as we are\nobliged to do with those who are insolvent in pecuniary debts. But,\n_2dly_, We suppose, that the person who has injured us, is able in some\nmeasure, to make satisfaction; but he is so far from being willing to do\nit, that he refuses to acknowledge his crime, and, which is still worse,\nseems inclined, as occasion may offer, to commit it again, which is the\nworst of tempers, especially if the injury be not barely supposed, but\nreal: Yet this is no rule for us to proceed by, in forgiving injuries;\nfor the understanding of which let it be considered, that satisfaction\nfor injuries committed, consists either in making a compensation in\nproportion to the damage sustained thereby, or else in a bare\nacknowledgment of the fault committed. The former of these we may, in\njustice, insist on; but yet, in most cases, where the injury only\nrespects ourselves, it may be dispensed with, or demanded at pleasure;\nbut whether it be given or no, it is so far our duty to pass it by, as\nnot to bear the least degree of malice against him, that has injured us,\nthough he refuses to give it. As to the latter, where no more is\ndemanded, than a bare acknowledgment of the offence committed, which\ncannot be supposed to be out of the power of the offender to do; but he\nis resolved that he will not make this small satisfaction, as persisting\nin his own vindication, and determines to do the same again, as occasion\noffers: we are to let him know, that herein he not only sins against us,\nbut God, and to exhort him to confess his crime before him; and\ntherefore we pity his obstinacy, while we express our readiness to pass\nby the injury he has done us: However, such an one is not to be chosen\nby us as an intimate friend or associate, out of a principle of\nself-preservation, that he may not be in a capacity of doing us the same\ninjuries for the future, which his obstinacy discovers him to be\ninclined to do. Thus concerning the nature and extent of this duty of\nforgiving injuries: We proceed to consider,\n_Secondly_, The indispensable obligation we are under to perform it;\notherwise we could not make this appeal to God in prayer, or take\nencouragement to hope, that we shall obtain forgiveness from him. To\ninduce us hereunto, let us consider,\n_1st_, That if God should deal with us as we do with our\nfellow-creatures, when we refuse to forgive them, we should be for ever\nmiserable. This our Saviour illustrates by the parable of the debtor and\ncreditor, in Matt. xviii. 24, _& seq._ where a person is represented as\n_owing ten thousand talents_, and _his lord_, upon his entreaty,\n_forgave him the debt_; and afterwards he dealt severely with one that\nowed him but an _hundred pence_, and thereby provoked his lord to\n_deliver him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto\nhim_; which parable, though it does not argue the least mutability in\nthe divine purpose relating hereunto, yet we may infer from hence, how\ninconsiderable the injuries that are done us are, if compared with those\nwhich we have done against God; and how little ground we have to expect\nforgiveness from him, if we are not disposed to forgive others.\n_2dly_, An implacable spirit, meditating revenge for injuries done\nagainst us, will render us altogether unfit for the performance of an\nholy duty, and particularly this of imploring forgiveness from God: It\nalso exposes us to many temptations; accordingly the apostle speaks of\nanger retained in our breasts, or _letting the sun go down upon our\nwrath_, as that which _gives place to the Devil_, Eph. iv. 26, 27.\n_3dly_, Malice and fury tend to exasperate an enemy; whereas,\nforgiveness melts him into friendship, and very much recommends the\ngospel, which obliges us to shew such instances of brotherly kindness,\neven where they are least deserved.\n_4thly_, We have many bright examples for our imitation, of the best of\nmen, who have been highly injured, and yet have expressed a forgiving\nspirit. Thus Joseph forgave the injuries done against him by his\nbrethren, when, after his father\u2019s death, they were jealous that he\nwould hate them, and requite them all the evil that they had done unto\nhim; but he not only comforted and spake kindly to them, but made very\nliberal provision for the subsisting of them and their families, Gen. 1.\n15-21. And, Moses, when Miriam was smitten with leprosy, for speaking\nagainst him, prays for her recovery, Numb. xii. 13. And, when the Syrian\nhost was sent on purpose to destroy the prophet Elisha, and God had\ndelivered them into his hand, being in the midst of Samaria, and the\nking of Israel was ready to smite them, had he desired it; but this he\nwas so far from doing, that he says, _Thou shalt not smite them:\nWouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword,\nand with thy bow, set bread and water before them, that they may eat and\ndrink and go to their master_, 2 Kings vi. 22.\nAnd, in the New Testament, we have an instance of a forgiving spirit in\nStephen, when, in the very agonies of death, having been before\ninsulted, and now stoned by his enraged enemies; it is said, _He kneeled\ndown, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their\ncharge_, Acts vii. 60. But the highest instance that can be given of the\nexercise of this grace we have in our Saviour, who prayed for them that\ncrucified him; _Father forgive them for they know not what they do_,\nLuke xxiii. 34. These examples are worthy of our imitation; and\ntherefore we should reckon ourselves obliged to forgive those who have\ninjured us.\n_Object._ It will be objected by some, that the injuries done them, are\nso very great, that they are not to be borne; and it would be\ndishonourable for them not to take any notice thereof: Or, it may be,\nthe ingratitude that is expressed herein, is such that it deserves the\nhighest resentment; and if it should be passed over, it might be\nreckoned a tacit approbation of their crime, and give occasion to them,\nthat have committed the injury against them, to despise them, and do the\nlike for the future.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied;\n_1st_, That if the injury be great, it will be much more commendable,\nand a greater instance of virtue and grace to forgive than to resent it;\nfor in this a man overcomes himself, subdues his own passions, and\nthereby lets his enemy know, that he has a due sense of the divine\ncommand relating thereunto, and that his spirit is sanctified and calmed\nby the power of divine grace. This is reckoned one of the greatest\nvictories; as it is said, _He that is slow to anger is better than the\nmighty; and he that ruleth his spirit, than he that taketh a city_,\nProv. xvi. 32.\n_2dly_, As for our honour, which is pretended to be concerned herein,\nthey who allege it, are very much mistaken in their sentiments about\ntrue honour; since it is said, _The discretion of a man deferreth his\nanger, and it is his glory to pass over his transgression_, chap. xix.\n_3dly_, This does not, in the least, argue, that the person who\nforgives, approves of his crime, who has done him the injury, since this\nis not inconsistent with our charging it on his conscience, and\nendeavouring to bring him under a sense of guilt, as having not only\ninjured us, but done that which is highly displeasing to God; and he may\nbe given to understand, that hereby he has wronged his own soul more\nthan us, and therefore has great reason to be humbled before God, and\nrepent of his sin committed against us, which, as it is committed\nagainst God, he only can forgive; though we let him know, that we are\ndisposed to forgive him, so far as the crime is directed against us.\n_4thly_, As to the pretence, that forgiving injuries will make those who\nhave done them grow bold, and be more hardened in their crimes; and that\nthey will hereby take occasion to insult, and do the like injuries for\nthe future: It may be replied, that this very seldom happens; but if it\nshould, we must consider that the ungrateful abuse of a kind and\ngenerous action, or the possibility of this consequence ensuing\nthereupon, is no sufficient excuse for our not performing it. But if\nthere be the least ingenuity of temper, or if it pleases God, by his\ngrace, to succeed our kind behaviour toward them for their good, it will\nhave a far different effect; as it is observed, _A soft answer turneth\naway wrath, but grievous words stir up anger_, Prov. chap. xv. 1. Thus\nconcerning the obligation we are under to forgive the injuries that are\ncommitted against us: We are now to consider,\n_Thirdly_, How this is an evidence, or may afford us ground of hope,\nthat we shall obtain forgiveness from God, when we are praying for it.\nHere let it be observed, that forgiving injuries, may be considered\nbarely as a virtue, proceeding from a goodness of temper, or the sense\nthat persons have of the equity and reasonableness thereof, and from\nother motives which the light of nature may suggest, or, as it is\nrecommended by Seneca, Epictetus, and other heathen moralists: And,\nindeed, it must be reckoned a very commendable quality, and a convincing\nevidence that a person is, in a great degree, master of his own\npassions; but we cannot from hence conclude, that such an one is in a\nstate of grace; and nothing short of that can be evidence of our right\nto forgiveness: Therefore we must consider this disposition to forgive\ninjuries, as a Christian virtue, or as containing in it some\ningredients, that manifest it to be a grace wrought in us by the Spirit,\nand a branch of sanctification, and, as such, having several other\ngraces connected with; and accordingly,\n1. When our forgiving injuries is an evidence of our having obtained\nforgiveness, we must do it out of a humble sense of the many crimes that\nwe have committed against God; and therefore it is joined with, and\nflows from the grace of repentance.\n2. It also contains in it several acts of faith; as hereby we do, in\neffect, acknowledge, that all we have is in God\u2019s hand, who has a right\nto take it away when he pleases; and if he suffers us to be deprived of\nour reputation and usefulness in the world, or our wealth and outward\nestate therein, by the injurious treatment we meet with from those, who,\nwithout cause are our enemies; we are sensible that this could not be\ndone without his permissive providence, which we entirely acquiesce in.\nThe injury or injustice we wholly lay to the charge of those who hate\nus, nevertheless, in obedience to our Saviour\u2019s command, we desire to\nexpress our love to them, in the most valuable instances thereof, and,\nat the same time, to acknowledge and bow down to the sovereignty and\njustice of God, in suffering us to be thus dealt with by men, hoping and\ntrusting that he will over-rule this, and all other afflictive\nprovidences for our good; as David says, when he speaks of God\u2019s\nsuffering Shimei to curse him: _It may be, that the Lord will look on\nmine affliction, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing\nthis day_, 2 Sam. xvi. 12.\n3. When we forgive those that have injured us, it is, with an earnest\ndesire that God would give them repentance, that thereby his name may be\nglorified, and his interest promoted, whatever becomes of our name and\nusefulness in the world.\u2014When we are enabled to exercise such a frame of\nspirit as this in forgiving those that have injured us, we have ground\nto hope, that when we pray for forgiveness, the great God, who is the\nauthor of all that grace which we exercise in forgiving others, will\ngrant us this invaluable privilege.\nHaving explained this petition, we shall now consider it as a directory,\nthat so we may put up our requests to God, agreeable thereunto:\nAccordingly we are to cast ourselves before his footstool, with humble\nconfession of sin, and imploring forgiveness from him, to this purpose:\n\u201cWe adore thee, O Lord, as a God of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.\nThou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts, and hast revealed thy wrath\nfrom heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men: We\nacknowledge that we are, by our transgressions, become debtors to thy\njustice; our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespasses\ngrown up unto the heavens; and thereby we have deserved to be banished\nout of thy sight, and cast into the prison of hell, without hope of\nbeing released from thence. We are not able to stand in judgment, and\ntherefore we dread the thoughts of appearing before thine awful\ntribunal, as an absolute God. If thou shouldest contend with us, we\ncannot answer for the least sin that we have committed; and it would be\nan injury to thy justice, and an increasing of our guilt, to expect or\ndesire, that thou shouldest pardon our sins without receiving\nsatisfaction for them, which we are sensible that we are not, nor ever\nshall be able to give thee. But we bless thy name, that thou hast sent\nthy well-beloved Son into the world, who gave his life a ransom for thy\npeople; by which means thy justice is satisfied, thy law fulfilled, and\nall thy perfections infinitely glorified: He hath finished\ntransgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and\nbrought in everlasting righteousness; which is to and upon all them that\nbelieve. Thou hast therefore given us leave, and encouraged us to come\nto thee by faith, to plead with thee for redemption and forgiveness\nthrough his blood, according to the riches of thy grace. In him thou art\na God, pardoning the iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of the\nremnant of thine heritage: Therefore we pray for this invaluable\nprivilege as those who humbly hope and trust that we have those graces\nwrought in us, which are an evidence of our having Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness imputed to us, for which we bless thee; and, in\nparticular, that thou hast enabled us to forgive all the injuries that\nare done us by our fellow creatures; which are very small and\ninconsiderable, if compared with those affronts which we daily offer to\nthy Majesty. We beseech thee, grant that this, and all other graces, may\nmore and more abound in us, that thereby our evidences of an interest in\nChrist\u2019s righteousness may be more strong and clear; that though we\ndaily contract guilt by our transgressions, we may be enabled to\nconclude for our comfort, that there is no condemnation to us, and that\niniquity shall not be our ruin.\u201d\nFootnote 121:\n  _See vol. II. 289-290 and vol. III. 72._\nFootnote 122:\n  _See Quest. CLII._\n    QUEST. CXCV. _What do we pray for in the sixth petition?_\n    ANSW. In the sixth petition, [which is, _And lead us not into\n    temptation, but deliver us from evil_,] acknowledging that the most\n    wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends,\n    may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a\n    time, led captive by temptations, that Satan, the world, and the\n    flesh, are ready, powerfully to draw us aside and ensnare us; and\n    that we, even after the pardon of our sins, by reason of our\n    corruption, weakness, and want of watchfulness, are not only subject\n    to be tempted, and forward to expose ourselves unto temptations; but\n    also, of ourselves, unable and unwilling to resist them, to recover\n    out of them, and to improve them, and worthy to be left under the\n    power of them; we pray, that God would so overrule the world, and\n    all in it; subdue the flesh, and restrain Satan; order all things,\n    bestow and bless all means of grace, and quicken us to watchfulness\n    in the use of them, that we, and all his people may, by his\n    providence, be kept from being tempted to sin; or, if tempted, that,\n    by his Spirit, we may be powerfully supported and enabled to stand\n    in the hour of temptation, or, when fallen, raised again and\n    recovered out of it, and have a sanctified use and improvement\n    thereof; that our sanctification and salvation may be perfected,\n    Satan trodden under our feet, and we fully freed from sin,\n    temptation, and all evil for ever.\nOur Saviour having, in the foregoing petition, exhorted us to pray for\nforgiveness of sins, whereby the guilt of past crimes may be removed; in\nthis he advises us to pray against temptation, lest being overcome\nthereby, we should contract fresh guilt, and walk unbecoming those who\nhope for, or have obtained forgiveness from God. In order to our\nunderstanding of which it will be necessary for us to premise something\ntending to explain the meaning of the word _Temptation_. Accordingly it\nmay be taken in a good sense: Thus God himself is sometimes said to\n_tempt_, or rather, which is all one, to _try_ his people. This he does\nby the various dispensations of his providence, whether prosperous or\nadverse. And sometimes by his commands, when he puts us upon the\nperformance of difficult duties, that he might prove us, whether his\nfear is before us: In this respect he is said to have tempted Abraham,\nproved his faith, and discovered his readiness to obey his command in\noffering Isaac; and, after he had tried his faith, he commends him, when\nhe says, _Now I know that thou lovest God_, Gen. xxii. 1, 12. And\nsometimes he is said to tempt, or _allure_, to what is good, Hos. ii.\n14. to invite his people to do those things which redound to his glory\nand their real interest; and in this sense we may and ought to tempt\nothers, to persuade, and, as much as in us lies, engage their affections\nto the performance of what is good: Thus the apostle advises us to\n_consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works_, Heb. x.\nWe are not to understand the word _temptation_ in these senses in this\npetition; but it is to be taken for our being tempted to sin, in which\nrespect God never tempts any one: Thus the apostle says, _Let no man\nsay, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted\nwith evil; neither tempteth he any man_, James i. 13. neither ought we\nto tempt one another thereunto. This being premised, we come more\nimmediately to explain this petition: In which we shall consider some\nthings which are supposed; and also the subject-matter thereof.\nI. There are several things supposed, when we are taught to pray, _Lead\nus not into temptation_. As,\n1. That man, in this imperfect state, is very much exposed to\ntemptations. The world is always ready to present its alluring objects,\nwhich are suited to the corruption of our nature, and therefore too\neasily complied with: And this is farther promoted by Satan\u2019s\nsuggestions, who is daily endeavouring to entangle us in the snare that\nis laid for us.\n2. As we are daily tempted to sin, so we are in great danger of being\novercome thereby; which arises not only from the methods used to draw us\naside from God, and the many secret snares laid for us, that are not\neasily discerned, but principally from the treachery of our own hearts,\nwhich are deceitful above all things, and very apt to incline us to\ncommit those sins which bring a great deal of guilt with them. It also\nproceeds sometimes from a want of watchfulness; whereby the enemy comes\nupon us undiscovered, and we are overcome before we are aware of it; the\ntemptation offers itself, and we are unable, but willing, to resist it.\nAnd, if fallen by it, this tends still more to weaken us, so that we\ncannot recover ourselves from the pit into which we are plunged; we also\nfind it very difficult, if God is pleased, at any time, to suffer us to\nfall by temptations, to improve them aright to his glory and our own\ngood.\n3. It is farther supposed, that God may suffer his people, though their\nsins are pardoned, and their souls sanctified, to be tempted, and\nsometimes even foiled and led captive for a time; which may give us\noccasion to consider,\n(1.) In what sense he may be said to tempt, or lead his people into\ntemptation. This he does, though without being the author of sin,[123]\n[1.] Objectively; when his providential dispensations, which, in\nthemselves, are holy, just, and good, offer occasions of sin; which,\nnevertheless, would not ensue hereupon, did not our corrupt nature lay\nhold on them as such, and abuse them: Thus all God\u2019s works of providence\nor grace, may prove temptations to men; as the Psalmist, speaking of the\n_prosperity of the wicked_, intimates, that it raised his envy, Psal.\nlxxiii. 3. and elsewhere he considers the blessings of common providence\nas proving a temptation, to carnal security and indifferency in\nreligion, to some of whom it is said, _Because they have no changes,\ntherefore they fear not God_, Psal. lv. 19. and, on the other hand,\nafflictive providence sometimes prove temptations to us to murmur and\nentertain hard thoughts of God.\u2014Moreover, his threatenings are\noftentimes abused, and some thereby tempted to think him severe and\nunmerciful; others complain of his commandments as grievous, because he\ndoes not give them those indulgencies to sin which their corrupt natures\ndesire. In these respects God may be said to lead into temptation;\nnevertheless, we are not to pray, that he would alter the methods of his\nprovidence, or make abatements as to the duties which he commands us to\nperform; but rather, that he would not suffer us to make a wrong use of\nthem.\n[2.] God leads into temptation permissively, when he does not restrain\nthe tempter, which he is not obliged to do, but suffers us to be\nassaulted by him, and, at the same time, denies the aids and assistance\nof his grace, to prevent our compliance therewith; so that when we pray\nthat he would _not lead us into temptation_, we desire that he would\nprevent the assault, or fortify us against it, that, through the\nweakness of our grace, or the prevalency of corruption, we may not\ncomply with the temptation.\n(2.) We shall now consider the reason why God thus leads his people into\ntemptation, or suffers them to be tempted: or what are those holy, wise,\njust, and gracious ends, which he designs thereby; and,\n[1.] It cannot be expected that it should be otherwise, when we chuse to\ngo in the way of temptation, or indulge those corruptions, whereby we\nare inclined to yield to it: In this case, God\u2019s judicial hand appears,\nas he punishes for one sin, by suffering us to be tempted to another.\n[2.] God hereby gives us occasion to see our own weakness, and the\ndeceitfulness of our hearts, and the need we have of his grace, to\nprevent our falling by temptation: Thus it is said, that God _left\nHezekiah_, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. compared with 2 Kings xx. 15. when he\nsinned in shewing the ambassadors of the king of Babylon the treasures\nthat he had in his house, in which this good king discovered too much\npride; whereas it had been better had he shewn them the bed he lay on,\nwhen he was nigh unto death, and taken occasion from thence, to give God\nthe glory of his miraculous recovery which was the reason of their being\nsent to compliment him upon it: In this respect _God left him to try\nhim, that he might know all that was in his heart_.\n[3.] God does this, that, when we experience the superior force of our\nspiritual enemies, we may, by faith and prayer, have recourse to his\nalmighty power and grace. Thus when the apostle Paul was in danger of\nbeing _exalted above measure_, through Satan\u2019s temptations, he says,\n_For this I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me_, 2\nCor. xii. 8.\n[4.] He suffers this, that we may herein have an instance of the\nimperfections of this present state, and be induced to press after, and\nlong for, that state of perfect freedom, not only from sin, but\ntemptation, which is reserved for us in heaven.\n[5.] We are led into temptation, that hereby we may see the necessity of\nmaking use of the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand our\nground. As the soldier will not put on his armour but when he is going\nto engage the enemy; so God has ordained that our life should be a\nperpetual warfare, and that we should be continually exposed to the\nassaults of our spiritual enemies, that we may always be prepared for\nthem, having _the girdle of truth, the breast-plate of righteousness,\nthe shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the\nSpirit, which is the word of God_, Eph. vi. 14-17. He also suffers this,\nthat we may, in the end, know what it is to conquer, and have the\npleasure and satisfaction arising from hence, and that he may have the\nglory of this victory.\n[6.] God suffers this, that he may cure our sloth, and excite us to\ngreater watchfulness, as those who are never wholly out of danger: Thus\nthe apostle says, _Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the\nDevil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour_, 1\nPet. v. 8. and our Saviour advises his disciples, to _watch and pray,\nthat they enter not into temptation_, Matt. xxvi. 41.\n[7.] God suffers us to be tempted, that we may know the depths of Satan,\nwhich we should otherwise be unapprized of; and that thereby we may be\nmore prepared to make resistance, and, when we are enabled to overcome,\nmay be better furnished to direct others, who are liable to like\ntemptations, how they should behave themselves under them, and to\nencourage them to hope that they should be delivered, as we have been.\n4. It is farther observed, that though God suffers his people to be\ntempted, and even foiled, and led captive, yet this is only for a time.\nIn this the temptations of believers differ from those of the\nunregenerate, who are _taken captive by Satan at his will_, 2 Tim. ii.\n26. Whereas it is said concerning the believer, that it is only _for a\nseason_; and that, _if need be, he is in heaviness through manifold\ntemptations_, 1 Tim. i. 6. This leads us to consider,\nII. The subject-matter of the petition, when we pray that God would _not\nlead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil_. The only difficulty\nin laying down the method in which this is to be insisted on, arises\nfrom the indeterminateness of the word _evil_; of which, there are\nvarious senses given by them, that explain the Lord\u2019s prayer.\nSome understand by it, the evil one, or the Devil; and then one part of\nthis petition may be considered as exegetical of the other: So that, not\nto be led into temptation, is the same as, to be delivered from the\nassaults of Satan, the evil one, that we may not be brought under his\npower, or become vassals to him, as complying with his temptations.\nOthers understand the word in a more large sense, as an intimation of\nour desire to be delivered from evil of all kinds, and that either from\nthe evil of sin, or the evil of afflictions, which are the consequence\nof sin. If we take it for a deliverance from the evil of sin; this\nrespects the guilt thereof, and the punishment that is due to it; and\nthen it differs little or nothing from the subject-matter of the\nforegoing petition, when we pray, that God would _forgive us our sins_;\nor if, on the other hand, we take it for deliverance from the evil of\nsin, as it includes in it a branch of sanctification, that is, from the\ndominion and slavery of sin, then it is well connected with the former\npetition; for when we pray for pardon of sin, we ought also to pray for\ndeliverance from the reigning power thereof. And it is very well\nconnected with our praying against temptation; for it is, in effect, to\ndesire either that we may not be assaulted by the tempter, or that we\nmay not be drawn aside to sin against God thereby.\nAs for the evil of affliction, I cannot think that this is intended by\nthis expression, because the opposition between it and our deliverance\nfrom temptation, would not appear to be so just as we must suppose it\nis, unless we take temptation itself to be an affliction; and then it is\nthe same as though we should say, deliver us from temptation, that we\nmay not be afflicted therewith; which we must be supposed to be, by\nreason of the danger we are in of falling thereby.\nBy passing by these critical remarks on the sense of the words, _Deliver\nus from evil_, we shall consider the subject-matter of this petition,\nunder two general heads, _viz._\n_First_, We shall enquire what are the temptations which we are exposed\nto.\n_Secondly_, How we are to pray that we may not be led into them; or, if\nwe are, how we may be delivered from the evil consequences that will\narise from our compliance with them, which is principally implied in\nthose words, _Deliver us from evil_.\n_First_, What are those temptations which we are exposed to: These are\nof various kinds, all which take their rise either from the world, the\nflesh, or the Devil. Their manner of acting, indeed, is different; yet\nthey are very often united in their assaults, from whence we are in\nperpetual danger of being overcome, if God, by his grace, is not pleased\nto interpose.\u2014And,\n1. We shall consider the temptations that we meet with from the world.\nThese are either such as arise from the solicitations of those whom we\nconverse with therein, who, under a pretence of friendship, persuade us\nto sin: Thus we read of some who _entice others to lay wait for blood_,\nand desire those whom they would ensnare into this crime, to _cast in\ntheir lot among them_, Prov. i. 10-14. but we are advised, not to\nconsent to, or be confederate with them: Or else they arise from those\nthings in the world which present themselves to us, and are temptations\nto sin, in an objective way, being not so much the cause as the occasion\nthereof; and, in many instances, the use thereof is lawful, while the\nabuse alone proves hurtful to us: This is what we shall principally\nconfine ourselves to at present, and shew how the good and evil things\nof the world, or the various conditions in which we are, whether\nprosperous or adverse, prove temptations to us.\n(1.) The good things of the world, or the various conditions in which we\nare, whether prosperous or adverse, prove temptations to us.\n(2.) The good things of the world are sometimes a snare to us, or an\noccasion of sin, _viz._ the riches, honours and pleasures thereof: Thus\nour Saviour speaks, Matt. xiii. 22. of the _care of this world_, that\nis, either to gain or increase of it; and the apostle speaks of some who\nhad _forsaken the right way, following the way of Balaam, who loved the\nwages of unrighteousness_, 2 Pet. ii. 15. or acted contrary to his\nconscience for gain; and Felix perverted justice to obtain a bribe,\nconcerning whom it is said, _He hoped that money should have been given\nhim of Paul, that he might loose him_, Acts xxiv. 16. And we read of\nothers that _will be rich_, that is, who immoderately pursue the gain of\nthe world, that hereby _fall into temptation, and a snare, and many\nhurtful lusts_, 1 Tim. vi. 9. And the honours of the world are a\ntemptation to others; Thus our Saviour says, _How can ye believe, which\nreceive honour one of another_, John v. 44. And others are ensnared by\nthe pleasures of the world, who are stiled _lovers of pleasures more\nthan lovers of God_, 2 Tim. iii. 4.\nAnd, indeed, we often find, that the necessary duties or enjoyments of\nlife, such as eating, drinking, and recreation; and the various\nrelations we stand in to others prove a temptation to us. Many things\nare so, as they are used unseasonably, immoderately, and without a due\nregard to the glory of God, which ought to be our highest end in all\nworldly enjoyments; and, indeed, whatever has a tendency to draw forth\nour corruption, may be said to be a temptation to us: Sometimes the\nprosperous condition of others has this effect upon us: Thus Cain,\nbeholding Abel to have a more visible token of the divine regard to his\nperson and offering than he had, hated and _slew him_, Gen. iv. 5, 9.\nAnd Joseph\u2019s being a favourite in his father\u2019s house, and honoured by\nGod, in having divine dreams, gave occasion to his brethren to envy him;\nwho first designed to slay him, and afterwards, out of malice, sold him\ninto Egypt. And when Joshua saw Eldad and Medad prophesying, supposing\nthat this belonged only to Moses; and that it was a lessening of his\nhonour, for them to pretend to this privilege, he desires that they\nmight be _forbid_; but this was plainly a temptation; for Moses gives\nhim a check, intimating that he did not well in _envying_ them _for his\nsake_, Numb. xi. 29.\nMoreover, we often find, that our own condition in the world, when we\nenjoy the outward blessings of providence, proves a temptation: Some are\nlike the vessel that is in danger of being overset by having too much\nsail, and no ballast to keep it steady: In like manner, the abundance of\nthis world, without the grace of God, to sanctify and set bounds to our\naffections, will oftentimes prove a snare to us. Some are hereby tempted\nto covetousness, than which, nothing is more preposterous; yet nothing\nmore common. This seems to be supposed in the Psalmist\u2019s advice; _If\nriches increase, set not your heart upon them_, Psal. lxii. 10. and it\nis an intimation, that our desires often increase with our substance, so\nthat the more we have, the more we want, and are less disposed to\ncontribute to the necessities of others: We have an instance of this in\nNabal, whose answer to the obliging message, sent by David to him, _Say\nye to him that liveth in prosperity, Peace be both to thee, and peace be\nto thine house, and peace be unto all that thou hast. Give, I pray thee,\nwhatsoever cometh to thine hand, unto thy servants, and to thy son\nDavid_, 1 Sam. xxv. 6, 8, 11. argued him to be of a churlish\ndisposition, and that his prosperous circumstances in the world were a\ntemptation to his corruptions, having no sense of gratitude for those\nfavours that he had received from him and his men, while they resided in\nthe wilderness, and were conversant with those that kept his flocks\nthere. It would have been a more plausible excuse, had he alleged the\ndanger that might accrue to him thereby: or, that it was possible that\nSaul might hear of it, and deal with him as he had done with Abimelech,\nand the other priests, at Nob, for that small respect that he had shewed\nhim: But this be takes no notice of, but treats him morosely, when he\nsays _Shall I take my bread and my water, and my flesh, that I have\nkilled for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence\nthey be_. This manifested him to be a _man of Belial_, as Abigail\nconfesses, when she says, _Nabal is his name, and folly is with him_,\nAgain, we sometimes find, that a prosperous condition in the world, is a\ntemptation to God\u2019s people to presumption and carnal security; as the\nPsalmist says, _In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved_, Psal.\nxxx. 6. and the wicked are hereby tempted to obstinacy and disobedience;\nas God says by the prophet, to the Israelites, _I spake unto thee in thy\nprosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear; This hath been thy manner\nfrom thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice_, Jer. xxii. 21. And\nsometimes to pride, haughtiness, and oppression; thus the Psalmist\nspeaks of those who were _not in trouble, neither plagued like other\nmen; therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain, violence covereth\nthem as a garment_, Psal. lxxiii. 5, 6. We are not, indeed, to suppose,\nthat this is the necessary result of a prosperous state in the world,\nsince that temptation, which is only objective, may be fenced against:\nBut the pernicious tendency thereof arises from the depravity of our\nnature, and its proneness to abuse the blessings of providence; from\nwhence some take occasion to cast off fear, and put the evil day far\nfrom them: Therefore, when we pray, that the world may not prove a\ntemptation to us, we desire, that God would keep us from using any\nindirect means, either to get or increase our worldly substance, but, on\nthe other hand, enable us to improve it to his glory; and that our\naffections may not be so much set upon it as to alienate them from him;\nbut that we may make it the matter of our deliberate choice, rather to\nbe deprived of outward blessings, than receive them as our only portion,\nand, by having our hearts set too much upon them, forfeit, and be denied\nan interest in, his special and distinguishing love.\n(2.) The evil things in the world often prove a temptation to us. By\n_evil things_, we mean afflictive providences, which are inseparable\nfrom this present state; since _man is born unto trouble, as the sparks\nfly upwards_, Job v. 7. These are either personal or relative; some more\nimmediately from God, others from men, as instruments in his hand: Some\narise from the present experience we have of affliction, others from our\nexpectation or fear of future troubles: and all these sometimes prove\ntemptations to us, unless God is pleased to interpose in a way of\npreventing grace, and make them conducive to our spiritual advantage.\nNow afflictions prove temptations to us,\n[1.] When we are discontented and uneasy under the hand of God,\ncomplaining of the burdens that he is pleased to lay on us, as though\nthey were insupportable, and it were impossible for us to bear up under\nthem; or, when we are ready to conclude, that no affliction is like\nours, and are apt to insinuate, that God hereby deals hardly with us.\n[2.] When they disturb or disorder our thoughts, weaken our faith, and\nunfit us for spiritual meditations, or attending aright on ordinances of\nGod; or when we are more concerned, about our afflictions, than about\nsin, the cause of them.\n[3.] When we have unbelieving apprehensions concerning the event\nthereof, concluding that they will certainly end in our ruin;\nnotwithstanding the promises, which God has made of their working\ntogether for good, to them that love him.\u2014This temptation David was\nexposed to, when he said, _I shall now perish one day by the hand of\nSaul_, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1. which was an ungrounded fear, especially\nconsidering the promises that God had given him, and the many\nexperiences he had of his being a help to him in the time of trouble.\n[4.] Afflictions are temptations to us, when we take occasion from them\nto question God\u2019s fatherly love, or to conclude, that they are sent in\nwrath, and are intimations that we are cast off by him, when we have no\nreason to think so from any thing that there is in the nature of\naffliction itself; also when we are hindered thereby, from applying\nthose suitable promises which God has made to his people, in like cases,\nfor their comfort and support.\nNow when we pray that God would _not lead us into temptation_, as\nafflictive providences expose us to it, we are to pray against them with\nsubmission to the divine will, not as though the removal thereof were of\nequal importance, or as necessary to our happiness, as the taking away\nthe guilt or power of sin: However, we are to pray, that afflictions may\nbe sanctified to us; and that corrupt nature may not take occasion from\nthem, to have unbecoming thoughts of God; but that we may hereby be led\nnearer to him, that so they may not prove a temptation to us, or at\nleast, that with the temptation, he would make a way for our escape.\n2. Another sort of temptations proceed from the flesh, which are the\ngreatest and most dangerous of all. The apostle speaks of them as though\nthey were the only temptations, when he says, _Every man is tempted when\nhe is drawn aside of his own lust, and enticed_, James i. 14. since all\nothers might, without much difficulty, be resisted and overcome, were\nthere not a corrupt disposition in our nature, which the apostle calls\n_lust_, that inclines us to adhere to, and comply with them. This\nconsists in the irregularity and disorder of our passions; which are not\nonly prone to rebel against God, but to act contrary to the dictates of\nour own consciences, which is the result of our fallen state; and the\ntemptations are oftentimes various, according to the prevailing bias of\nour natural temper. A melancholy constitution sometimes inclines us to\nslavish fears, or distrust of God\u2019s providence; or to have such black\nand dismal apprehensions of our spiritual concerns, that we are led to\nthe very brink of despair. A choleric temper prompts us to revenge,\ninjustice, and oppression, and puts us upon magnifying small offences,\nand expressing a furious resentment without ground. A sanguine and airy\nconstitution often proves a temptation to cast off all serious thoughts\nabout God and another world, and to count religion a needless,\nmelancholy and distasteful thing, and to make a jest of what is sacred,\nand ought to be treated with the utmost reverence; and this temper\nfrequently exposes persons to the pernicious influence of bad company,\nand induces them to be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.\nAgain, a stupid, phlegmatic and heavy constitution, often proves a\ntemptation to negligence in our civil and religious affairs, and not to\nmake provision for a time of trial: Hereby persons are often tempted to\nneglect holy duties, especially such as are difficult; or to perform\nthem in a careless manner, and so rest in a form of godliness, without\nthe power thereof.\nThis difference of natural tempers is the reason why we behold lust\nappearing in different shapes; so that the same temptation that presents\nitself from without, suits the natural disposition of one who eagerly\nembraces it, while another is not greatly moved by it. This is what we\nunderstand by those temptations which arise from the flesh; and, when we\npray against them, it is not to be supposed, that we expect to be\nperfectly freed from them in this world, in which, as has been elsewhere\nobserved[124], there are the remnants of sin abiding in every part, even\nin them that are sanctified, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh\nagainst the spirit. Therefore, when we pray against such-like\ntemptations, we desire,\n(1.) That God would restrain and prevent the irregularity and pernicious\ntendency of our natural temper, which inclines us to those sins which it\nis most prone to; or that he would keep us from those sins that more\neasily beset us, by reason of the propensity of our nature to commit\nthem. And,\n(2.) That he would sanctify our affections and bring them under the\npowerful influence of a principle of grace, which may maintain a\nperpetual opposition to those habits of sin that are daily leading us to\nturn aside from God, so that, whatever temptations we meet with from\nobjects without us, our souls may be internally fortified against them,\nand disposed to hate and avoid every thing that is contrary to his holy\nlaw, or tends to his dishonour.\n2. We shall now consider those temptations that arise from Satan, who\nis, for this reason, called _the tempter_, Matt. iv. 3. 1 Thess. vi. 3.\nand he is also said to _enter into_, Luke xxii. 3. and _fill the hearts_\nof sinners, Acts v. 3. As for the unregenerate, they are wholly under\nhis power: Therefore conversion is called a _turning them from the power\nof Satan unto God_, chap. xxvi. 18. There are, indeed, some who deny\nthat Satan has any hand in those temptations, which we are exposed to;\nin which they are too much disposed to give into the error of the\nSadducees of old. And if they do not expressly deny the existence of\nspirits, yet they will not allow that they have any thing to do in this\nworld: And, indeed, they think it impossible for the Devil to give us\nany disturbance, seeing he is shut up in chains of darkness, reserved to\nthe judgment of the great day; and, inasmuch as we often read in\nscripture, of those things that he does against men in this world, they\nsuppose that all these are to be understood in a metaphorical sense, and\nthat nothing else is intended thereby, but the temptations we meet with\nfrom men, or from our own lusts: These, according to them, are the only\ndevils that we need to fear.\u2014This error they are led into under a\npretence of avoiding the contrary extreme of those who seem to lay all\nthe sins they commit, to the Devil\u2019s charge, rather than their own;\nwhen, probably, he has nothing to do with them, but they wholly proceed\nfrom their own corruptions: The middle way between these two extremes,\nis, as I conceive, much more consonant to scripture and experience, and\nrather to be acquiesced in. And therefore we shall endeavour to prove,\nthat we are often tempted by Satan, as well as our own lusts; which will\nappear, if we consider the following propositions.\n_1st_, It is not unreasonable to suppose, that spirits may so far have\naccess to our souls, as _to suggest good or bad thoughts_; for, being\nreasonable creatures, it is beyond dispute, that they are able to\nconverse with one another; and, if so, it contains no absurdity to\nsuppose, that they may, some way or other, have conversation with the\nsouls of men, which are capable of having things internally suggested to\nthem, as well as receiving ideas from sensible objects, by means of our\nbodies, to which they are united. As to the manner _how this is done_,\nwe pretend _not to determine it_, since it is sufficient to our present\npurpose, to make it appear that we are exposed to temptations from\nSatan, as well as our own selves.\n_2dly_, It is _obvious from scripture, that the Devil_, and his angels,\nare _conversant in this lower world_: And accordingly he is styled, _The\nprince of the power of the air_, Eph. ii. 2. _the god of this world_, 2\nCor. iv. 4. And elsewhere he is said, to _walk about, seeking whom he\nmay devour_, 1 Pet. v. 8. And whereas it is objected, that this is\ninconsistent with his being shut up in hell: That may respect\nprincipally his state, as being unchangeably separated and banished from\nGod\u2019s favourable and comfortable presence; nevertheless, he may suffer\nhim to attempt many things against men in this world, for the trial of\nthe graces of his people, and the punishing of his enemies.\u2014There is,\nindeed, a place of misery allotted for them, though they may not be, at\npresent, confined to it; which seems to be implied in that request they\nmade to our Saviour, that he would not command them to _go into the\ndeep_, Luke viii. 31. by which, it is probable, the place of torment is\nintended, in which they expect to be for ever shut up after the day of\njudgment; and therefore they are represented elsewhere, as _crying out,\nArt thou came hither to torment us before the time?_ Matt. viii. 29.\n_3dly_, Our _first parent_, in innocency, _was tempted by the Devil_,\nwho made use of the serpent, by which he is said to _speak to Eve_, Gen.\niii. 1. _& seq._ as has been proved elsewhere[125]. And our Saviour was\nalso tempted by him, when led by the Spirit into the wilderness for that\npurpose, Matt. iv. 1. but neither of these could be said to be tempted\nby the lusts of the flesh, as being inconsistent with that sinless state\nin which our first parents were before they fell, and our Saviour always\nwas; and, it is certain, that the temptation offered to each of them,\nwas not only objective; but there were words spoken, and a perverse\nmethod of reasoning made use of to ensnare them: And they could not be\ntempted by men, for, in this respect, they were alone; it therefore\nfollows, that Satan was the tempter to each of them.\n_4thly_, There are several other _scriptures_ which expressly _prove,\nthat Satan has sometimes tempted_ persons to sin: Thus we read, that _he\nstood up against Israel, and provoked David to number them_, 1 Chron.\nxxi. 1. And elsewhere our Saviour tells the Jews, _Ye are of your father\nthe Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do_; that is, you\neagerly commit those sins that he tempts you to. It is farther added,\nthat he was _a murderer from the beginning_; which cannot be understood\notherwise than of his murdering man, by tempting him to sin, and\nprevailing; and it is also said, that _he abode not the truth_, and is\n_a liar, and the father of it_, John viii. 44. that is, he deceives us\nby his suggestions, and prevails on us, when complying therewith, to\ndeceive ourselves.\nThis may give us occasion to enquire, how we may distinguish those\ntemptations which take their rise from Satan, from others which proceed\nfrom ourselves. This is a very difficult question to be resolved,\nbecause our _corrupt nature, for the most part, tempts us to the same\nsins that Satan does_; therefore, where there are _two causes of the\nsame action_, it is _hard to distinguish_ one from the other: As when\ntwo candles are set up in the same room, we cannot distinguish the light\nof one from the light of the other. It is true, if the sins that we are\ntempted to by our lusts, on the one hand, and by Satan on the other, had\nbeen described, as being of different kinds, we might more easily\ndetermine the difference that there is between them. Or if we had not\nthe least inclination to comply with the temptation, and were able to\nsay, as our Saviour did, _The prince of this world cometh, and hath\nnothing in me_, chap. xiv. 30. then we might easily know where to fasten\nthe charge of guilt; and it would be no injustice to exculpate\nourselves, and lay the blame wholly on the Devil: But it is far\notherwise with us, by reason of the _corruption of our nature_, which\n_would render us prone to sin, though Satan did not tempt_ us to it.\nTherefore, since we often contract guilt by complying with his\ntemptations, in like manner as he does by offering them; it is necessary\nthat something be said, that we may know when the temptation is to be\nlaid at our own door, and when at Satan\u2019s, so far as we are able to\ndetermine this matter: Therefore, let it be considered,\n_1st_, _If we are tempted to those sins which we cannot think of but\nwith the utmost abhorrence_; and we are so far from entertaining any\npleasure in the thing that we are tempted to, that we take occasion from\nhence, to express the greatest aversion to it, and would not comply with\nit for ten thousand worlds; when we count the suggestion an invasion on\nour souls, an affliction grievous to be borne; and, instead of\ncompliance therewith, are led hereby to the exercise of those graces\nthat are opposite to it: In such-like cases I humbly conceive, we do not\nincur guilt by being tempted; but the sin is wholly to be charged to\nSatan. Nevertheless,\n_2dly_, When we are pleased with the temptation, but frequently meditate\non the subject-matter thereof, and either commit the sin we are tempted\nto; or, if we abstain from the commission thereof, it is only out of\nfear or shame; and when the propensity of our nature leads us, at other\ntimes, to those sins which bear some resemblance to it; this argues,\n_that our own lusts, as well as Satan, are joint causes of those_ sins\nthat ensue hereupon. These things being considered, we shall proceed to\nspeak more particularly concerning Satan\u2019s temptations; and, in order\nthereunto, lay down some things, by way of premisal, which relate to\nthis matter, and then consider the method he takes in managing them.\n1. There are some things to be premised in general, concerning Satan\u2019s\ntemptations;\n(1.) That, though he may tempt to sin, yet he _cannot force the will_;\nfor then the guilt would devolve wholly on himself and not on us. It\nwould certainly render our condition very miserable, if it were\nimpossible for us to resist his temptations; for this would be to\nsuppose, that we lie at the mercy of him, who has more power to destroy\nus than we have to withstand him. Besides this would be to extend the\nservitude of the will of man beyond its due bounds; for, though it be\nnot free to what is spiritually or supernaturally good, we do not deny\nbut that it is free, as it has a power to avoid many sins, which, upon\nthis supposition, it would be inevitably hurried into. And it would be\n_a refection on the providence of God_, so far to _leave man_ in the\nhands of Satan, as that hereby he should be laid _under a necessity of\nsinning_ and perishing without the choice and consent of his own will,\nand consequently, his destruction could not be said to be of himself.\n(2.) Satan\u2019s _power is not equal to his malice_; for he is under divine\nrestraints, and, indeed, _can do nothing against believers, but by God\u2019s\npermission_. This may be argued from our being obliged to desire that\nGod would _keep us from being tempted_, that is, restrain the tempter,\nas well as enable us to resist him; and if it were otherwise, no one\ncould be saved; for Satan\u2019s malice is boundless, though he be not\nsuffered to do what it prompts him to. And this is a very great blessing\nto God\u2019s people; as it is a comfortable thing to consider, that they are\nin his hands, who is a merciful Father; and not in Satan\u2019s power, who\nbreathes forth nothing but revenge and cruelty:\n(3.) As it is _not a sin to be tempted_, since our Saviour is said to\nhave been _in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin_, Heb.\niv. 15. so on the other hand, _when we are pleased_, and comply with the\ntemptation, it will be _no sufficient excuse_ for us to allege, that\n_Satan had a great hand in it_, since, as we have before observed, he\ncan only tempt, but not force the will; and how formidable soever he may\nbe, by reason of the greatness of his power and malice; yet we have this\nexpedient to make use of, as it should put us upon saying, the Lord\nrebuke thee Satan.\n(5.) There is a _vast difference between_ the condition of those who are\n_converted_, and others, who are in an _unregenerate_ state, as to the\nevent and consequence of Satan\u2019s temptations. The former, indeed, by\nreason of the remainders of corruption in them, are _oftentimes foiled_\nand overcome thereby; but yet they shall _not be wholly destroyed_; but\nGod will _find out a way for their recovery_ out of the snare, in which\nthey may, at any time, be entangled: Whereas the latter are wholly under\nhis power, by _their own choice_ and consent, and will remain so, till,\nby the grace of God they are delivered from the dominion of darkness,\nand translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. We shall now consider,\n2. The method in which Satan manages his temptations, in order to his\ninducing men to sin. Sometimes he endeavours to ensnare and deceive us\n_by his subtilty_: upon which account he is called _that old serpent,\nwhich deceiveth the whole world_. Rev. xx. 2. and xii. 9. And elsewhere\nwe read of _the depths of Satan_, chap. ii. 24. that is, his deep-laid\ndesigns, and of his _wiles_, Eph. vi. 11. which it is an hard matter to\nwithstand; and he is sometimes said to be _transformed into an angel of\nlight_, 2 Cor. xi. 24. when he tempts to sin, under a pretence of our\nbringing glory to God, as well as good to ourselves and others. And\nthere are other methods he takes, which, though managed with equal\nsubtilty, yet he appears, _not as an angel of light_, pretending to help\nus in the way to heaven, but _as a roaring lion_, rendering himself\nformidable, and not concealing his design to devour, or make a prey of\nus, and to fill us with that distress of conscience, that brings us to\nthe very brink of despair: These, as it is probable, the apostle intends\nby his _fiery darts_, as contra-distinguished from his _wiles_. In the\nformer he shews himself a _tempter_, in the latter, an _accuser_. These\nare the usual methods which he takes in managing his temptations: and we\nshall consider them under four heads;\n1. His endeavouring to produce and strengthen the habits of sin.\n2. What he does to prevent conviction of sin, or to hinder the efficacy\nthereof.\n3. His discouraging those who are under convictions from closing with\nChrist by faith. And,\n4. His injecting blasphemous and atheistical thoughts into the minds of\nmen, and using endeavours to drive them to despair.\n1. Satan endeavours _to produce and strengthen the habits of sin_. These\nare generally attained by frequent acts, or by making a progress in sin,\nby which the heart is more hardened; and it is with greater difficulty\nthat such are reclaimed from it; of them the prophet speaks, when he\nsays, _Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots; then\nmay ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil_, Jer. xiii. 23. And\nin order thereunto, we may observe that he does not usually tempt, at\nfirst, to the vilest and most notorious acts of sin, especially where he\nhas ground to suspect that these temptations will not be readily\nentertained or adhered to; this is the case of those who retain some\nimpressions of a religious education, or are, at present, under the\ninfluence of restraining grace: these are first tempted to commit lesser\nsins before they proceed to greater. He generally begins with tempting\nto sins of _omission_, or to _formality_ and _indifferency_ in the\nperforming of religious duties, or by pretending that God gives us some\nindulgencies or allowance to commit those sins that our natural\nconstitution most inclines us to, and that we have been mistaken, when\nwe have thought that religion is so difficult a matter as some have\npretended it to be; and that we may safely follow a multitude, though it\nbe in doing that, which is in itself sinful; and that we are not to take\nan estimate of religion, from the apprehensions which some melancholy\npersons entertain of it; and that strictness in religion, is being\nrighteous overmuch; or striving against the stream, is a needless\nprecaution; and therefore we may consult our own honour and reputation\nin the world, and give into that scheme of religion that is uppermost;\nand that denying ourselves, taking up the cross and following Christ;\nthough it may be reckoned a safe, yet it is not the only way to heaven.\nBy this means the habits of sin are strengthened, the heart hardened\ntherein, and persons proceed from one degree of impiety to another, till\nat last, they abandon themselves to every thing that is vile and\nprofligate, and run with others, in all excess of riot. And, that his\ndesign may be more effectually carried on, herein he suits his\ntemptations to every age and condition of life. Here we shall consider,\n(1.) The method he takes with those who are in the prime and flower of\ntheir age: Accordingly these he endeavours to persuade, that it is _time\nenough for them to think of being religious hereafter_; and that it is\ntoo austere and melancholy a thing for them to pretend to it at present,\nas what is inconsistent with those pleasures and youthful lusts, which\nare agreeable to their age and condition of life. If they are children,\nthen he suggests to them, that they have time enough before them; and\nwhen they are more advanced in years, they will have a greater degree of\nunderstanding, and be better able to take in the force of those\narguments that are usually brought to induce persons to lead a religious\nlife; and then they may make choice of it out of judgment. If they are\nservants, he persuades them, that they have other business on their\nhands, and that they had better stay till they are free from the\nengagements which they are, at present, under, to their masters; and,\nwhen they are at their own disposal, then it will be the fittest time\nfor them to embrace the ways of God. This temptation carries in it the\nhighest instance of presumption, tends greatly to harden the heart in\nsin, and has been the ruin of multitudes.\n(2.) When persons are come to years of maturity, being no longer\nchildren or servants, but about to engage in those secular employments,\nwhich they are called to in the world, then he has temptations of\nanother nature to offer to them. He has hitherto kept possession of\ntheir hearts, and desired them only to wait for this age of life, and\nthen they would have a more convenient season to lead a religious life;\nbut this convenient season is not yet come; for there are other\nstratagems which he now makes use of, to keep them in subjection to him.\nYouthful lusts are now grown to a greater height, and the impressions of\na religious education, if they were favoured with it, almost worn out;\nand it is no difficult matter for him to persuade them, that the\nprincipal thing they are to be concerned about, is their living\ncomfortably in the world; and, that they have now an opportunity to\nincrease their substance, and make provision for their future happiness\ntherein; therefore they ought to converse with those who are in the same\nstation of life with themselves: And he generally points out such\nassociates, which he tempts them to make choice of, that may be a snare\nto them, whose conversation is very remote from any thing that tends to\npromote religion and godliness. Sometimes he endeavours to make them\nashamed of the ways of God, as though this were inconsistent with their\nreputation in the world, especially with their present situation or\ncondition therein. And, on the other hand, if persons are poor and low\nin the world, and find it difficult to maintain themselves or families,\nthen he persuades them that religion is not the business which they are\ncalled to engage in, but they must rather take pains to live; that God\ndoes not require more than he gives, or expect, that they should spend a\ngreat deal of time in religious duties, who have none to spare from that\nbusiness, which is necessary for their getting a livelihood in the\nworld; therefore this does not so much belong to them, as to others.\n(3.) If persons are arrived to old age, the last stage of life, and\nhave, as it were, their latter end in view, as not being far from it,\naccording to the course of nature; this is that age of life which was\nformerly pretended, by Satan, to be the most fit and proper season to\nentertain thoughts of religion in; and it was in expectation hereof,\nthat, when they were formerly under any convictions, the general method\nthey took to stifle them, was by resolving, that they would apply\nthemselves to a religious life in old age. By this means the tempter has\nhitherto beguiled them; and now he has other temptations to present to\nthem, which are suited to this age of life, whereby he insinuates, that\nthe weakness and infirmities of old age render them unfit for religious\nduties. And, indeed, their hearts have contracted such a degree of\nhardness, by a long continuance in sin, that it is difficult for any\nthing to make an impression on them. However, Satan endeavours to\npersuade them, that, notwithstanding all the wickedness of their former\nlife, and their present impenitency for it, they may hope for salvation\nfrom the mercy of God, though they continue still in a state of\nunregeneracy, which is an instance of soul-destructive presumption; or\nelse, he tempts them utterly to despair of the mercy of God, and tells\nthem, that it is too late for them to begin that work which they have\nput off to the extremity of life; and by either of these methods he\neffectually brings about their ruin. Thus concerning Satan\u2019s suiting his\ntemptations to the several ages and conditions of life.\nBut besides this, we may observe, that there are some methods which he\ntakes, that are agreeable to the temper and disposition of those whom he\nassaults, that so he may not shoot his arrows at random, without\nanswering the end he designs thereby; in which his subtilty farther\nappears; as,\n[1.] He observes those proper times in tempting men to sin, wherein it\nis most likely that his temptations should take effect. Therefore his\nassaults are generally most violent, when they are least upon their\nguard, and give way to sloth and indolence; or when the Spirit of God\nwithdraws his influences, as the consequence whereof, their faith is\nweak, and they not able to make great resistance against his\ntemptations, he crowds in a great multitude of them at once, and so lays\nhold on this opportunity to improve the success which he has gained\nagainst them. And if they are afraid of the consequences of a compliance\ntherewith, he endeavours to stupify their souls, that they may have no\npresent apprehensions of the evil that would ensue hereupon.\n[2.] He often takes occasion to raise in our minds some doubts about the\nmatter of sin or duty, whether, what he is about to tempt us to, be\nlawful or unlawful; or how far a person may venture to go in the way of\ntemptation, and yet maintain his integrity? which is generally the first\nstep towards the commission of those sins which we are tempted to.\n[3.] If shame or fear are like to hinder the success of the temptation,\nhe undertakes to find out some method of secrecy, whereby public scandal\nmay be avoided. Thus Joseph\u2019s mistress tempted him to sin, when Potiphar\nwas absent, and _there was none of the men of the house there within_,\nGen. xxxix. 11. and therefore he had no occasion to fear that his crime\nwould be detected. And sometimes he proceeds so far, as to insinuate,\nthat they may even hide themselves from the all-seeing eye of God, and\ntempts them to say, _How doth God know? Can he judge through the dark\ncloud? Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not, and he\nwalketh in the circuit of heaven_, Job xxii. 13, 14. Thus the prophet\nIsaiah denounces a woe against them that _seek deep to hide their\ncounsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say,\nWho seeth us? and who knoweth us_, Isa. xxix. 15. and this method seldom\nfails of answering his end, or prevailing against them, who are hereby\ninduced to a sinful compliance with it.\n[4.] If conscience be awakened, and deters them from adhering to the\ntemptation, from a sense of that guilt which they will contract thereby;\nSatan is sometimes content to take the blame hereof upon himself, that\nthey may think that they are to be excused, by reason of the violence of\nthe temptation, which they could not well withstand.\n[5.] Sometimes he persuades them to throw the blame on providence, as\nbeing the occasion of sin, or rendering it necessary or unavoidable from\nour condition or circumstances in the world, which is the highest injury\nthat can be offered to the divine Majesty. Thus Adam tacitly reproaches\nGod, when he says, _The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave\nme of the tree, and I did eat_, Gen. iii. 12.\n[6.] He often tempts men to presume on the mercy of God, hoping that\nthough they continue in sin, they shall obtain a pardon from him. Or,\nsince this is not to be expected without sincere repentance, he tempts\nthem to presume, that by the influence of the Holy Spirit, they shall\nhave this grace hereafter, whereby their perishing in their iniquities\nmay be prevented. Thus concerning the methods which Satan takes to\nproduce and strengthen the habits of sin. We proceed,\n2. To consider how he endeavours to prevent our being brought under\nconviction of sin; or, if we are convinced thereof, to hinder its making\nany deep or lasting impression on us; and this he does various ways,\n(1.) By dissuading others, who ought to deal faithfully with us, from\nreproving sin committed by us. Thus Ezekiel, speaking concerning the\nfalse prophets, says, that they _strengthened the hands of the wicked,\nthat he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life_,\nEzek. xiii. 22. Sometimes he improves the consideration of our\ncircumstances in the world, to dissuade us from reproving sin in others,\nespecially if they are our superiors, or those whom we are dependent on,\nor have some expectations from, lest we should make them our enemies,\nand thereby lose some advantages, which we hope to receive from them.\nAnd there are others whom he does not wholly dissuade from reproving of\nsin; but there are some circumstances attending the reproof, or the\nperson that gives it, that he lays hold of, which hinders it from taking\neffect, whereby his end is no less answered than if sin had not been\nreproved at all. As,\n[1.] When we reprove those that are notorious offenders, and ought to be\ntreated with a greater degree of sharpness, with too much lenity, as\nthough it were only a sin of infirmity, by which means they are more\nhardened in the commission of it. This was Eli\u2019s fault in dealing with\nhis sons, when he said unto them, _Why do ye such things? for I hear of\nyour evil dealings by all this people: Nay, my sons, for it is no good\nreport that I hear; ye make the Lord\u2019s people to transgress_, 1 Sam. ii.\n23, 24. Whereas, he ought to have restrained them by those acts of\nseverity, which the nature of the crime demanded.\n[2.] Satan often prevents the reproof from taking effect, by inclining\nthe reprover to use indecent behaviour in expressing the haughtiness of\nhis temper, as though there were no respect due to superiors, as such,\nbecause they are worthy of reproof; or else by expressing a kind of\nhatred against the person that committed the sin; whereas, hatred ought\nto be principally directed against the crime itself, while we convince\nthose whom we are reproving, that it is love to them, as well as zeal\nfor the glory of God that moves us to do this.\n[3.] Satan often hinders reproofs from taking effect, either by tempting\nthose who give them to commit the same sin, or, at least, by persuading\nthose against whom they are directed, that there are other sins equally\ngreat, which they are chargeable with, and therefore they ought to look\nto themselves, rather than take notice of what is done by others.\n(2.) Satan hinders the work of conviction, by endeavouring to suppress\nthe preaching of the word, or prevent the success thereof when preached.\nAs to the preaching of the word, this is God\u2019s ordinary way by which he\nconvinces of sin; and Satan sometimes stirs up those that are under his\npower and influence to persecute or suppress the preaching of the\ngospel. Thus the apostles were _commanded_ by the Jews, _not to speak at\nall, nor teach in the name of Jesus_, Acts iv. 18. and when they refused\nto obey this command, they _put them in prison_, chap. v. 18. This\nmethod has been taken, in all ages, by Satan\u2019s instigation, with a\ndesign to hinder the spreading of Christ\u2019s interest in this world,\nwhich, by the blessing of providence, has been, notwithstanding,\ncontinued unto this day. Therefore, there are other methods which he\nuses to hinder the success of the word. Sometimes he does this by\nperverting them that preach it; so that they endeavour to corrupt the\nword of God, whereby the minds of men are turned away from that\nsimplicity that is in Christ; at other times he tempts them to be very\nsparing in reproving sin, or to do this in a more general way, as though\ntheir only design was to let their hearers know that there are some\nsinners in the world, and not that they should be brought under\nconviction of sin themselves. This is done sometimes in compliance with\nthe corruptions of those whom they do not care to disoblige hereby; and\nothers shun to declare some of the most important truths of the gospel,\nand affect such a method of preaching as has not a tendency to bring\nthat real advantage to the souls of men, as when it is delivered with\nmore zeal and faithfulness.\nMoreover, Satan endeavours to hinder the success of the word, by\nstirring up the corruptions of those that attend upon it; for which\nreason he is represented, by our Saviour, in the parable of the _seed\nwhich fell by the way-side_, which the _fowls came and devoured_, as\n_catching away_ the word, Matt. xiii. 4, 19. By this means they are not\nmuch affected with it, nor endeavour to retain it in their memories;\nand, sometimes he injects vain thoughts under the word preached. This\nour Saviour compares, in the parable but now mentioned, to the _seed\nthat fell among thorns_; and explains it of _the care of this world, and\nthe deceitfulness of riches, choaking the word_, ver. 7, 22. And\nsometimes he endeavours to raise prejudices in the minds of men, against\nwhat is delivered; so that the plainness of expression, when addressed\nto the consciences of men, in such a way, as that it has a tendency to\nbring them under conviction, is contemned, and called a low, mean way of\naddress, and disliked, because it is not delivered with that elegancy of\nstyle, or ingenious turn of thought, that is adapted rather to please\nthe ear, than affect the hearts of those that hear it. By those methods\nSatan endeavours to hinder persons from being brought under conviction:\nBut if their consciences are, notwithstanding this, awakened under the\nword, or, by some providences which God often makes use of for that end;\nthen there are methods of another kind, which Satan uses, to prevent\nconvictions from making any deep or lasting impression on them. As,\n[1.] By endeavouring to make the soul easy, from the consideration of\nthe universal depravity of human nature; and accordingly he insinuates,\nthat all have reason to accuse themselves of sins that would tend to\ntheir disquietude, if they made so narrow a search into their hearts as\nthese do, or had such formidable thoughts of the consequences thereof as\nthey have. Here he produces many examples of those who have been quiet\nand easy in their own minds, though they had as much ground to perplex\nand torment themselves with such-like melancholy thoughts as they have;\nyet they go on in a course of sin, without any checks of conscience,\nand, as Job speaks, _spend their days in wealth_, or, as it is in the\nmargin, in mirth, _and in a moment go down to the grave_, Job vii. 22.\nbeing resolved to give way to nothing that shall disturb their peace, or\nrender their lives uncomfortable.\n[2.] If this stratagem will not take effect, inasmuch as they are\nsensible, that while they remain in an unconverted state, they can have\nno solid foundation for peace, then he endeavours to persuade them,\n_that the work of conversion is over, and that conviction of sin, though\ndestitute of faith, is true repentance_, or that a partial reformation,\nand abstaining from some gross and scandalous sins, or engaging in the\nexternal duties of religion, especially with some degree of raised\naffections therein, is a sufficient ground for them to conclude, that\nthey are in a state of grace; and if they resolve to go on in this way,\nhe puts them upon depending and relying on their own righteousness, and\nexpecting to be justified thereby, without seeing a necessity of laying\nhold on what Christ has done and suffered, in order to the removing the\nguilt of sin; and, so long as they continue in this way, they shall meet\nwith no disturbance from Satan, this not being the method which God has\nprescribed for our attaining justification, or that peace which flows\nfrom it.\n[3.] He puts them _upon making vows and resolutions in their own\nstrength_, that they will perform several religious duties with the\ngreatest exactness, and abstain from those sins which he is sensible\nthey will commit, if not prevented by the grace of God, that so, by too\ngreat confidence in their own strength, they may provoke him to leave\nthem to themselves; and, as the consequence thereof, they soon break\ntheir resolutions, and bring themselves under greater perplexities than\nthey were in before: And, then to make them easy, he endeavours to\npersuade them, that God does not require them to lead so strict a life\nas they seemed determined to do, but has allowed them some innocent\nliberties, as he calls them, in giving way to those sins which their\ncondition in life renders necessary; and, as he had before tempted them\nto rely on their own strength, now he tempts them to carnal security,\nand a slothful, stupid frame of spirit, whereby they will be rendered\nmore receptive of those temptations he has to offer, to turn them aside\nfrom that strictness in religion, which they before resolved to\nmaintain.\n[4.] Satan dazzles _their eyes with the glittering vanities of this\nworld_, that he might divert their minds from serious thoughts about, or\nany concern for a better; and if their secular callings are attended\nwith some incumbrances, through the multiplicity of business, or the\nconstant care they are obliged to take to live in the world; then he\nalleges the inconsistency hereof, with their giving way to those\nconvictions of sin which will be an hindrance to the necessary business\nof life. Thus concerning the method which Satan uses to prevent\nconviction of sin, or to hinder the efficacy thereof: But inasmuch as\nthis does not always take effect; especially when convictions make a\ndeep impression upon us. We proceed to consider,\n3. Those methods that are used by Satan, to hinder persons from closing\nwith Christ, and believing in him. And this he does,\n_1st_, By endeavouring to _keep them in ignorance_ of the great\ndoctrines of the gospel; and, as the consequence thereof, turning them\naside to embrace those errors, which are inconsistent with faith in\nChrist; and in order thereto, he suggests, that it does not belong to\nthem, to press after the knowledge of the sense of scripture, but to\npersons of learning, or those who are called to preach or defend the\ntruth; and that it is enough for them to have some general notions of\nthe doctrines of religion, whereby they may be induced to practise those\nmoral virtues which their station in life engages them to, and to leave\nthe more abstruse parts thereof, to those whose inclination leads them\nthereunto.\nMoreover, he improves the different sentiments of men about the\ndoctrines of the gospel, to answer this end, and infers from thence,\nthat since one asserts one thing for truth, and another the contrary,\nthat therefore there is nothing certain in religion; so that they are\nsafest who keep clear of all these controverted matters; and among them\nhe includes the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. This\nmethod of temptation leads men to scepticism, and, if complied with, is\ninconsistent with faith in Christ; and the consequence hereof is, their\nimbibing those doctrines that tend to sap the very foundation of\nrevealed religion. And if they pretend to adhere to any scheme of\ndoctrine, it is generally such an one, as has a tendency to strike at\nthe divinity and glory of Christ, the necessity of his satisfaction, or\nof our justification, by his imputed righteousness, or denying the\ndivinity of the Holy Ghost, and the need we have of his powerful\noperations in the work of regeneration, conversion, and sanctification.\nThese are the doctrines on which our faith is built; therefore, to deny\nthem, is not only inconsistent with our closing with Christ, as being\nthe result of the alienation of our minds from God; but it is agreeable\nto the working of Satan in the children of disobedience, whereby he\nanswers his character, as a deceiver, as well as a tempter.\n_2dly_, Satan endeavours to hinder men from believing in Christ, by\n_persuading them to hope for salvation from the mercy of God_, without\nany regard to the display of this attribute in Christ, as our Mediator,\nor faith in him, without which we have no ground to conclude, that we\nshall obtain mercy from him: Or, since faith is necessary to salvation,\nhe persuades them to take up with such a kind of faith as consists only\nin a general assent to some things contained in scripture, without the\nexercise of other graces that are inseparably connected with, and flow\nfrom it; and if they have no other notion of saving faith than this, it\nis no wonder that Satan, by his false reasoning, carries on the\ntemptation yet farther, and persuades them, that this is in their own\npower, and that it is an easy matter to believe, which is a certain\nindication that they are destitute of saving faith. Thus we have\nconsidered Satan as endeavouring to strengthen the habits of sin, hinder\nthe work of conviction, or prevent its taking effect; and using methods\nto keep those who are under convictions, from closing with Christ by\nfaith. We now proceed to consider,\n4. His injecting atheistical and blasphemous thoughts into the minds of\nmen, and using his utmost endeavours to despair.\n(1.) He sometimes _injects atheistical and blasphemous thoughts into the\nminds of men_. His nature inclines him to hate and oppose God; and his\nmalice breaks forth in tempting men to blaspheme his perfections: Thus\nsome are represented as _opening their mouths in blasphemy against God,\nto blaspheme his name and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in\nheaven_, Rev. xiii. 6. which they do by the instigation of Satan:\nHowever, there is a vast difference between those blasphemous thoughts,\nwhich are injected into the minds of wicked men, and those which are\noftentimes complained of by the believer. In the former, the Devil\nenstamps his own image upon them, and they are like a spark falling into\ncombustible matter, which immediately sets it on fire: The latter is\nlike a flash of fire that lights upon water, without doing any\nexecution. We read of some who are entirely under his dominion, who\n_blaspheme the God of heaven, because of their pains and their sores,\nand repented not of their deeds_, chap. xvi. 11. But there are others\ninto whom he injects such-like thoughts, which are a grief and burden to\nthem. Some are tempted to deny the being or providence of God; and\nothers to have unworthy and injurious thoughts of the divine\nperfections; which cannot be reckoned any other than blasphemy, and, so\nfar as they proceed from, us, bring with them a very great degree of\nguilt. That believers themselves have been sometimes guilty hereof,\nappears from what the Psalmist utters in words, when he says, _Is his\nmercy clean gone for ever? Hath God forgotten to be gracious_, Psal.\nlxxvii. 8, 9. And, indeed, it is no uncommon thing for believers to\ncomplain of their having such injurious and unworthy thoughts of the\ndivine perfections, that they dare not utter in words; which fills them\nwith the greatest uneasiness; Therefore it is necessary for us to\nenquire, when these blasphemous suggestions take their rise from\nourselves, and when from Satan?\nIt is certain, that sometimes they proceed from ourselves: Thus our\nSaviour says, _Out of the heart proceed blasphemies that defile a man_,\nMatt. xv. 19. and we have reason to charge ourselves therewith, when\nthey arise from, or are accompanied with other presumptuous sins; or\nwhen we do not strive against, but rather give way to them, and other\nsuggestions of Satan, which tends to God\u2019s dishonour, grieves the Holy\nSpirit, and defiles our own consciences.\nBut, on the other hand, we may humbly hope and trust, that they are\nrather to be charged on Satan than ourselves, when they are the result\nof some bodily distemper, as in those that are under the prevailing\npower of melancholy, in whom it may be observed, that when by the use of\nnatural means, the distemper is abated, and the constitution mended,\nthese blasphemous suggestions cease. Moreover, when our souls tremble at\nthe temptation, and oppose it with the utmost abhorrence, as our Saviour\ndid, when the Devil tempted him to _fall down and worship him_; to whom\nhe immediately replies, _Get thee hence, Satan_, chap. iv. 9, 10. Again,\nwhen we confess, and can appeal to the heart-searching God, that we are\nso far from having any inclination to comply with the suggestion, that\nnothing is more grievous to us, than to be assaulted with it: and\nespecially when we take occasion from hence, to exercise that\nreverential fear of the divine Majesty, that is opposite thereunto.\n(2.) As Satan gives disturbance by blasphemous suggestions, so he uses\nendeavours to _drive persons to despair_. We observed, under a foregoing\nhead, that so long as he can persuade any one to take up with a false\npeace, and fancy himself secure though going on in a course of rebellion\nagainst God, he gives him but little uneasiness, endeavouring rather to\nincrease his stupidity, than awaken his fears. Before this, he attempted\nto bring ruin upon him, by suggesting those temptations that led to\npresumption, and pretended to him, that all things were well, when the\nground was sinking under him, and his hope built on a sandy foundation:\nBut, when the frame of his spirit is somewhat altered, and he is brought\nto a sense of his miserable condition; so that none of those stupifying\nmedicines that have been used, will heal the wound; then Satan\nendeavours to persuade him, that his condition is hopeless, or that\nthere is no help for him in God. This temptation believers, as well as\nthe unregenerate, are sometimes liable to; of which, we have many\ninstances in scripture, besides those that are matter of daily\nexperience. But it may be observed, that there is this difference\nbetween the one and the other, in that we scarce ever read of a\nbeliever\u2019s despair; but we have, at the same time, something added,\nwhich either argues his faith in God, or, that there was a mixture of\nhope, which was like a beam of light shining in darkness: Thus the\nPsalmist, in Psal. lxxxviii. expresses himself like one in the depths of\ndespair; yet it may be observed, that he addresses himself to God, in\nver. 1. as _the Lord God of his salvation_. And when the church is\nrepresented in Lam. iii. 18. as saying, _My hope is perished from the\nLord_; it is considered afterwards as encouraging itself in him, as in\nver. 24. _The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope\nin him_; and, in ver. 31. _For the Lord will not cast off for ever_. But\nwhen unbelievers are tempted to despair, it is attended with an\nobstinate resolution to go on in a course of sin, and a total\nwithdrawing themselves from the ordinances, or instituted means of\ngrace. Thus when Cain complains that his _punishment was greater than he\ncould bear_; it is said concerning him, that _he went out from the\npresence of the Lord_, Gen. iv. 13, 16. In this case despair, especially\nif it does not proceed from a bodily distemper, as it sometimes does, is\na sad mark of a person\u2019s being under the dominion of Satan, who was\nbefore a tempter, but now proves a tormentor to him.\nHere we may take occasion to consider how Satan proceeds against men in\ntempting them to despair.\n_1st._ He _takes the fittest opportunity_, when we are most like to be\novercome by his temptation; _he observes our constitution when most\naddicted to melancholy_, and therefore more easily led to despair: He\nalso takes notice of some circumstances of providence that we are\nbrought under, which are more than ordinarily afflictive, and tend to\ndeject and render us more receptive of this temptation, in which he\nendeavours to add weight to our burden, and depress our spirits under\nit: He also lays hold on those times, more especially _when we are under\ndivine desertion_; and, as the consequence hereof, our faith is weak,\nand very much indisposed to seek help from God. Moreover, he often takes\noccasion, _from some great fall and miscarriage_ which we have been\nguilty of, whereby we have grieved the Holy Spirit, and wounded our own\nconsciences, to aggravate our crime, so far that from hence we may\nconclude our state to be altogether hopeless.\n_2dly_, He endeavours _to stop all the springs of comfort_, that might\nfortify us against, or afford us any relief under this temptation; and\naccordingly he turns our thoughts from the promises of the covenant of\ngrace, and persuades the soul to conclude that they are not made to\nhimself; therefore he ought not to apply them to himself for his\ncomfort; and to determine peremptorily against himself, that he is not\nelected to salvation; not from any marks of reprobation that he finds in\nhimself, but by entering into God\u2019s secret counsels, and pretending to\nsearch the records of heaven, which he has no warrant to look into, (in\nwhich respect despair contains in it a mixture of sinful presumption,)\nand, at the same time, he has a secret aversion to converse with those\nwho are able to speak a word in season to him; and if any endeavours are\nused to convince him that the mercy of God is infinite, his thoughts are\nnot as our thoughts, and that the merit of Christ extends itself to the\nchief of sinners, it is all to no purpose, for his general reply, to\nthis and all other arguments of the like nature, is that this belongs\nnot to him, or his iniquities have excluded him from the divine favour.\n_3dly_, Satan endeavours to _hinder a soul at this time, from waiting on\nGod in ordinances_. As for the Lord\u2019s supper, he not only dissuades him\nfrom attending on it, but endeavours to insinuate, that, in partaking of\nit in times past, he has _eat and drunk_ his own _damnation_, giving a\nperverse sense of that scripture, 1 Cor. xi. 29. which, as appears from\nthe context, is not to be applied to weak believers, but to such as\nengage in this ordinance, in a profane and irreverent manner, as though\nit were not a divine institution, and without any desire of obtaining\nspiritual mercies from God therein; and the word which we render\n_damnation_, ought to be rendered _judgment_, denoting that they expose\nthemselves to temporal, as well as spiritual judgments in this world for\nthis wickedness; not that they are from hence to conclude, that their\neternal damnation will unavoidably ensue hereupon: And therefore the\ndesign of this scripture, is to lead to repentance, and not to despair.\nAs for the word preached, he concludes, that every thing which is\ndelivered therein, contains an indictment against him, and there he\ncannot endure to hear it: And, as for prayer, Satan discourages him from\nit, by pretending that he is not in a right frame for the performance of\nthis duty, and by giving a false sense of such scriptures as these, in\nProv. xxviii. 9. _He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,\neven his prayer shall be abomination_; and, in chap. xxi. 27. _The\nsacrifice of the wicked is abomination_; the meaning of which is, not\nthat the duty itself is sinful because performed by sinners, or that God\nhates them the more for praying, but that he hates the hypocrisy,\nformality, and other sins committed by them, when engaged in this duty;\nso that they should rather strive and pray against this unbecoming frame\nof spirit, than lay aside the duty itself, as they are tempted to do.\n_4thly_, Satan also makes use of false reasoning, by which he endeavours\nto answer this end; as,\n[1.] He puts them upon concluding, that _because they have no grace,\ntherefore they never shall have it_; which method of reasoning, if it\nwere just, must be applied to all unregenerate sinners; and then we must\nconclude, that the whole work of conversion in this world, is at an end;\nwhich, blessed be God, it is not.\n[2.] He farther argues, that because they have lived a great while in a\n_course of sin_, and their hearts are _very much hardened thereby_;\ntherefore they cannot be broken, or their wound is incurable, and there\nare no healing medicines; which is to set limits to the almighty power\nand grace of God.\n[3.] Satan farther induces them to conclude, that there is something\nuncommon in their case, that they are greater sinners than ever obtained\nmercy, which is more than it is possible for them to know; however, they\nare tempted to apply this presumptuous and discouraging suggestion to\nthemselves to heighten their despair, and hinder the force of any\nargument that may be brought to the contrary.\n[4.] The most common argument which Satan uses to induce persons to\ndespair, is, that they have sinned against light, and the convictions of\ntheir own consciences, grieved and quenched the Spirit of God; and\ntherefore they are inclined to think that they have committed the\nunpardonable sin. This is often alleged by persons against themselves,\nthough, at the same time, they know not what that sin is, and regard not\nany thing that is said to convince them, that they have committed it;\nand, indeed, their very fears that they have, and the desires they\nexpress that it were otherwise with them, are an undeniable argument\nthat they are mistaken in the judgment which they pass on themselves, by\nadhering to Satan\u2019s suggestions, leading them to despair[126]. Thus we\nhave given some account of the great variety of temptations which we are\nexposed to from the world, the flesh and the Devil. We are now to\nconsider,\n_Secondly_, How we are to pray, that we may not be led into temptation;\nor, if we are, by what means we may be delivered from the evil\nconsequences that will arise from our compliance therewith. An hour of\ntemptation is not only afflictive, but dangerous, by reason of the\nunited assaults of those enemies that we have to deal with. The world\ncontinually presents objects that are agreeable to corrupt nature; and\nSatan is unwearied in his endeavours, to turn us aside from God thereby,\nthat he may have us in his own power, and drive us from one degree of\nimpiety to another: Therefore, though it is not impossible to be tempted\nwithout sin, yet it is exceeding difficult; and therefore, as we are to\ntake heed, that we do not go in the way of temptation; so we are to\naddress ourselves to God, that he would keep us from it, if it be his\nwill.\nWe are not, indeed, absolutely to pray against it, as we are to pray\nagainst sin, which it is not possible for us to commit, without\ncontracting guilt; whereas we may be tempted to sin, and yet come off\nconquerors over it: But, since the enterprize itself is hazardous, the\nconflict difficult, and the event, with respect to us, uncertain, we\nshould rather desire, that, if God has not some gracious ends to answer\nthereby, which are, at present, unknown to us, he would be pleased to\nprevent it. The case is the same as though we were apprehensive of an\ninfectious distemper raging amongst us, which we are to pray against;\nthough God could, by his power, preserve us, in particular, from the ill\nconsequences thereof; or, if we were informed, that an enemy laid wait\nsecretly for our lives, it is possible for God to deliver us out of his\nhand; yet if the matter were referred to our own choice, we would rather\ndesire that he may not be suffered to assault us. Thus we are to pray,\nthat God would keep us from temptation; though we are not, at the same\ntime, to question his power, or distrust his providence, as though he\ncould not carry us safely through it; which we are to hope that he will\ndo, if he suffers us to be tempted. Neither are we to suppose, that we\ncan be altogether free from those temptations that arise from the\nimperfection of this present state, in which we must expect to be\nsubject to the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit:\nTherefore we are principally to direct our prayers to God, that he would\nkeep us from falling by the temptation, or else, that he would recover\nus, when fallen, prevent the evils, that would otherwise ensue, and\nover-rule our sinful compliance therewith, to his own glory, and our\nfuture advantage.\n1. We are to pray, that he would keep us from falling by the temptation,\nthat it may be like a wave dashing against a rock, which remains unmoved\nthereby, or like a dart shot against a breast-plate of steel, which only\nblunts the point thereof, and returns it back without doing any\nexecution. Now God prevents our failing by temptation, either by his\nrestraining or renewing grace: The former of these is common to the\nregenerate and the unregenerate; and where there is nothing more than\nthis, it chiefly consists in some alteration made in the natural temper,\nor present inclinations of men, whereby sin, though it remains\nunmortified, is, nevertheless abstained from, like a river that is kept\nfrom overflowing a country, not by ceasing to be fluid in its own\nnature, but by being contained within its proper banks. These\nrestraints, in some, proceed from that change which providence makes in\ntheir outward condition or circumstances in the world; so that those\ntemptations, which, before this, they were so ready to comply with, are\neither discontinued, or offered without success; as when a person is\nbowed down with some affliction, that it gives a different turn to his\npassions, whereby, as Job speaks, the _heart is made soft_, Job xxiii.\n16. in a natural way, by those troubles that tend to depress the\nspirits. Sometimes he is unexpectedly surprized with a fit of sickness,\nwhich gives him a near view of death and another world, and then the\nviolence of the temptation, for the present, ceases, or at least, he is\ndeterred from complying with it; and it may be, his spirits are decayed,\nhis constitution weakened, and his natural vigour abated hereby, so that\nhe has no inclination to commit some sins which he was formerly addicted\nto. Others want leisure to pursue those lusts which they are habitually\nprone to, being engaged in a hurry of business, or conflicting with many\ndifficulties for the subsisting of themselves and families: These are\nnot exposed to those temptations that often attend a slothful and\nindolent way of living: Or it may be, they are separated from their\nformer associates, who have been partners with them in sin, and tempters\nto it. And sometimes there is a sudden thought injected into their\nminds, which fills them with an inward fear and dread of the consequence\nof committing those sins which are more gross and notorious. This is the\nresult of an awakened conscience; whereby persons are kept from the\ncommission of many sins, by the restraints of common providence, though\nthey are, notwithstanding, in a state of unregeneracy, and sin in\ngeneral remains unmortified.\nBut, on the other hand, the believer is preserved from it by the power\nof sanctifying grace, whereby an habitual inclination is wrought in him,\nto detest the sin that he is tempted to; and the Spirit of God, by his\nimmediate interposure, internally disposes him to exercise the contrary\ngraces; which proceed from a principle of filial fear and love to God,\ntogether with a sense of gratitude for all the benefits that he has\nreceived from him; so that in repelling a temptation, he says, with\nJoseph, _How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God_, Gen.\nxxxix. 9.\n2. We are also to pray, that God would prevent those evil consequences,\nwhich very often attend such-like temptations; that our hearts may not\nbe hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, that we may not willingly\nyield ourselves bond-slaves to Satan, or take pleasure in those sins\nwhich we have been tempted to commit: and that we may not be exposed\nhereby to divine desertion, how much soever we have deserved it.\n3. We are likewise to pray, that God would recover, or bring us out of\nthe pit, into which we are fallen, that hereby Satan may not take\noccasion, after he has overcome, to insult us, that we may not be given\nto a perpetual backsliding; but that our souls may be _restored_, and we\n_led in the paths of righteousness for his name\u2019s sake_, Psal. xxiii. 3.\n4. If we have fallen by a temptation we are farther to pray, that God\nwould over-rule it to his own glory, and our spiritual advantage. Though\nthere be nothing good in sin, yet God can bring good out of it; and this\nhe does when he humbles the soul for it, and makes him afraid of going\nnear the brink of the pit, into which he fell, inclines him to be more\nwatchful, that, by indulging some sins, he may not lay himself open to\nthose temptations that would lead him to the commission of many others.\nThis will also induce him to depend on Christ by faith, as being\nsensible of his inability to resist the least temptation without him.\nAnd it will excite in him the greatest thankfulness to God, who has\nfound a way for his escape out of the snare wherein he was entangled, by\nwhich means he will receive abundant advantage, and God will be greatly\nglorified.\nThus we have considered God\u2019s people as exposed to various temptations,\nand how they are to direct their prayers to him, agreeably thereunto,\npursuant to what our Saviour has taught us in this petition; which, that\nwe may farther enlarge upon in our meditations, we may express ourselves\nto God in prayer to this purpose; \u201cWe draw nigh to thee, O our God and\nFather, as those who are exposed to many difficulties, by reason of the\nsnares and temptations that attend us. We find it hard to pass through\nthe world without being allured and drawn aside from thee, by the\nvanities thereof, or discouraged and made uneasy by those afflictions\nwhich are inseparable from this present state: But that which gives us\nthe greatest ground of distress and trouble, and makes us an easy prey\nto our spiritual enemies, is, the deceitfulness and treachery of our own\nhearts, whereby we are prone to yield ourselves the servants of sin and\nSatan. Every age and condition of life has been filled with temptations,\nwhich we have been very often overcome by. We therefore implore the\npowerful aids of thy grace, that we may be kept in the hour of\ntemptation. Enable us to overcome the world, to mortify and subdue our\ncorrupt inclinations, and to stand against all the wiles and fiery darts\nof the Devil. Let us not be tempted to presume of being happy without\nholiness, or enjoying the benefits that are purchased by Christ, without\nfaith in him. May we also be freed from all unbecoming thoughts of thy\ndivine perfections, and not give way to any temptations that may lead us\nto despair of thy mercy, which thou art pleased to extend to the chief\nof sinners. We farther beg, though with submission to thy will, that we\nmay be kept from the temptations of our grand adversary, because we are\nsensible of our own weakness and inability to resist him; nevertheless,\nwe are confident that we can do all things by thine assistance:\nTherefore, if thou sufferest us to be tempted, appear in our behalf at\nthat time, that we may be made more than conquerors; and when we fall by\ntemptation, let us not be utterly cast down, but upheld with thine hand,\nand let thy strength be made perfect in our weakness; and, in the end,\nbring us safely to that happy state, where there is neither sin nor\ntemptation; when we shall be delivered from all the evils of this\npresent state, that thou mayest have the glory, and we may praise thee\nthroughout the ages of eternity.\u201d\nFootnote 123:\n  In our day and country there are some worthy men, who without fear, or\n  scruple, affirm, that God is the _author_, and _cause_ of sin; which\n  words they soften to avoid the blasphemy, which they contain. We have\n  in a note, I. vol. p. 530, given the sentiments of the late Dr.\n  Williams, on the origination of sin. Being a proficient in the study\n  of the human mind, he has philosophized a little on, but not\n  essentially differed from the representation of the subject, as it is\n  found in the writings of sound protestant divines. As some American\n  writers advocate with considerable address, such divine causality, and\n  publicly affirm it to have been taught by Luther, Calvin, &c. and to\n  have found its place in our standards in the words\u2014\u201cforeordained\n  whatsoever comes to pass;\u201d it is proper to resort to the ipsissima\n  verba of some of the European protestant theologians, as a test of\n  such allegations.\n  The Westminster divines, no doubt, entertained the same views of sin,\n  which will be found in the following extracts. In their definition of\n  sin, they not obscurely shew, that they did consider it not more a\n  _transgression of_, than _a want of conformity unto, the law_. The\n  former is the translation of \u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 in I. John iii. 4. which is rather\n  _privatio_, _defectus_, or _declinatio_ than _transgressio legis_.\n  Also the Greek word \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1, and the Hebrew \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 signify _non\n  consecutio scopi_. If they viewed sin as a _qualitas adventitia_, a\n  _quiddam non positivum_, a _simplex privatio_, a _quiddam actioni\n  inh\u00e6rens_, they could not have viewed it the proper subject of a\n  decree or purpose, but only as foreseen and permitted.\n  The following quotations are given in the authors\u2019 own words, for the\n  satisfaction of those who may not possess the works from which they\n  are taken.\n  \u201cNatura peccato corrupta est...\u2014Aversio qu\u00e6dam voluntatis secuta est,\n  ut homo nihil eorum velit aut faciat, qu\u00e6 Deus vult et pr\u00e6cipit. Item\n  quod nescimus, quid Deus, quid gratia, quid justitia, denique quid\n  ipsum peccatum sit. Hi sunt profecto horribiles DEFECTUS, quos, qui\n  non intelligunt; nec vident, talpa c\u0153ciores sunt.\u201d Mart. Lutheri Loc.\n  \u201cH\u00e6c Regula certa et vera est; Deum esse natura bonum, ideo nihil a\n  Deo proficisci, nisi quod bonum est, mors autem est mala, peccatum\n  etiam est malum, &c. Non igitur a Deo proficiscuntur mala h\u00e6c, &c.\n  Peccati porro qu\u00e6 causa sit, si roges, sacr\u00e6 liter\u00e6 ostendunt, id ex\n  Sathana esse, cui contra verbum Dei assenserunt nostri parentes, a Deo\n  inobedientes facti, incurrerunt in horribiles p\u00e6nas. Nam per peccatum\n  illud non solum corpora nostra sic infirmata sunt, ut ex immortalibus\n  mortalia fierent, sed etiam mens depravata est. Amisit enim homo veram\n  Dei notitiam, et voluntas quoque tum admodum est depravata, ut nihil\n  quam malum appetat.\u201d Mart. Lutheri Loci Com. p. 22.\n  \u201cEant nunc qui Deum suis vitiis inscribere audent, quia dicimus\n  naturaliter vitiosos esse homines. Opus Dei perperam in sua pollutione\n  scrutantur, quod in integra adhuc et incorrupta Ad\u00e6 natura requirere\n  debuerant. A carnis ergo nostr\u00e6 culpa, non a Deo nostra perditio est,\n  quando non alia ratione periimus, nisi quia degeneravimus a prima\n  nostra conditione.\u201d\u2014\u201cDicimus ergo naturali hominem vitiositate\n  corruptum, sed qu\u00e6 a natura non fluxerit. A natura fluxisse negamus,\n  ut significemus adventitiam magis esse qualitatem qu\u00e6 homini\n  acciderit, quam substantialem proprietatem qu\u00e6 ab initio indita\n  fuerit. Vocamus tamen naturalem, nequis ab unoquoque prava\n  consuetudine comparari putet, quum h\u00e6reditario jure universos\n  comprehensos teneat.\u201d _Calvini Institut._ _lib._ II. _cap._ 1. _sect._\n  \u201cSed cum nihil contingat in mundo, aut contingere possit sine\n  justissima et sapientissima Dei providentia, annon, peccati author et\n  causa dici potest? Absit, quippe qui illud odit, vetat, & punit, ut\n  quod cum summ\u00e2 ipsius bonitate pugnet.\u201d _Bucani Theolog. p. 165._\n  \u201cDeus non infundit malitiam in volentates malorum, sicut infundit\n  bonitatem in corda piorum, nec impellit aut allicit voluntates ad\n  peccandum; sed tantum malas voluntates, seu peccantes, quales invenit\n  ex corruptione qu\u00e6 sequuta est aversionem diabolorum et hominum a Deo,\n  movet, ciet, flectit, inclinat, dirigit, sapienter, juste, potenter,\n  ubi, quando, quomodo, et quousque vult, sive mediate, sive immediate,\n  ad objecta vel persequenda, vel fugienda, ut impleant (quibus tale\n  nihil propositum est) quod manus et consilium Domini decrevit. _Bucani\n  \u201cEstne peccatum originis Substantia an accidens?\u2014Non est substantia;\n  esset enim anima vel corpus. Jam vero corpus et anima quoad\n  substantiam, sunt bon\u00e6 Dei creatur\u00e6, qu\u00e6 etiamnum creantur a Deo. Ergo\n  non sunt peccatum. Nec substantialis est proprietas, aut aliquid\n  substantiale in homine: sed est adventitia qualitas, qu\u00e6 tamen\n  naturalis dicitur, non quod \u00e0 natura fluxerit (quatenus creata est)\n  sed quia h\u00e6reditario jure ut dicitur, suos comprehensos tenet, et in\n  ipsa hominis natura, viribus, et facultatibus naturalibus inh\u00e6ret, et\n  ipsi homini innata est.\u201d\n  _Bucani Theol._ p. 174.\n  \u201cEstne peccatum aliquid Positivum an Privativum?\u2014Peccatum non est\n  positivum, id est, quiddam subsistens a Deo conditum, nec est\n  simpliciter et pura privatio, sicut mors est privatio vit\u00e6, aut\n  tenebr\u00e6 sunt privatio lucis; sed est defectus seu destructio rei\n  positiv\u00e6, videlicit operis et ordinis divini in subjecto, quod culpam\n  sustinet su\u00e6 depravationis, aversionis a Deo, ut ruina in domo,\n  c\u0153citas et amissio visus in oculis.\u201d _Bucani Theol._ p. 167.\n  \u201cPermissio est gubernatio Dei, qu\u00e2 homines vel diabolos, ad peccandum\n  pronos, a peccato non retrahit, sed grati\u00e6 su\u00e6 auxilio negato vel\n  subtracto, in peccata ruere sinit, ita tamen ut ipsorum impetum ad\n  judiciorum suorum executionem flectat, et qu\u00e6 pessimo ab ipsis\n  concilio suscipiuntur, in fines optimos dirigat.\u201d\n  EXPLICATIO.\n  1. Deus in permissione mali culp\u0153 seu peccati, non est otiosus\n  spectator, sed potens, justus, et sapiens judex: Itaque.\n  (1.) Efficax grati\u00e6 su\u00e6 auxilium, sine quo non possunt non peccare in\n  peccatis mortui homines, negat vel subtrahit.\n  (2.) Homines vel diabolos ad peccandum natura et consuetudine pronos,\n  s\u00e6pissim\u00e8 a peccatis non retrahit, quos tamen facillim\u00e8 posset\n  retrahere: sed in peccata ruere sinit.\n  (3.) Peccatum animis ipsorum susceptum, seu peccandi impetum ita\n  moderatur, ut non in qu\u00e6vis objecta eum ferri patiatur, sed flectat et\n  dirigat ad ejus modi objecta, vel homines, quos punire, castigare, vel\n  explorare vult.\n  (4.) Qu\u00e6 ab impiis hominibus, vel diabolis, malo fine, perpetrantur,\n  in fines optimos dirigit.\n  EXEMPLI GRATIA.\n  Si viator aliquis a latrone in via occidatur, homicidium permississe\n  Deus dicitur:\n  (1.) Quia efficax grati\u00e6 su\u00e6 auxilium ei subtraxit vel negavit, sine\n  quo infallibiliter homicidium erat perpetraturus.\n  (2.) Quia animum latronis, natur\u00e2 vel consuetudine ad homicidia\n  pronum, ab homicidio non retraxit; quem tamen facillim\u00e8 potuisset\n  retrahere: sed in hoc facinus ipsum ruere permisit.\n  (3.) Quia concilium homicidii perpetrandi, ipsumque latronis impetum\n  ita rexit et flexit, ut non quemvis promiscue hominem voluerit aut\n  potuerit interficere: sed hunc potius, quam alium interfecerit; Unde\n  furori latronis hunc potius viatorem, quam alium hominem objecit:\n  justo quodam judicio: cujus ratio plerumque homines latet.\n  (4.) Quia, quod malo fine a latrone est perpetratum; forte ad pecuniam\n  acquirendam, quam nequiter dilapidaret, in finem bonam direxit: quia\n  est p\u0153na vel ipsius latronis, vel ejus, qui a latrone est occisus: vel\n  alius etiam finis nobis ignotus.\n  II. Sunt igitur in peccatis hominum, circa qu\u00e6 divina occupatur\n  permissio, quatuor imprimis observanda et distinquenda:\n  (1.) Actio per se, quatenus est actio.\n  (2.) Vitium actioni inh\u00e6rens.\n  (3.) Directio organi mali et actionis vitios\u00e6 in objectum certum.\n  (4.) Finis directionis, e quo accidit peccato judicii divini ratio; ut\n  per hominum peccata Deus exequatur justa sua judicia: Primum, tertium,\n  et quartum a Deo est, Deumque authorem habet. Est enim omnis actio,\n  quatenus est actio, bona: directio actionis et ipsa bona: denique\n  finis directionis optimus, nempe divini judicii executio. Secundum, in\n  quo peccati consistit ratio, non a Deo, sed a solo est homine: adeoque\n  solus homo peccati, quatenus est peccatum author est. _Wendel. Theol.\n  \u201cHinc firmiter concludimus, cum permissione Dei concurrere quoque\n  efficacem Dei actionem et directionem vitiosi instrumenti in objectum\n  certum, adversus quod judicium suum exercere Deo visum.\u201d\n  \u201cOrthodoxi nominis osor et insignis caluminator Graverus ad art. 19.\n  Confess. Aug. p. 112, et sequentibus, portentosum dogma, de Deo\n  peccati authore, Ecclesiis nostris non tantum calumniose impingit, sed\n  et 15 argumenta nostris affingit quibus thesin hanc suam: Deus est\n  peccati, quatenus peccatum est, author: probet: imprimis autem ad\n  infame hoc et blasphemum dogma probandum affirmat, a nostris adduci\n  scriptur\u00e6 loca, qu\u00e6 modo allegata sunt. Nos vero ut tam effrontibus\n  calumniatoribus; ita omnibus, qui blasphemum istud dogma vel probant;\n  vel profitentur, et defendunt, anathema dicimus, et innocenti\u00e6 nostr\u00e6\n  vindicem mundi judicem, jamjam ad judicium se accingentem,\n  imploramus.\u201d _Wendel. Theol. p. 183._\nFootnote 124:\n  _See Quest. LXXVII._\nFootnote 125:\n  _See Vol. II. page 94._\nFootnote 126:\n  _See a particular account what this sin is; and when a person may\n  certainly conclude that he has not committed it, ante page 318 to\n    QUEST. CXCVI. _What doth the conclusion of the Lord\u2019s prayer teach\n    ANSW. The conclusion of the Lord\u2019s prayer, [which is, _For thine is\n    the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever, Amen_] teacheth us\n    to enforce our petitions with arguments, which are to be taken, not\n    from any worthiness in ourselves, or in any other creature, but from\n    God; and with our prayers, to join praises, ascribing to God alone\n    eternal sovereignty, omnipotency, and glorious excellency; in regard\n    whereof, as he is able and willing to help us, so we, by faith, are\n    emboldened to plead with him that he would, and quietly to rely upon\n    him that he will fulfil our requests, and to testify this our\n    desire, and assurance, we say, _Amen_.\nAs we are taught to begin our prayers with those expressions of\nreverence, becoming the Majesty of God, when we draw nigh to him; so we\nare to conclude them with a doxology, or an ascription of that glory\nwhich is due to his name; whereby praise is joined with prayer, and we\nencouraged to hope, that he will hear and answer our petitions.\nIn the conclusion of the Lord\u2019s prayer, we are directed to ascribe to\nGod _the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever_; and to sum up all\nwith that comprehensive word, _Amen_. This may be considered in two\nrespects,\n1. As we hereby express the due regard we have to the divine\nperfections: And,\n2. As we improve or make use of them as so many arguments or pleas in\nprayer.\n1. We shall consider this doxology as containing the sense we have of\nthe divine perfections. Accordingly,\n(1.) We say, _Thine is the kingdom_; whereby his sovereignty and\nuniversal dominion over all creatures, is acknowledged as he has a right\nto every thing that he gave being to: And, as this is more especially a\nbranch of his relative glory, since the idea of a king connotes\nsubjects, over whom his dominion is exercised; so it supposes in us an\nhumble expression of subjection to him, and dependence on him for all\nthings that we enjoy or hope for. We also consider him as having a right\nto make use of all creatures at his pleasure; inasmuch as the earth is\nhis, and the fulness thereof: And, as we are intelligent creatures, we\nprofess our obligation to yield obedience to his revealed will, and are\nafraid of incurring his displeasure by rebelling against him, with whom\nis terrible Majesty: And when we take a view of him; as seated on a\nthrone of grace, and his government as extended to his church, upon\nwhich account he is adored as _king of saints_, Rev. xv. 3. we hope for\nhis safe protection and for all the blessings which he bestows on those\nwhom he governs in a way subservient to their everlasting salvation.\n(2.) We adore him as a God of infinite power, _Thine is the power_.\nDominion without power will not be sufficient to maintain its rights;\ntherefore, since God is described as having the kingdom belonging to\nhim, or being the governor among the nations; his attribute of power\nought next to be considered, whereby he can, without the least\ndifficulty, secure the welfare and happiness of his subjects, and bring\nto nought the designs of his enemies; or, as it is elegantly expressed,\n_look on every one that is proud, and bring him low, and tread down the\nwicked in their place, hide them in the dust together, and bind their\nfaces in secret_, Job xl. 12, 13.\n(3.) It is farther added, _Thine is the glory_. This may be taken in two\nsenses; either as including in it all his perfections, whereby he is\nrendered glorious in the eyes of angels and men; so that there is\nnothing that we esteem beautiful or excellent in the whole system of\ncreated beings, but what is deformed, and, as it were, vanishes and\nsinks into nothing, when compared with him: Or else, the meaning of the\nexpression is, that all the praise and honour that arises from every\nthing that is done in the world, which appears great and excellent, or\nhas a tendency to raise our esteem and admiration, is to be ascribed to\nhim; whereby we disclaim the least shadow or appearance of divine\nhonour, which we are ready, upon all occasions to acknowledge to be due\nto him alone: Thus we adore him as having all divine perfections, when\nwe say, _Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory_.\nAnd it is farther added, that they belong to him _for ever and ever_;\nwhereby it is intimated, that whatever changes there may be in the\nnature or condition of created beings, he is unchangeably the same, and\ntherefore will remain glorious in himself, and be for ever admired and\nadored by all his saints, whose happiness depends upon it.\n2. We shall consider these divine perfections, as they afford us so many\narguments, or pleas, in prayer, from whence we take encouragement to\nexpect a gracious answer from him, as appears from that _illative_\nparticle, FOR, which is prefixed to this doxology. Therefore we may\nconsider it as subjoined to the foregoing petitions, as the strongest\nmotive to induce us to hope, that the blessings we pray for, shall be\ngranted us; accordingly we disclaim all worthiness in ourselves, and\ndesire that our name or righteousness should not be mentioned; but that\nthe whole revenue of glory may redound to God, as all our expectation is\nfrom him. We might here apply the several arguments or pleas contained\nherein, to every one of the foregoing petitions; which would tend very\nmuch to enforce them, and afford matter for our farther enlargement in\nprayer: But I shall rather chuse to reduce the subject-matter thereof to\nthe two general heads, under which they are contained; and accordingly\nto shew how we may make use of those arguments that are taken from the\nkingdom, power, and glory, belonging to God, for ever and ever, in our\npraying for those things that concern his glory, agreeably to what we\nare directed to ask for in the three first petitions; or our temporal or\nspiritual advantage, as in the three last.\n(1.) As to what respects the glory of God in the world, viz. that his\nname may be hallowed, his kingdom advanced, and his will be done:\nTherein we pray, that, as he is a great King, the blessed and only\nPotentate, the Governor of the world and the church, he would sanctify\nhis glorious name; that his interest may be maintained, and prevail\nagainst every thing that opposes it, that he would take to himself his\ngreat power and reign; and, since the success of the gospel, and the\nadvancement of his kingdom of grace, is a work surpassing finite power,\nand there are many endeavours used to weaken and overthrow it; we trust,\nwe hope, we plead with him, for the glory of his name, that he would\ngive a check to, and defeat the designs of his and our enemies, that the\nenlargement of his kingdom may not be obstructed, nor his subjects\ndisheartened, whilst Satan\u2019s kingdom, that is set in opposition to it,\nmakes such sensible advances, and prevails so much against it.\nAnd, that his name may be sanctified by his people, and his kingdom\nadvanced in this lower world, we farther pray, that his subjects may be\ninclined to obey, and submit to his will in all things; or, that it may\nbe done on earth as it is in heaven: Therefore, when we ascribe the\nkingdom, power, and glory to him, we do, in effect, say, \u201cLord, what\nwould become of this wretched world, if it were not under thy gracious\ngovernment, which is its glory and defence? Thou sittest on the throne\nof thy holiness, which thou hast established of old: Therefore, we are\nencouraged to hope, that thou wilt not forsake thy people, who are\ncalled by thy name, nor suffer thine interest to be trampled on, nor thy\nname profaned by those who say, Who is the Lord, that we should obey\nhim? Thine arm is not shortened, that thou canst not save, since thine\nis the power; and therefore nothing is too hard for thee. Thou hast\ngiven us ground to expect, that thou wilt shew thy people marvellous\nthings; and thou hast promised, that all nations shall bow down before\nthee and serve thee; and that the kingdoms of this world shall become\nthe kingdoms of Christ: This thou canst easily accomplish by thine\nalmighty power, though it be too hard for man.\u2014Thou art never at a loss\nfor instruments to fulfil thy pleasure; for all things are in thy hand:\nNeither, indeed, dost thou need them; for, by thy powerful word, thou\ncanst cause light to shine out of darkness, and revive thy work in the\nmidst of the years, that thy people may rejoice and be glad in thy\nsalvation. Take the work, therefore, into thine own hand, and, thereby,\ngive us occasion to admire and ascribe to thee the glory that is due to\nthy name.\u201d\n(2.) We are to consider, how we may plead for temporal or spiritual\nblessings, as making use of this argument, that the kingdom, power, and\nglory, belong to God; accordingly, we pray, that he would give us that\nportion of the good things of life, that he sees necessary for us, and\nthat we may enjoy his blessing with it, in order to our being prepared\nfor a better, _q. d._ \u201cGive us daily bread; for the earth is thine, and\nthe fulness thereof: Thou hast subdued us to thyself, and hast told us,\nthat thou wilt surely do us good, and bring us, at last, to thy heavenly\nkingdom: Therefore we humbly wait upon thee, that we may not be suffered\nto faint by the way, or be destitute of those blessings that are needful\nfor us in our present condition. Thou art able to supply all our wants:\nWe have hitherto been upheld by thy power, and thou hast sometimes done\ngreat things for us, that we looked not for, and hast been our refuge\nand strength, a very present help in every time of trouble. Thou hast\ngranted us life and favour, and thy visitations have preserved our\nspirits; what thou hast given us we have gathered; thou hast opened thy\nhand, and filled us with good. And, as the treasures of thy bounty are\nnot exhausted, nor thy power diminished; so we desire to exercise a\nconstant dependence on thee, and to hope in thy mercy; that, as thou\nhast given us those better things that accompany salvation, thou wilt\nalso bestow upon us what thou seest needful for us in our way to it;\nwhich will not only redound to our comfort, but thy glory; who givest\nfood to all flesh; for thy mercy endureth for ever.\u201d\nAs for those spiritual blessings that we stand in need of, we encourage\nourselves to hope for them; and accordingly, when we pray for\nforgiveness of sin, we consider God as sitting upon a throne of grace,\nand inviting us to come and receive a pardon from his hand: Therefore we\nsay, \u201cLord, thou art ready to forgive, and thereby to lay eternal\nobligations on thy subjects, to love and fear thee; if thou shouldst\nresolve to display thy vindictive justice in punishing sin, according to\nthe demerit thereof, thy kingdom of grace would be at an end; but thou\nencouragest us to hope for forgiveness, that hereby grace may reign\nthrough righteousness unto life eternal. And, as thou art a God of\ninfinite power, we beg that thou wouldst thereby work in us those graces\nthat flow from, and are the evidences of our having obtained\nforgiveness, that being delivered from the guilt of sin, we may walk\nbefore thee in newness of life. We also ask this privilege, as what thou\nbestowest for Christ\u2019s sake, that hereby he may be glorified as the\npurchaser of this blessing, and we laid under the highest obligations to\nlove him, as being constrained hereunto by his love, expressed to us in\nwashing us from our sins in his own blood.\u201d\nWhen we pray to be kept from temptation, or recovered, when fallen by\nit, we consider ourselves as the subjects of Christ\u2019s kingdom, and his\nenemies as endeavouring to draw us aside from our allegiance to him;\nand, as dreading the consequence thereof, we address ourselves to him,\nto secure us from the danger we are exposed to from them; and\naccordingly, when we say, _Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the\nglory_, we are furnished with arguments adapted to our present\nexigencies, _q. d._ \u201cThe power of our spiritual enemies is great, and\nmuch more formidable, because of the treachery of our own hearts; yet we\nare encouraged to implore thine assistance against them, O our God and\nKing, that we may be kept in the hour of temptation; inasmuch as all the\nattempts that are made against us, carry in them an invasion on thy\nsovereignty and dominion over us. We desire always to commit ourselves\nto thy protection, and hope to find it, since there are no snares laid\nfor us, but thou art able to detect and prevent our being entangled by\nthem, and also canst bruise our enemies under our feet, and, if we are\nat any time overcome by them, recover us from the paths of the\ndestroyer: Do this for us, we beseech thee, that thou mayest have all\nthe glory: We have no might, but our eyes are upon thee, who art able to\nkeep us from falling, and to present us faultless, before the presence\nof thy glory, with exceeding joy.\u201d\nAs for the word, _Amen_, with which our Saviour concludes this prayer,\nit is of an Hebrew original, and is sometimes prefixed to what is\nasserted with a vehemency of expression, designed not only to confirm,\nbut to bespeak the utmost attention to what is said, as being a matter\nof very great importance; in which case it is rendered by the word\n_verily_. And it is sometimes repeated to add greater force to it: Thus\nwhen our Saviour asserts the necessity of regeneration, he says,\n_Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot\nsee the kingdom of God_, John iii. 3. And elsewhere, _Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will\ngive it you_, chap. xvi. 23.[127]\nIt is put in the close of each of the evangelists, as denoting, that\nwhatever is contained therein, is to be depended on, as being of\ninfallible verity; and almost all the epistles are concluded with it, as\nis also the book of the Revelation, in which it is put after a short\nprayer or doxology; in which respect it signifies, that what is therein\nrequested of God, is earnestly desired, and the petition summed up, and\nratified thereby; or, that the glory which is ascribed, is again\nacknowledged to belong to him, and we rejoice in the discovery that is\nmade thereof to us.\nAgain, sometimes the word is not only used, but explained at the same\ntime, as containing a summary account of what we ask for: Thus when\nBenaiah preferred a petition to David in the behalf of Solomon, and had\na grant from him, that he should reign in his stead; it is said, _He\nanswered the king, and said, Amen; the Lord God of my lord the king say\nso too_, 1 Kings i. 36.\nThus then the word, _Amen_, with which this and other prayers are to be\nconcluded, signifies, _so it is, let it be so_, or, _so it shall be_;\neach of which respective significations are to be applied to the\nsubject-matter of our prayers: As it respects sins confessed, or the\nglory that we ascribe to God for mercies received, it denotes, _so it\nis_: As it refers to the promises which we plead and take encouragement\nfrom, or the blessings which we desire, it signifies, _so it shall be_,\nand _so let it be_. Thus it is to be applied in this prayer; and in\nparticular, as it is joined to the doxology, _Thine is the kingdom, the\npower and the glory, for ever and ever_, we express our faith herein,\ntogether with our adoration of these divine perfections. And there are\nsome prayers or doxologies, in which the glory of Christ and the\ngospel-state is described, which are concluded with the repetition of\nthe word: Thus when the Psalmist had been enlarging on this subject, he\nconcludes with, _Blessed be his glorious name for ever; and let the\nwhole earth be filled with his glory, Amen and Amen_, i. e. God has\ndetermined that it shall be so, and the whole church is obliged to\nexpress their faith, and say, _Amen, so let it be_.\nSome have thought it expedient in joint prayer, for the whole assembly,\ntogether with him that is the mouth thereof, to say, _Amen_, with a loud\nvoice, and thereby to signify their consent to, and concern in the\nsubject-matter contained therein; which appears to have been the\npractice of the church in the early ages thereof; as Justin Martyr\nobserves it was in his time[128]; and it was afterwards observed in\nJerom\u2019s time, who compares the sound they made with their united voices\nto that of thunder[129]; which, though it was done with a pious design,\nand not in the least to be blamed, yet it is not to be insisted on as\nnecessary, since all present professedly join in every part of the\nprayer, as much as though they repeated the words with an audible voice;\nand accordingly it is sufficient for every one, when prayer is publicly\nconcluded with this comprehensive word, to lift up his heart to God, and\nthereby express the part he bears therein.\nAs for the contrary extreme, when one, whose office was altogether\nunknown to the primitive churches, is appointed to say, _Amen_, in the\nname of the whole congregation; this is, I think, altogether\nunwarrantable; though several Popish commentators defend it from the\napostle\u2019s words, who speaks of him that _occupieth the room of the\nunlearned_, as _saying, Amen, at the giving of thanks_, 1 Cor. xiv. 16.\nwhere, by the unlearned, we are not to understand the Clerk of a\ncongregation[130], but one who understands not the subject-matter of\nthat prayer, which the apostle supposes to be put to God in an unknown\ntongue: All therefore that can be inferred from hence is, that we ought\nto pray to God with understanding and faith, that hereby we may be able\nto sum up our requests and glorify him by saying, _Amen_.\nFootnote 127:\n  As in John only it is repeated, he wrote it only in the Hebrew\n  character, it is presumed, and understood by it \u201c_the truth_;\u201d the\n  second Amen was exegetical and in the Greek character, for the sake of\n  the unlearned.\nFootnote 128:\n  _Vid. Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. pro Christ. who intimates, that when\n  public prayer and giving of thanks was ended, the whole congregation\n  testified their approving of it by saying_, Amen; \u03c9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f44 \u03c9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03b3 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u1f40\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bb\u1f72\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd.\nFootnote 129:\n  _Vid. Hieron. in Lib. ii. comment. ad Galat. in Proen. Ad\n  similitudinem c\u00e6lestis tonitrus reboat_, [_scil. Ecclesia._] Amen.\nFootnote 130:\n  _Vid. Whitby in loc._\n                         Theological Questions.\n    _Many theological instructors teach their pupils successfully, by\n    requiring them, besides the usual course of systematical reading,\n    interrogative examinations, and critical study of the scriptures in\n    the original languages, also to write disquisitions on a number of\n    Questions in Theology. Hereby they are provided with a store of\n    arguments, on the most difficult subjects, and furnished with the\n    mature advices of their preceptors; to which they may recur in any\n    period of after life. To aid in this important work, the following\n    List of Questions has been subjoined to this first American edition\n    of_ Ridgley; _and every instructor, or pupil, will select or vary at\n    his pleasure_.\nQUEST. 1.\u2014How does it appear, that something has existed from eternity?\n2. What evidence is there, that the existence of man is derived, and\ndependent?\n3. How do you prove the existence of God?\n4. What is Theology?\n5. What is natural Theology?\n6. What does it discover of the Divine character?\n7. What arguments prove the genuineness, authenticity; and what, the\ninspiration of the Old and New Testaments?\n8. How do you prove the Unity of God?\n9. How do you prove the divinity and personality of the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost?\n10. What are the Manichean, Arian, Sabellian, Socinian and Unitarian\nheresies, and how are they respectively confuted?\n11. How do you prove that there are divine purposes, and that these are\neternal and immutable?\n12. Wherein does the certainty of events, taught in the scriptures,\ndiffer from the fatality of heathen philosophers and modern sceptics?\n13. How do you prove that the world was created?\n14. In what estate was man created?\n15. What are the acts of God\u2019s providence; or how is it employed about\ncreated things?\n16. What is the difference between a law and a covenant?\n17. How do you prove that God did enter into a Covenant with Adam, which\nincluded him and all his posterity?\n18. What are we to understand by Adam\u2019s freedom of will?\n19. What is necessary to constitute a moral agent?\n20. What is the difference between natural, and moral, power, and\ninability?\n21. How is the doctrine of universal absolute decrees consistent with\nthe moral agency of man?\n22. How do you define sin?\n23. Are there venial sins?\n24. How do you describe the sin against the Holy Ghost?\n25. How do you prove the depravity of unrenewed men to be total?\n26. What was implied by the death threatened in case of disobedience?\n27. Wherein consists the punishment of the damned?\n28. How do you prove the eternity of hell torments?\n29. How do you define the Covenant of Grace?\n30. Is there any ground for a distinction between the Covenant of\nRedemption and the Covenant of Grace?\n31. Wherein do the Covenants of Works, and Grace agree, and differ?\n32. Are the Law, and Gospel inconsistent with each other?\n33. What is an atonement? And what the nature, and extent of the\natonement of Christ?\n34. Was the sacrifice of Christ Jesus absolutely necessary for our\nsalvation?\n35. Whence did the obedience, and sufferings of Christ derive their\nefficacy?\n36. How was his death consistent, with the justice of God?\n37. How do you describe the nature, mode of administration, extent,\nduration and glory of Christ\u2019s kingly office?\n38. What is to be understood by his descent into Hell?\n39. What are we to understand by the application of Redemption?\n40. How do you prove that the influence of the Holy Spirit is of free\nand sovereign grace?\n41. What is regeneration, or effectual calling?\n42. Whence arises the necessity of it?\n43. What are the means of grace, and what their use?\n44. What is the utmost the unregenerate do in the use of the means of\ngrace?\n45. To what are they to be exhorted?\n46. Wherein consists the difference of the special call of the Spirit,\nand the more outward call of the gospel?\n47. How do you describe the nature of gospel repentance, with the\ndifference between this, and conviction of sin, or legal repentance?\n48. How do you describe the nature, and necessity of justifying faith;\nand what species of causality has it in our justification?\n49. What is included in, and what are the effects of justification?\n50. How are full satisfaction and free pardon consistent?\n51. What are we to understand by the imputation of Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness for justification?\n52. What are the absurdities implied in supposing a justifying faith to\nconsist in a sure confidence of the pardon of our sins?\n53. Point out the nature, privileges and evidences of adoption.\n54. How do you describe, and prove the possibility of attaining an\nassurance, of God\u2019s love?\n55. How do you describe the believer\u2019s peace of conscience, and point\nout the difference between it, and the false hope of the hypocrite?\n56. How do you prove the doctrine of the saint\u2019s perseverance in a state\nof grace unto eternal life? And explain Ezek. xviii. 24. Heb. vi. 4-6,\nand the falls of David, Peter, and Judas?\n57. Is sinless perfection attainable in this life?\n58. What is the condition of the souls of believers immediately after\ndeath?\n59. How do you prove that there shall be a general resurrection of the\njust and the unjust?\n60. How do you prove there shall be a general judgment?\n61. What are the consequences of the judgment to the righteous and the\nwicked?\n62. How do you prove that the institution of the Sabbath, is of\nperpetual obligation?\n63. How do you prove that public worship is to be celebrated on the\nSabbath?\n64. What is the nature of a Christian church?\nWhat are its standing officers?\nTo whom does the right of ordination belong?\n65. What is the nature and import of baptism?\nHow do you prove that other modes than immersion are lawful?\n66. How do you prove the divine right of infant baptism?\n67. What is the nature and use, and who are the proper partakers of the\nLord\u2019s supper?\n68. What errors are implied in a prayer, the object of which is a change\nof divine purposes?\n69. What is the nature, use and necessity of prayer?\n70. How do you prove that family-prayer is a duty?\n71. Wherein consist the unity and communion that should subsist in the\nchurch of Christ, and the benefits or advantages of it?\n72. What are the rules and end of church discipline?\nWhat is the nature and design of excommunication?\n73. What are the qualifications necessary to a minister of Christ?\n74. In what does the happiness of heaven consist?\nThe volumes are denoted by _a_, _b_, _c_, and _d_.\n Abraham offering Isaac, _c_ 544\n Absolute free-will, _a_ 498\n Adam, his temptation, _b_ 102\n   not a mediator, _b_ 164\n Acts of faith, direct and reflex, _c_ 132\n Actions sinful, _d_ 66\n Adoption, _c_ 145\n Adultery, _d_ 9\n Affections, government of, _d_ 10\n Afflictions, relative, _b_ 156\n All-sufficiency of God, consolatory, _a_ 129\n Angels, their creation, _b_ 25\n   their nature, _b_ 27\n   their power, _b_ 28\n   their employment, _b_ 68. 30\n   providence of God toward them, _b_ 62\n Anger is heart-murder, _c_ 548\n Antinomians, _c_ 418\n Anti-trinitarians, _a_ 388\n Apostacy, considered, _c_ 225\n Apostles, _b_ 572\n Arius, his error, note, _a_ 208\n Arminians, _b_ 128\n Ascension of Christ, _b_ 464\n Assurance of salvation, _c_ 243\n   how lost, _c_ 273\n   what essential to faith, _c_ 270\n Atheism, its absurdity, _a_ 24. 29. 38 _c_ 439\n   design of it, _b_ 285\n   propriety of it proved, against Deists, _b_ 299\n   vindicated against christian errors, _b_ 303\n   extent of the purchase, _b_ 301\n   for whom specially intended, _b_ 316. 321\n   how sufficient for all men, note, _b_ 349\n Author of sin, God is not, in note, _d_ 433. 435\n Baptism, an ordinance, _d_ 174\n   meaning of the word , _d_ 216\n   a generic term, in note, _d_ 175\n   objections to subjects of, _d_ 200. 206. 186. 194\n   by pouring or sprinkling, _d_ 218\n   sponsors in, _d_ 228\n   sign of the cross in, _d_ 228\n   how to be improved, _d_ 229. 234\n Backbiting, instances of, _d_ 48\n Being of God proved, _a_ 21\n Believers, sons of God in Christ, _c_ 146\n Benevolence, disinterested, _a_ 19\n Blindness of mind, _b_ 146\n Borrowing and not paying, _d_ 23\n   whether Israel was guilty of it, _d_ 24\n Bread, daily to be prayed for, _d_ 407\n Burnet, his scheme of the Millenium, _b_ 369\n Call of the gospel, _c_ 16\n Character of sacred writers, _a_ 101\n Charity to the poor, _d_ 20\n Child-like dispositions required in us, _d_ 364\n Christ, typified by Melchizedec, _b_ 264\n   his humiliation, _b_ 396\n   betrayed, denied, condemned, slain, _b_ 424. 426. 429. 433\n   descent into hell _b_ 440\n   1 Pet. iii. 18. explained, note, _b_ 442\n   his resurrection, _b_ 444\n   his ascension, _b_ 464\n   his intercession, _b_ 473\n   his coming to judgment, _b_ 481\n Christianity, reasonable, note, _a_ 1\n Church, the word how used, _b_ 510. note 515\n Church, its testimony, _a_ 116\n Church, invisible, _c_ 9\n   its union to Christ, _c_ 10\n Commandments, rules to interpret, _c_ 428\n Communion with God, by innocent man, _b_ 77\n   with Christ in grace, _c_ 65\n Conflagration, _b_ 387\n Conflicts of flesh and spirit, _c_ 187\n Conscience, horror of, _b_ 153\n   distinguished, _b_ 154\n Contentment a universal duty, _d_ 50\n   motives to it, _d_ 51\n Contingency of events, _a_ 517\n Corruption of nature, forbidden, _d_ 56\n   not from traduction, &c., _b_ 128\n Covenant of grace, divisible or not, _b_ 165\n   with whom made, _b_ 167\n   how, a testament, _b_ 169\n   eternity of it, _b_ 272\n   acceptance by elect, _b_ 184\n Covenant of works, more than a law, _b_ 78\n   its extent, _b_ 80. 88\n   violation of, _b_ 74. 93\n   not a promise of salvation, _b_ 164\n Covetousness and its aggravations, _d_ 58\n   excuses for it answered, _d_ 59\n Creation, work of, _b_ 6\n   immediate, _b_ 7\n   mediate, _b_ 7\n   time of, _b_ 8\n   design of, _b_ 15\n   not instantaneous, _b_ 17\n   its progression, _b_ 19. 23\n   at what season of the year, _b_ 24\n   its goodness, or perfection, _b_ 25\n Creed, account of, _b_ 440\n Critical examination of 1 John v. 7, _a_ 329\n Day of grace, what, _b_ 331\n Death, appointed of God, _c_ 293\n   its effect on the spirit, _c_ 300\n   of Christ, design of it, _b_ 285\n     perversion of the doctriner, _b_ 291\n     a true and proper sacrifice for sin, _b_ 292\n   of some saints, _c_ 285\n Decrees of God, _a_ 417. 430\n   not stoical fate, _a_ 516\n   misrepresentations of it, _a_ 465\n Deists, _b_ 494\n Deity of the Son, proved, _a_ 295\n   by divine names, _a_ 296\n   by divine attributes, _a_ 342\n   by religious worship, _a_ 377\n   improved, _a_ 414\n Diligence, _d_ 20. 21\n Discontent, remedies against, _d_ 61\n Dispensations of the covenant, _b_ 199\n Delusions, _b_ 147\n Dominion of man in innocency, _b_ 74\n Duels, _c_ 542\n Eden, garden of, where situated, _b_ 70\n Effectual calling, _c_ 39\n Elect, to what chosen, _a_ 438\n   included in Christ, _b_ 132\n   ransomed by him, _b_ 316\n     peculiarly, _b_ 322\n Election, what, _a_ 529. 434\n   objects of, _a_ 436\n   its design, _a_ 461\n   its properties, _a_ 469\n   knowledge of, _a_ 470\n   unchangeable, _a_ 481\n   objections to, _a_ 507\n   distinct from fate, _a_ 516\n Elijah, whether guilty of falsehood, _d_ 36\n Elisha reproached at Bethel, _d_ 43\n Endor, witch of, _c_ 451\n Enlightened conscience, _c_ 184\n Errors, of Arius and Sabellius, _a_ 208\n Eternal generation of Christ, _a_ 259\n Eternity of the covenant of grace, _b_ 172\n Eutychus, who he was, note, _b_ 223\n Eve, the manner of her temptation, _b_ 100\n Faith, how, a condition, _b_ 189\n   how above natural ability, _b_ 193\n   various kinds of, _c_ 121-125\n   justifying, _c_ 98. 125\n   how it justifies, _c_ 110\n   a means of salvation, _d_ 76\n Fall of man, _b_ 74-93\n Father, God is to men, _d_ 360\n   to be addressed as in heaven, _d_ 365\n Food of man in innocency, _b_ 72\n Foreknowledge of God, _a_ 452\n Foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, what is meant, _d_ 433\n Forgiveness of sin, _c_ 70. _d_ 417\n   of others, what meant by it, _d_ 424\n   argument to induce to it, _d_ 426\n Freedom of divine decrees, _a_ 432. 433\n Free will, absolute, absurd, _a_ 498\n   doctrine of, examined, _a_ 501\n Frugality, _d_ 17\n Genealogy of Christ defended, _a_ 88\n Genuineness of the scriptures, _a_ 79\n Glorifying God, what is meant by it, _a_ 13\n Glory of God, how things are disposed, _d_ 382\n Glory of Christ as Mediator, _b_ 244\n God, proofs of his being, _a_ 22-48\n   is a Spirit, _a_ 123\n   not the author of sin, _a_ 424. 523. 530\n   is infinite, _a_ 126\n   all-sufficient, _a_ 127\n   eternal, _a_ 129\n   immutable, _a_ 135\n   incomprehensible, _a_ 138\n   omnipresent, _a_ 139\n   almighty, _a_ 140\n   omniscient, _a_ 145\n   most wise, _a_ 152\n     merciful, _a_ 168\n   even in punishing, note, _a_ 170\n   how glorified, _a_ 14\n Goodness, _ibid_\n Gospel, how offered to all, _b_ 332\n   faith in it the duty of all, _b_ 336\n Government, civil, _c_ 524\n Grotius, on the authority of the scriptures, in note, _a_ 97\n Grace, of God, in providing a Mediator, _b_ 187\n Guilt of Adam\u2019s first sin, _b_ 119\n   its consequences, _b_ 196-259\n Happiness of saints, future, _c_ 399\n Hardness of heart, _b_ 149\n   causes of, _b_ 150\n   in believers and unbelievers, _b_ 151\n Hearing the word, _d_ 158\n Hell, descent of Christ into, _b_ 440\n Heinousness of sins not equal, _d_ 67\n Holy Ghost, procession of, _a_ 260\n   his Deity proved, _a_ 295\n   his titles, _a_ 400\n     attributes, _a_ 404\n Holiness of God, _a_ 159\n   motives to, _c_ 160\n Holy places, _c_ 424\n Holy Spirit, implants all graces, _b_ 197\n   applies salvation, _b_ 237\n Humiliation of Christ, _b_ 396\n   in his birth, _b_ 398\n   in his life, _b_ 401\n   by temptations, _b_ 410\n   by sinless infirmities, _b_ 422\n   in his death, _b_ 423\n   in being betrayed, _b_ 424\n     forsaken, _b_ 425\n     condemned, _b_ 429\n Humiliation of Christ, in being tormented, _b_ 431\n   crucified, _b_ 433\n   in his burial, _b_ 437\n Human nature of Christ, _b_ 421\n Hypocrisy, sin of, _d_ 39\n   whether Paul and Daniel guilty, _d_ 40\n Image-worship, _c_ 461\n Immortality of the soul, _c_ 302\n   asserted and denied by heathens, _c_ 303\n Imputation, what, _c_ 85-95\n Imputation of Adam\u2019s sin, _b_ 107. 113\n Inability of sinners to believe, note, _b_ 193\n   to keep the commandments, _d_ 62\n Incarnation of Christ, _b_ 227\n   the time of, _b_ 231\n   duration of, _b_ 234\n Incarnation, necessity for, _b_ 235\n Independency of God, _a_ 124\n Infants, their state, _b_ 138\n Inferiors, duties of, _c_ 520\n Innocency, man\u2019s condition in, _b_ 72\n Inspiration of scripture, _a_ 110\n Integrity of the church in all ages, _b_ 199\n Interest in Christ, _b_ 189\n Jesus, why so called, _b_ 244\n Judgment, final, _c_ 359\n Justice, in our dealings, _d_ 19\n Justification, _c_ 67\n   its foundation, _c_ 73\n   not before faith, _c_ 117\n   not by works, _c_ 101\n   not by repentance, _c_ 101\n Kingdom of Heaven, _c_ 399\n   of Providence, _d_ 385\n   of grace, _d_ 386\n   of Christ, how advanced, _d_ 389\n   of glory, _d_ 394\n Kingly office of Christ, _b_ 351\n   its exercise, _b_ 352\n   submission to, _b_ 357\n   opposition to, _b_ 360\n   times of exercise, _b_ 364\n   in the Millenium, _b_ 366\n   on earth, _b_ 381\n   duration of, _b_ 392\n   the two-fold states of, _b_ 396\n   in humiliation, _b_ 399\n Law, moral, _c_ 421\n   judicial, _c_ 422\n   ceremonial, _c_ 423\n Law-suits, when unjust, _d_ 26\n Liberty, _c_ 34\n Life, bounds of fixed, _a_ 508\n   to be preserved, _c_ 540\n Light of nature, _a_ 21. 230\n Light of revelation, sufficient, _b_ 206\n   increased by the gospel, _b_ 214\n Long-suffering of God, _a_ 176\n   in harmony with justice, _a_ 181\n   improvement of, _a_ 183\n Lord\u2019s supper, _d_ 234\n   a gospel ordinance, _d_ 236\n   what the elements and actions, _d_ 237. 238\n   to whom to be administered, _d_ 237. 245. 263\n   examination previous to, _d_ 246-256\n   who to be debarred from, _d_ 263\n   meditation at, _d_ 269\n   vows may be made at, _d_ 278\n   frequent attendance on, _d_ 280\n   how it differs from baptism, _d_ 281-284\n Lie, definition and kinds of, _d_ 33\n   whether midwives in Egypt guilty of, _d_ 34\n   whether Jacob was guilty of, _d_ 35\n   whether Elijah was guilty, _d_ 36\n   whether Paul was guilty, _d_ 37\n Magee\u2019s, two discourses on the atonement, note, _b_ 298. 317\n Man, his creation, _b_ 34\n   his twofold nature, _b_ 39\n   in the divine image, _b_ 42\n   his mutability, _b_ 44\n   providence of God toward him, _b_ 70\n   employment in Paradise, _b_ 72\n   his misery, _b_ 136\n Marks of grace, _c_ 260-262\n Marriage, its institution and design, _b_ 75\n Masters, duties of, _c_ 533\n Means of salvation, _d_ 76\n Mediator, his office generally, _b_ 186\n   his intercession or satisfaction, _b_ 186\n   his sufficiency, _b_ 218\n   his incarnation, _b_ 221\n   why called Jesus Christ, _b_ 244\n Melchizedec, who he might be, _b_ 264\n Messiah of the Old Testament is Christ, _b_ 200\n   the substance of the ceremonial law, _b_ 201\n   Jesus of Nazareth, _b_ 245\n   his commission, _b_ 248\n   his offices, _b_ 249\n     prophetical, _b_ 252\n     priestly, _b_ 259\n Millenium, _b_ 366-382\n Moral obligation, foundation of, _c_ 405\n Moral law, _c_ 421\n   civil, its origin, _b_ 127\n Mortification, _c_ 155\n Moses, no astrologer, _c_ 454\n   killing the Egyptians, _c_ 545\n Murderers do not escape, _c_ 547\n Musical instruments unauthorized in gospel worship, _d_ 85\n Mystery, scriptural, _a_ 215. 217\n Mysteries, Dr. Bates Aon, in note, _a_ 217\n Name of God, what meant by it, _d_ 369\n   how sanctified, _d_ 370. 373\n   when profaned, _c_ 473\n   hallowed, what meant by, _d_ 375-381\n Natures of Christ, _b_ 235\n   why two-fold, _b_ 242\n   without confusion, _b_ 243\n Oaths, religious, _c_ 472\n   profane, _c_ 470\n Objections, to the harmony of the scriptures, _a_ 88-93\n   to the doctrine of election, _a_ 507\n   to the divine predetermination, _a_ 509\n Obligation, moral, _c_ 405\n Offences, their aggravations, _d_ 67\n   from the parties, _d_ 68\n   from the nature of the offence, _d_ 70\n   from the circumstances, _d_ 72\n Officers of the, church, _b_ 572\n Offices of Christ, their number, _b_ 249\n   suited to the state of man, _b_ 250\n   not to be confounded, _b_ 251\n   their order, _b_ 252\n Office, prophetical, _b_ 254\n   for whom intended, _b_ 255\n   how executed, _b_ 256\n   the priestly, _b_ 259\n Officers among the Jews, _d_ 139\n Ordinances of the gospel, _d_ 83\n Original righteousness lost, _a_ 121\n Original, transgression, _b_ 105\n   its transmission, _b_ 129. 132\n   its punishment, _b_ 141\n Parable of the debtor, _c_ 238\n Paradise, where, _b_ 71\n   after death, _c_ 318\n Parents, duties of, _c_ 531\n Papal doctrines, _a_ 162, _d_ 315\n Pardon of sin is from God only, _d_ 417\n Pelagianism, _b_ 125\n Perfection, absolute, not in this life, _c_ 178\n   at death, _c_ 312\n Perfections of God, _a_ 121-142\n Perseverance of the saints, _c_ 194-197\n   objections to answered, _c_ 220\n Person, Calvin on the word, in note, _a_ 207\n Person of Christ, why God and man, _b_ 235\n Personality in the Godhead, _a_ 207. 244\n Pharisees, _d_ 140\n Polygamy was ever unlawful, _d_ 11\n   aggravations of, _d_ 13\n   the occasions of, _d_ 14\n Prayer, to be made to God, _d_ 299\n   to be in the name of Christ, _d_ 300. 301\n   Spirit\u2019s aid in, _d_ 303-306\n   for whom to be made, _d_ 309-312\n   for whom not to be made, _d_ 315-318\n   for what we may pray, _d_ 322\n   how we are to pray, _d_ 323\n   faith in, _d_ 329\n   promises of help, _d_ 331\n   to an unchangeable God, in note, _d_ 397-402\n   discouragements in, removed, _d_ 336\n   rules for our direction in, _d_ 338-356\n Predestination to sin, not scriptural, _a_ 530\n Preaching the word, how to be done, _d_ 151\n Priestly office of Christ, _b_ 259\n   like that of Melchizedech, _b_ 264\n   necessity of it, _b_ 272\n Priestly, Dr. his disingenuity, in a note, _a_ 397\n Procrastination, in note, _d_ 78\n Procession of the Holy Ghost, _a_ 260\n Profanation of the Sabbath, _c_ 508\n Promises of temporal and spiritual blessings, _d_ 344-350\n   annexed to the fifth commandment, _c_ 537\n Prophets, _a_ 56\n Prophetical office of Christ, _b_ 252\n   when executed, _b_ 257\n Providence of God, what, _b_ 45\n   immediate or mediate, _b_ 46\n   over good actions, _b_ 51\n   over evil actions, _b_ 52-58\n   objections to answered, _b_ 59-62\n   toward angels, _b_ 62-69\n   toward man, _b_ 70\n Publicans, _d_ 140\n Psalms of David, proper to be sung, _d_ 89\n   scripture and hymns preferable, _d_ 96\n Punishment of sin, _b_ 136\n   original, _b_ 137\n   in the world to come, _b_ 158\n   proved by reason, note, _b_ 161\n   when not stayed by sacrifice, _b_ 262\n Purgatory, _c_ 313\n Purpose, eternal, _a_ 507\n Purpose of God, its certainty, _b_ 5\n Qualifications of preachers of the word, _d_ 147\n Quenching the Spirit, what, _a_ 414\n   when committed, _a_ 50\n Recovery of man, its moving cause, _b_ 162\n Redemption, intended, _b_ 161\n   for whom, _b_ 316\n   for whom not, _b_ 322\n   application of it, _b_ 323\n   not universal, _b_ 324. 326\n   covenant of, _b_ 178\n Regeneration before faith, _c_ 26\n   man passive in it, _c_ 48\n Remember, import of, in the fourth commandment, _c_ 512\n Repentance, what, _c_ 167\n   the effect of grace, _c_ 169\n   how by the word, _c_ 169\n   a means of salvation, _d_ 76\n Representation, note, _b_ 77. 103. 114\n Reproach, differs from reproof, _d_ 42\n Reprobation, decree of, _a_ 486\n   not of sovereignty, _a_ 490\n   but of justice, _a_ 491\n Restitution, a duty, _d_ 27\n   proved from the Old Testament, _c_ 332\n Revealed will of God, _c_ 408\n Revelation, necessary, _a_ 71\n   not impossible, _a_ 71\n Righteousness, original, lost in Adam, _b_ 121\n Sabbath, its institution, _b_ 76\n   its morality, _c_ 480\n   its change, _c_ 486\n Sabellius, his error, note, _a_ 208\n Sacraments, _d_ 161\n   how seals, _d_ 161\n   to whom administered, _d_ 166\n   benefits of them, _d_ 167\n   by whom administered, _d_ 168\n Sacrifice of Christ, sufficient for all, note, _b_ 349\n Sadducees, _d_ 140\n Saints kept by divine power, _c_ 199\n Salvation, what, _b_ 162\n   its subjects, _b_ 162\n   the cause of, _b_ 163\n   for whom, _b_ 164\n   not universal, _b_ 326\n Samaritans, _d_ 140\n Samson\u2019s death, _c_ 540\n Sanctification, _c_ 152\n Sanctifying the Lord\u2019s day, _c_ 497\n Satan, the tempter, _b_ 95\n   his method and instruments, _b_ 96. 97\n   his empire in the unregenerate, _b_ 144\n Satisfaction for sin, _b_ 275-293\n Scriptures, genuineness of, _a_ 79\n   authenticity, _a_ 97\n   inspiration of, _a_ 72\n   a sufficient rule, _a_ 61\n   to be read publickly, _d_ 107\n     in families and private, _d_ 108\n   how they should be read, _d_ 113\n   various translations of, _d_ 117\n   to be compared, _d_ 121. 122\n   general rules for explaining of, _d_ 144\n Self-interest, how far lawful, _a_ 19. 20\n Self-murder, _c_ 545\n Self-examination, _c_ 256\n Sentiment, influence of, _a_ iii\n Servants, duties of, _c_ 593\n Similitudes of Trinity unlawful, _a_ 235\n Singing praises, a divine institution, _d_ 82\n Sin, its origin, _a_ 425\n   daily committed, _d_ 63\n   extent of the first, _b_ 105\n   exists in intentions, note, _b_ 145\n     its imputation, _b_ 109\n     its consequences, _b_ 136\n   punishment of, _c_ 377\n   its punishment in this world, _b_ 146\n     in the world to come, _b_ 158\n   what satisfaction is demanded, _b_ 275. 280\n   its desert, and the way of escape, _d_ 74\n   unto death, what it is, _d_ 318-320\n Son, his divinity, _a_ 295\n   his personality, _a_ 248\n Sonship of Christ, eternal, _a_ 277\n Souls, origin of, note, _b_ 41\n   pre-existence of, a mere fancy, _b_ 126\n Spirit, the Holy, his procession, _a_ 260\n   his witness to the word, in the heart, _a_ 118\n   his work in applying salvation, _b_ 197\n Sufferings of Christ, and the design of them, _b_ 284. 285\n   why not eternal, _b_ 296\n Sum of relative duties, _c_ 514\n Superiors, duties of, _c_ 518\n Supper, of the Lord, _d_ 234\n Supralapsarians, and Sublapsarians, _a_ 445\n Suretyship of Christ, _c_ 77, _b_ 173\n Swearing, _c_ 470\n Tables of the law, _c_ 433\n Temptations of Christ, _b_ 404-420\n   mental, note, _b_ 420\n   from prosperity, _d_ 439\n   from adversity, _d_ 441\n   from the flesh, _d_ 442\n   from Satan, _d_ 443\n Testament, and covenant, how the same, _b_ 169\n     how different, _b_ 171\n   how received, _b_ 181\n   implies the death of the testator, note, _b_ 294\n Testimony of the Church, _a_ 116\n Theatrical amusements, sinful in note, _d_ 15\n Theft, _d_ 23\n Thoughts, sinful, _d_ 64\n Tree of life, _b_ 88\n   why so called, _b_ 89\n   of knowledge of good and evil, _b_ 92\n Trinity of persons, _a_ 206\n   important, _a_ 210\n   in what respects one, _a_ 243\n     not unreasonable, _a_ 226\n   Dr. Jameison, on the, in a note, _a_ 243\n Truth of God, _a_ 185\n Trust, breach of, _d_ 23\n Trust in Christ, _c_ 121\n Types of Christ, in ceremonial law, _b_ 202\n   errors concerning them, _b_ 203\n   in persons and things, _b_ 205\n   their spiritual meaning, _b_ 207\n   misunderstood by some, _b_ 209\n Uncleanness forbidden, _d_ 10\n Unction, or anointing of the Mediator, _b_ 245\n Union, of divine and human natures, _b_ 221\n     denied by Nestorius, _b_ 222\n     without confusion or mixture, _b_ 223\n     by subordination of human will, _b_ 223\n   of a divine nature to real human body, _b_ 224\n   of a divine nature to real human soul, _b_ 226\n     necessary, _b_ 235\n Universal redemption, _b_ 326-341\n Unitarian objections answered, note, _b_ 292. 297\n Unity of God, _a_ 194\n   proved by his works, _a_ 197\n     light of nature, _a_ 200\n   uncompounded, _a_ 203\n Universal expressions of limited meaning, _b_ 239\n   redemption considered, _b_ 343\n Usury, _d_ 27\n Variety, but no contrariety in the will of Christ, _b_ 226\n Vicarious death of Christ, _b_ 292-297\n Vile affections described, _b_ 153\n Virgin really predicted, Isa. ix. 6., _b_ 228. 229\n Vivification, _c_ 159\n War of plunder and oppression in it, _d_ 25\n Wicked, their prosperity, _a_ 45\n   how made for the day of evil, _a_ 495\n Will of God, secret or revealed, _a_ 471\n   sovereign, _a_ 476\n   how can we pray for it to be done? _d_ 403\n Will, free in our first parents, _b_ 94\n   our averse to that of God, _d_ 402\n   of the Mediator as man, subordinate, _b_ 226\n Williams, Dr. on election, in a note, _a_ 529\n Witness of the Spirit, _c_ 266\n Words, sinful, _d_ 66\n Word of God, _a_ 48\n   distinguished from moral obligation, _a_ 48. 49\n   understood by Israel, _a_ 53\n   Chronology of prophets, _a_ 56\n   complete and entire, _a_ 66\n   enlightens and convinces of sin, _d_ 101\n   humbles and draws to Christ, _d_ 102. 103\n   other instances of its efficacy, _d_ 104\n World, not eternal, _b_ 8\n   its antiquity, _b_ 11\n   false accounts of, _b_ 11\n Wrath of God is not passion, _d_ 75\n Writing, origin of, _b_ 13\n                  PRESBYTERIAL QUESTIONS FOR EXEGESES.\nVid. Form of Gov. c. xiii. sec. 3.\n1. Qu\u00ee Deus unus dicitur?\n2. Quibus testimoniis probas Trinitatem?\n3. Cur Christum verum hominem esse opportuit?\n4. Qu\u00e6 argumenta probant scripturam a Deo profectam esse?\n5. Qua ratione peccatum originis transmittitur in posteros?\n6. Estne peccatum aliquid positivum an privativum?\n7. Quid est peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum?\n8. An una et eadem ratio salutis consequend\u00e6 post lapsum fuit?\n9. Qu\u00e6 sunt causa efficiens fidei, et objectum?\n10. Quo sensu fide justificari dicimur?\n11. An opera renatorum bona sunt pura, nulloque vitio contaminata?\n12. Qua ratione vita \u00e6terna dicitur merces?\n13. Quandoquidem mortuus est pro omnibus Christus, annon omnium\nRedemptor?\n14. Eruntne damnatorum p\u0153n\u00e6 perpetu\u00e6?\n15. Qu\u00e6 sunt ver\u00e6 et intern\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 proprietates?\n16. Nullumne est discrimen inter episcopum et presbyterum?\n17. Quibus est exhibenda c\u0153na Domini?\n18. Quinam sunt baptizandi?\n19. Licetne homini christiano, cum vocatur, magistratum gerere?\n20. Quinam ad judicium ecclesiasticum vocandi sunt?\n_THE REV. DR. JOHN GILL\u2019S COMMENTARY_.\nThe OLD TESTAMENT is now in the press, and the first volume expected out\nin the month of May. To subscribers the price will be 6 dollars per vol.\nsheep; $7 in calf; and $5 25 per vol. in boards. On subscribing, the New\nTestament can be delivered in 3 volumes, being already printed.\nThe following is taken from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist\nAssociation\u2014October, 1815.\n\u201cOct. 18.\u2014This association have heard with pleasure, by a communication\nfrom Mr. Woodward, of his intention to publish Dr. Gill\u2019s Exposition of\nthe Old Testament, in six large quarto volumes; one of which he hopes,\nif life and health be spared, to issue every 4 or 5 months, at the price\noriginally proposed; that is, $5,25 each vol. in boards\u20146 in sheep, and\n7 in calf. Resolved that this association recommend to the churches, and\nthe brethren of our denomination generally, the encouragement of the\nwork, and that each church subscribe at least for a copy for its\nrespective minister for the time being, and communicate the result of\ntheir subscriptions to Mr. Woodward, as early as possible. He hopes to\nissue the first volume in the Spring. Sister associations throughout the\nunion are affectionately invited to patronize the publication, and\nshould their piety and wisdom approve of the measure, recommend the\nadoption of a plan in their churches generally similar to what is above\nrecommended.\u201d\n_SCOTT\u2019S FAMILY BIBLE._\nW. W. Woodward is preparing for the press, in 3 vols. quarto, the Rev.\nDr. SCOTT\u2019S FAMILY BIBLE, on a new arrangement. The work will contain\nevery article, except the Marginal References; and the Notes will follow\nimmediately after the verses to which they belong, and the Practical\nObservations at the end of each chapter. The first volume will be\npublished as speedily as possible.\u2014The flattering encouragement already\nreceived, induces the publisher to put to press a large edition. A\ncopy-right is secured for this popular plan. Price in boards 18 dolls.\n75 cents, bound 21 dolls. Proposals shall be sent to any persons who\nwill interest themselves in the work\u2014one copy for every five subscribed\nfor. The Royal Octavo Bible, recently printed by W. W. W. contains all\nthe Marginal References, all the Introductions to the Books, and also to\nthe Chapters, with the General Preface, for $5, common, and $5 50, fine\npaper; plates added, $1 50; David\u2019s Psalms, or Watts\u2019s imitation, 50\ncents; Concordance, 25 cents. It may be had with or without the above;\nwith them separately, or all bound in one, or two volumes: one dollar\nadvance, if bound in two volumes.\nThe FIRST VOLUME will be out in the Spring, and the other volumes as\nearly after as practicable\u2014this plan is exceedingly popular. The\nfollowing is an extract of a letter from a respectable clergyman:\u2014viz.\n\u201cI am happy to inform you, your edition, on the new plan, meets the\ngeneral approbation. Of this you will be convinced, when I tell you,\nthat in obtaining _two hundred subscribers_, I have done little else\nthan to follow along after Proposals for other editions of the same\nwork. About 40 sets of the above are to be bound in calf.\u2014Many have\nsubscribed for _this_, who have absolutely refused to subscribe for\n_others_. I think you may safely conclude, therefore, that many families\nwill be blessed with this excellent work, who would, perhaps, have ever\nremained destitute, had it not been for _this edition_.\u201d\nA new Edition of\n_THE POCKET BIBLE_,\nWill be ready in January, 1816, in a variety of bindings, from 125 to\n500 cents.\n_CONFESSION OF FAITH_, or, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church\nin the United States of America; containing the Catechism, and the\nDirectory for the worship of God: together with the Plan of Government\nand Discipline, as amended and ratified by the General Assembly at their\nSession in May, 1805. Price 1 dollar 12-1/2 cents. Sheep gilt 1 dollar\n25 cents.\n_The CONFESSION OF FAITH_: the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the\nScripture-proofs at large; the Covenants, national and solemn League;\nthe Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to Duties: the Directories\nfor Public and Family Worship; and the Form of Church Government; with\nActs of Assembly and Parliament relative thereto, and approbative of,\nthe same, of public authority in the Church of Scotland: and also in the\nAssociate Church, and the Reformed Church, in the United States of\nAmerica. Together with the Sum of Saving knowledge, and the practical\nuse thereof.\u2014Price 1 dollar 75 cent fine, and 1 dollar 50 cents common.\nPocket Edition of _WATTS\u2019S PSALMS AND HYMNS_.\u2014W. W. Woodward has printed\na new edition, which may be had at the following prices:\u2014Plain 75 cents.\nGilt backs, fine paper, 1 dollar 12-1/2 cents. Morocco 2 dollars.\nMorocco with gilt leaves, 2 dollars 25 cents. Red sheep 1 dollar 62-1/2\ncents.\nAlso, just published\u2014a neat and correct edition of the above, with a\nlarge type: taken from W. W. W\u2019s last corrected pocket edition. Price,\nfine paper, 1 dollar 25 cents, plain; morocco, gilt leaves, 3 dollars 25\ncents; sheep gilt, 1 dollar 75 cents; common paper, 1 dollar in plain\nbinding.\n_RIPPON\u2019S SELECTION_ (copy-right) in a neat pocket volume, with a\nvariety of New HYMNS, not in former editions; prepared by the Rev. Dr.\nStaughton.\u2014Prices, plain bound and lettered, 75 cents. Gilt backs 1\ndollar 12-1/4 cents. Morocco, yellow leaves, 2 dollars, and gilt leaves,\nmorocco, 2 dollars 25 cents.\nJUST PRINTED,\n_BUCK\u2019S THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY_,\n2 vols. in 1, 350 cents.\u20144th edition, with an account of the Cumberland\nPresbyterians.\nProposals are out for printing the WORKS of\n_The Rev. JOHN B. LINN, D. D._\nLate Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.\u20142 vols.\noctavo.\nLately Printed,\n_BUCK\u2019S PRACTICAL EXPOSITOR_,\nPrice 112-1/2 cents.\nALSO, _THE PIOUS SELECTION_ 112-1/2 cents.\n_PROOF CATECHISM_, revised by the Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson, 50 cents per\ndozen.\nAlso\u2014a new edition of the _SEQUEL to JANEWAY\u2019S TOKEN FOR CHILDREN_, 19\ncents.\nA constant supply of the latest Theological Publications on hand; and\nalways a very general Assortment of BOOKS in the various departments of\nLiterature. Orders made up for Libraries and Book Stores on the most\nliberal terms.\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb The author\u2019s archaic and idiosyncratic punctuation, spellings, and\n      capitalization have been retained.\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.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  A Body of Divinity, Vol. 4 of 4\n"},
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1714, "culture": " French\n", "content": "Produced by Clarity, Thummel and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n  CANTILLON\n  ESSAI\n  SUR\n  LE COMMERCE\n  _Reprinted for Harvard University_\n  BOSTON\n  GEO. H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET\nNOTE.\nThe _Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en G\u00e9n\u00e9ral_ was written between\n1730 and 1734 by Richard Cantillon, a natural-born British subject, of\nthe family of Cantillon of Ballyheigue, co. Kerry, Ireland. He was\nprobably born between 1680 and 1690. In 1716 he established himself as a\nbanker in Paris, where his cousin, the Chevalier Richard Cantillon (died\nin 1717), had long traded, first as a silk mercer, then as a banker. Our\nauthor soon became flourishing; but, having given umbrage to John Law by\nhis outspoken belief in the ultimate failure of the Mississippi scheme,\nhe found it dangerous to remain in France. He therefore quitted that\ncountry in 1719, but continued his Paris business in the name of a\nnephew, Richard Cantillon, and gained enormous profits by speculating\nfor the fall of Mississippi shares. Out of these speculations arose\nseveral lawsuits, in the course of which he was once arrested in Paris,\nand spent a night in prison. He married, in 1726, Mary Anne Mahony,\ndaughter of the Lady Clare. He was murdered in his bed at Albemarle\nStreet, London, on the 15th of May, 1734, by a discharged man-servant,\nwho stole some of his papers and set fire to the house before escaping.\nThe _Essai_ was written by Cantillon in English, and by himself\ntranslated into its present form for the use of a French friend. The\noriginal English work, with its statistical supplement, was never\npublished. It was possibly in the possession of Philip Cantillon, a\nsecond cousin, when he brought out _The Analysis of Trade_, London,\n1759, professedly based upon it. The fictitious imprint \"A Londres, Chez\nFletcher Gyles, dans Holborn, M.DCC.LV.\" appears also upon the\ntitle-page of _Questions importantes sur le Commerce_, a French\ntranslation by Turgot of Tucker's _Reflections on the Expediency of a\nLaw for the Naturalization of Foreign Protestants_.\nCantillon is said to have been a prolific writer, an indefatigable\ntraveller, and to have joined the experience of a silk mercer and a wine\nmerchant to that of a banker. He was an enthusiast in agricultural and\nmonetary science. This the only surviving fragment of his work greatly\ninfluenced the early French economists,--Gournay, Quesnay, Mirabeau,\nTurgot, Condillac, Mably, Graslin. It is one of the few works referred\nto by Adam Smith, and Jevons called it the first treatise on economics.\nThree editions of it are known,--the 1755 edition of 436 pages, 12mo,\nnow reprinted; an edition in smaller form (probably from another press)\nin 1756, 432 pages, 12mo; and the reprint appended to Mauvillon's\ntranslation of the _Discours Politiques_ of Hume (in vol. iii.),\nAmsterdam, 1755.\nSee the articles by F. von Sivers, _Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr National\u00f6konomie_,\n_Contemporary Review_, 1881, p. 61; Henry Higgs, _The Economic Journal_,\n1891, p. 262. Also A. Espinas, _Histoire des Doctrines \u00c9conomiques_,\nParis, 1891.\nH. H.\nThis edition attempts to reproduce that of 1755 so far as is possible\nwith type not manufactured for the purpose. The old pagination is\npreserved, and even typographical errors and irregularities are left\nunchanged.\nESSAI\nSUR\nLE COMMERCE.\n  [Facsimile de la page de titre:\n  ESSAI\n  SUR LA NATURE\n  DU\n  COMMERCE\n  EN G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL.\n  _TRADUIT DE L'ANGLOIS._\n  [Mention manuscrite: en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 compos\u00e9 par de Cantillon]\n  _A LONDRES_,\n  Chez FLETCHER GYLES;\n  dans Holborn\n  M. DCC. LV.]\nESSAI\nSUR LA NATURE\nDU\nCOMMERCE\nEN G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL.\n_PREMIERE PARTIE._\nCHAPITRE PREMIER.\n_De la Richesse._\nLa Terre est la source ou la matiere d'o\u00f9 l'on tire la Richesse; le\ntravail de l'Homme est la forme qui la produit: & la Richesse en\nelle-m\u00eame, n'est autre chose que la nourriture, les commodit\u00e9s & les\nagr\u00e9mens de la vie.\nLa Terre produit de l'herbe, des racines, des grains, du lin, du coton,\ndu chanvre, des arbrisseaux & bois de plusieurs especes, avec des\nfruits, des \u00e9corces & feuillages de diverses sortes, comme celles des\nMeuriers pour les Vers \u00e0 soie; elle produit des Mines & Min\u00e9raux. Le\ntravail de l'Homme donne la forme de richesse \u00e0 tout cela.\nLes Rivieres & les Mers fournissent des Poissons, pour la nourriture de\nl'Homme, & plusieurs autres choses pour l'agr\u00e9ment. Mais ces Mers & ces\nRivieres appartiennent aux Terres adjacentes, ou sont communes; & le\ntravail de l'Homme en tire le Poisson, & autres avantages.\nCHAPITRE II.\n_Des Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d'Hommes._\nDe quelque maniere que se forme une Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d'Hommes, la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 des\nTerres qu'ils habitent, appartiendra n\u00e9cessairement \u00e0 un petit nombre\nd'entr'eux.\nDans les Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s errantes, comme les Hardes des Tartares & les Camps\ndes Indiens qui vont d'un lieu \u00e0 un autre avec leurs Bestiaux &\nFamilles, il faut que le Capitaine ou le Roi qui les conduit, regle les\nlimites de chaque Chef de Famille, & les Quartiers d'un chacun autour du\nCamp. Autrement il y auroit toujours des contestations pour les\nQuartiers ou commodit\u00e9s, les bois, les herbes, l'eau, &c. mais lorsqu'on\naura r\u00e9gl\u00e9 les Quartiers & les limites d'un chacun, cela vaudra autant\nqu'une propri\u00e9t\u00e9 pour le tems qu'ils y s\u00e9journent.\nDans les Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s plus r\u00e9gulieres: Si un Prince \u00e0 la t\u00eate d'une Arm\u00e9e, a\nconquis un Pa\u00efs, il distribuera les Terres \u00e0 ses Officiers ou Favoris,\nsuivant leur m\u00e9rite, ou son bon plaisir (cas o\u00f9 est originairement la\nFrance); il \u00e9tablira des loix pour en conserver la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 eux & \u00e0\nleurs Descendans: ou bien il se r\u00e9servera la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 des Terres, &\nemploiera ses Officiers ou Favoris, au soin de les faire valoir; ou les\nleur c\u00e9dera \u00e0 condition d'en pa\u00efer tous les ans un certain cens, ou\nredevance; ou il leur c\u00e9dera en se r\u00e9servant la libert\u00e9 de les taxer\ntous les ans, suivant ses besoins & leurs facult\u00e9s. Dans tous ces cas,\nces Officiers ou Favoris, soit qu'ils soient Propri\u00e9taires absolus, soit\nd\u00e9pendans, soit qu'ils soient Intendans ou Inspecteurs du produit des\nTerres, ils ne feront qu'un petit nombre par rapport \u00e0 tous les\nHabitans.\nQue si le Prince fait la distribution des Terres par portions \u00e9gales \u00e0\ntous les Habitans, elles ne laisseront pas dans la suite de tomber en\npartage \u00e0 un petit nombre. Un Habitant aura plusieurs Enfans, & ne\npourra laisser \u00e0 chacun d'eux une portion de Terre \u00e9gale \u00e0 la sienne: un\nautre mourra sans Enfans, & laissera sa portion \u00e0 celui qui en a d\u00e9ja,\nplut\u00f4t qu'\u00e0 celui qui n'en a pas: un troisieme sera fain\u00e9ant,\nextravagant ou maladif, & se verra oblig\u00e9 de vendre sa portion \u00e0 un\nautre qui a de la frugalit\u00e9 & de l'industrie, qui augmentera\ncontinuellement ses Terres par de nouveaux achats, auxquels il emploiera\nle travail de ceux, qui n'a\u00efant aucune portion de terre \u00e0 eux, seront\noblig\u00e9s de lui offrir leur travail, pour subsister.\nDans le premier \u00e9tablissement de Rome, on donna \u00e0 chaque Habitant deux\nJournaux de terre: cela n'emp\u00eacha pas qu'il n'y e\u00fbt bient\u00f4t apr\u00e8s une\nin\u00e9galit\u00e9 aussi grande dans les patrimoines, que celle que nous vo\u00efons\naujourd'hui dans tous les Etats de l'Europe. Les Terres tomberent en\npartage \u00e0 un petit nombre.\nEn supposant donc que les Terres d'un nouvel \u00e9tat appartiennent \u00e0 un\npetit nombre de personnes, chaque Propri\u00e9taire fera valoir ses Terres\npar ses mains, ou les donnera \u00e0 un ou plusieurs Fermiers: dans cette\noeconomie, il faut que les Fermiers & Laboureurs trouvent leur\nsubsistance, cela est de necessit\u00e9 indispensable, soit qu'on fasse\nvaloir les Terres pour le compte du Propri\u00e9taire m\u00eame, ou pour celui du\nFermier. On donne le surplus du produit de la Terre aux ordres du\nPropri\u00e9taire; celui-ci en donne une partie aux ordres du Prince ou de\nl'Etat, ou bien le Fermier donnera cette partie directement au Prince,\nen la rabattant au Propri\u00e9taire.\nPour ce qui est de l'usage auquel on doit emplo\u00efer la terre, il est\npr\u00e9alable d'en emplo\u00efer une partie \u00e0 l'entretien & nourriture de ceux\nqui y travaillent & la font valoir: le reste d\u00e9pend principalement des\nhumeurs & de la maniere de vivre du Prince, des Seigneurs de l'Etat & du\nPropri\u00e9taire; s'ils aiment la boisson, il faut cultiver des Vignes;\ns'ils aiment les soieries, il faut planter des Meuriers & \u00e9lever des\nVers \u00e0 soie; & de plus il faut emplo\u00efer une partie proportionn\u00e9e de la\nterre, \u00e0 maintenir tous ceux qu'il faut pour ce travail; s'ils aiment\nles Chevaux, il faut des Prairies; & ainsi du reste.\nCependant si on suppose que les Terres n'appartiennent \u00e0 personne en\nparticulier, il n'est pas facile de concevoir qu'on y puisse former une\nsociet\u00e9 d'Hommes: nous vo\u00efons dans les Terres communes, par exemple,\nd'un Village, qu'on regle le nombre des Bestiaux que chacun des Habitans\na la libert\u00e9 d'y envo\u00efer; & si on laissoit les Terres au premier qui les\noccuperoit dans une nouvelle conqu\u00eate, ou d\u00e9couverte d'un Pa\u00efs, il\nfaudroit toujours revenir \u00e0 une regle pour en fixer la propri\u00e9t\u00e9, pour y\npouvoir \u00e9tablir une Societ\u00e9 d'Hommes, soit que la force ou la Police\nd\u00e9cid\u00e2t de cette regle.\nCHAPITRE III.\n_Des Villages._\nQuelque emploi qu'on fasse de la Terre, soit p\u00e2turage, bled, vignes, il\nfaut que les Fermiers ou Laboureurs, qui en conduisent le travail,\nr\u00e9sident tout proche; autrement le tems qu'il faudroit pour aller \u00e0\nleurs Champs & revenir \u00e0 leurs Maisons, consommeroit une trop grande\npartie de la journ\u00e9e. De ce point d\u00e9pend la necessit\u00e9 des Villages\nr\u00e9pandus dans toutes les Campagnes & Terres cultiv\u00e9es, o\u00f9 l'on doit\navoir aussi des Mar\u00e9chaux & Charons pour les outils, la Charue & les\nCharettes dont on a besoin; surtout lorsque le Village est \u00e9loign\u00e9 des\nBourgs & Villes. La grandeur d'un Village est naturellement\nproportionn\u00e9e en nombre d'Habitans, \u00e0 celui que les Terres, qui en\nd\u00e9pendent, demandent pour le travail journalier, & \u00e0 celui des Artisans\nqui y trouvent assez d'occupation par le service des Fermiers &\nLaboureurs: mais ces Artisans ne sont pas tout-\u00e0-fait si necessaires\ndans le voisinage des Villes o\u00f9 les Laboureurs peuvent aller sans perdre\nbeaucoup de tems.\nSi un ou plusieurs des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres de la d\u00e9pendance du\nVillage y font leur r\u00e9sidence, le nombre des Habitans sera plus grand, \u00e0\nproportion des Domestiques & Artisans qu'ils y attireront, & des\nCabarets qui s'y \u00e9tabliront pour la commodit\u00e9 des Domestiques & Ouvriers\nqui gagneront leur vie avec ces Propri\u00e9taires.\nSi la Terre n'est propre que pour nourrir des troupeaux de Moutons,\ncomme dans les Dunes & Landes, les Villages seront plus rares & plus\npetits, parceque la terre ne demande qu'un petit nombre de Pasteurs.\nSi la Terre ne produit que des bois, dans des Terres sabloneuses, o\u00f9 il\nne cro\u00eet point d'herbe pour la nourriture des Bestiaux, & si elle est\n\u00e9loign\u00e9e des Villes & Rivieres, ce qui rend ces bois inutiles pour la\nconsommation, comme l'on en voit plusieurs en Allemagne, il n'y aura de\nMaisons & Villages qu'autant qu'il en faut pour recueillir les Glands, &\nnourrir des Cochons dans la saison: mais si la Terre est entierement\nst\u00e9rile, il n'y aura ni Villages ni Habitans.\nCHAPITRE IV.\n_Des Bourgs._\nIl y a des Villages o\u00f9 l'on a \u00e9rig\u00e9 des March\u00e9s, par le cr\u00e9dit de\nquelque Propri\u00e9taire ou Seigneur en Cour. Ces March\u00e9s, qui se tiennent\nune ou deux fois la semaine, encouragent plusieurs petits Entrepreneurs\n& Marchands de s'\u00e9tablir dans ce lieu; ou ils achetent au March\u00e9 les\ndenr\u00e9es qu'on y apporte des Villages d'alentour, pour les transporter &\nvendre dans les Villes; ils prennent en \u00e9change dans la Ville, du fer,\ndu sel, du sucre & d'autres marchandises, qu'on vend, les jours de\nMarch\u00e9, aux Habitans des Villages: on voit aussi plusieurs petits\nArtisans s'\u00e9tablir dans ces lieux, comme des Serruriers, Menuisiers &\nautres, pour les besoins des Villageois qui n'en ont pas dans leurs\nVillages, & enfin ces Villages deviennent des Bourgs. Un Bourg \u00e9tant\nplac\u00e9 comme dans le centre des Villages, dont les Habitans viennent au\nMarch\u00e9, il est plus naturel & plus facile que les Villageois y apportent\nleurs denr\u00e9es les jours de March\u00e9 pour les y vendre, & qu'ils y achetent\nles marchandises dont ils ont besoin, que de voir porter ces\nmarchandises par les Marchands & Entrepreneurs dans les Villages, pour y\nrecevoir en \u00e9change les denr\u00e9es des Villageois. 1\u00ba. Les circuits des\nMarchands dans les Villages multiplieroient la d\u00e9pense des Voitures,\nsans necessit\u00e9. 2\u00ba. Ces Marchands seroient peut-\u00eatre oblig\u00e9s d'aller\ndans plusieurs Villages avant que de trouver la qualit\u00e9 & la quantit\u00e9\ndes denr\u00e9es qu'ils veulent acheter. 3\u00ba. Les Villageois seroient le plus\nsouvent aux champs lors de l'arriv\u00e9e de ces Marchands, &, ne sachant\nquelles especes de denr\u00e9es il leur faudroit, ils n'auroient rien de pr\u00eat\n& en \u00e9tat. 4\u00ba Il seroit presqu'impossible de fixer le prix des denr\u00e9es &\ndes marchandises dans les Villages, entre ces Marchands & les\nVillageois. Le Marchand refuseroit dans un Village le prix qu'on lui\ndemande de la denr\u00e9e, dans l'esp\u00e9rance de la trouver \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9\ndans un autre Village, & le Villageois refuseroit le prix que le\nMarchand lui offre de sa marchandise, dans l'esp\u00e9rance qu'un autre\nMarchand qui viendra, la prendra \u00e0 meilleur compte.\nOn \u00e9vite tous ces inconv\u00e9niens lorsque les Villageois viennent les jours\nde March\u00e9 au Bourg, pour y vendre leurs denr\u00e9es, & y acheter les\nmarchandises dont ils ont besoin. Les prix s'y fixent par la proportion\ndes denr\u00e9es qu'on y expose en vente & de l'argent qu'on y offre pour les\nacheter; cela se passe dans la m\u00eame place, sous les yeux de tous les\nVillageois de diff\u00e9rens Villages, & des Marchands ou Entrepreneurs du\nBourg. Lorsque le prix a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9termin\u00e9 avec quelques-uns, les autres\nsuivent sans difficult\u00e9, & l'on constate ainsi le prix du March\u00e9 de ce\njour-l\u00e0. Le Pa\u00efsan retourne dans son Village & reprend son travail.\nLa grandeur du Bourg est naturellement proportionn\u00e9e au nombre des\nFermiers & Laboureurs qu'il faut pour cultiver les Terres qui en\nd\u00e9pendent, & au nombre des Artisans & petits Marchands que les Villages\ndu ressort de ce Bourg emploient, avec leurs Assistans & Chevaux, &\nenfin au nombre des personnes que les Propri\u00e9taires des Terres qui y\nr\u00e9sident y font vivre.\nLorsque les Villages du ressort d'un Bourg (c'est-\u00e0-dire dont les\nHabitans portent ordinairement leurs denr\u00e9es au March\u00e9 de ce Bourg) sont\nconsid\u00e9rables, ils ont beaucoup de produit, le Bourg deviendra\nconsid\u00e9rable & gros \u00e0 proportion; mais lorsque les Villages d'alentour\nont peu de produit, le Bourg est aussi-bien pauvre & ch\u00e9tif.\nCHAPITRE V.\n_Des Villes._\nLes Propri\u00e9taires qui n'ont que de petites portions de Terre vivent\nordinairement dans les Bourgs & Villages, proche de leurs Terres &\nFermiers. Le transport des denr\u00e9es qui leur en reviennent, dans les\nVilles \u00e9loign\u00e9es, les mettroit hors d'\u00e9tat de vivre commod\u00e9ment dans ces\nVilles. Mais les Propri\u00e9taires qui ont plusieurs grandes Terres ont le\nmo\u00efen d'aller r\u00e9sider loin de leurs Terres, pour jouir d'une agr\u00e9able\nsoci\u00e9t\u00e9, avec d'autres Propri\u00e9taires & Seigneurs de m\u00eame espece.\nSi un Prince ou Seigneur, qui a re\u00e7u de grandes concessions de Terres\nlors de la conqu\u00eate ou d\u00e9couverte d'un Pa\u00efs, fixe sa demeure dans\nquelque lieu agr\u00e9able, & si plusieurs autres Seigneurs y viennent faire\nleur r\u00e9sidence pour \u00eatre \u00e0 port\u00e9e de se voir souvent, & jouir d'une\nsoci\u00e9t\u00e9 agr\u00e9able, ce lieu deviendra une Ville: on y b\u00e2tira de grandes\nMaisons pour la demeure des Seigneurs en question; on y en b\u00e2tira une\ninfinit\u00e9 d'autres pour les Marchands, les Artisans, & Gens de toutes\nsortes de professions, que la r\u00e9sidence de ces Seigneurs attirera dans\nce lieu. Il faudra pour le service de ces Seigneurs, des Boulangers, des\nBouchers, des Brasseurs, des Marchands de vin, des Fabriquans de toutes\nespeces: ces Entrepreneurs b\u00e2tiront des Maisons dans le lieu en\nquestion, ou loueront des Maisons b\u00e2ties par d'autres Entrepreneurs. Il\nn'y a pas de grand Seigneur dont la d\u00e9pense pour sa Maison, son train &\nses Domestiques, n'entretienne des Marchands & Artisans de toutes\nespeces, comme on peut le voir par les calculs particuliers que j'ai\nfait faire dans le Suppl\u00e9ment de cet Essai.\nComme tous ces Artisans & Entrepreneurs se servent mutuellement,\naussi-bien que les Seigneurs en droiture, on ne s'apper\u00e7oit pas que\nl'entretien des uns & des autres tombe finalement sur les Seigneurs &\nPropri\u00e9taires des Terres. On ne s'apper\u00e7oit pas que toutes les petites\nMaisons dans une Ville, telle qu'on la d\u00e9crit ici, d\u00e9pendent &\nsubsistent de la d\u00e9pense des grandes Maisons. On fera cependant voir\ndans la suite, que tous les Ordres & Habitans d'un Etat subsistent au\nd\u00e9pens des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres. La Ville en question s'agrandira\nencore, si le Roi ou le Gouvernement y \u00e9tablit des Cours de Justice,\nauxquelles les Habitans des Bourgs & Villages de la Province doivent\navoir recours. Il faudra une augmentation d'Entrepreneurs & d'Artisans\nde toutes sortes, pour l'entretien des Gens de Justice & des Plaideurs.\nSi l'on \u00e9tablit dans cette m\u00eame Ville des Ouvrages & Manufactures\nau-del\u00e0 de la consommation int\u00e9rieure, pour les transporter & vendre\nchez l'Etranger, elle sera grande \u00e0 proportion des Ouvriers & Artisans\nqui y subsistent aux d\u00e9pens de l'Etranger.\nMais si nous \u00e9cartons ces id\u00e9es pour ne point embrouiller notre sujet,\non peut dire que l'assemblage de plusieurs riches Propri\u00e9taires de\nTerres, qui r\u00e9sident ensemble dans un m\u00eame lieu, suffit pour former ce\nqu'on appelle une Ville, & que plusieurs Villes en Europe, dans\nl'int\u00e9rieur des Terres, doivent le nombre de leurs Habitans \u00e0 cet\nassemblage: auquel cas, la grandeur d'une Ville est naturellement\nproportionn\u00e9e au nombre des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres, qui y r\u00e9sident, ou\nplut\u00f4t au produit des Terres qui leur appartiennent, en rabattant les\nfrais du transport \u00e0 ceux dont les Terres en sont les plus \u00e9loign\u00e9es, &\nla part qu'ils sont oblig\u00e9s de fournir au Roi ou \u00e0 l'Etat, qui doit\nordinairement \u00eatre consomm\u00e9e dans la Capitale.\nCHAPITRE VI.\n_Des Villes capitales_\nUne Capitale se forme de la m\u00eame maniere qu'une Ville de province; avec\ncette diff\u00e9rence, que les plus gros Propri\u00e9taires des Terres de tout\nl'Etat r\u00e9sident dans la Capitale; que le Roi ou le Gouvernement supr\u00eame\ny fait sa demeure, & y d\u00e9pense les revenus de l'Etat; que les Cours de\nJustice en dernier ressort y r\u00e9sident; que c'est ici le centre des Modes\nque toutes les Provinces prennent pour modele; que les Propri\u00e9taires des\nTerres, qui r\u00e9sident dans les Provinces, ne laissent pas de venir\nquelquefois passer quelque tems dans la Capitale, & d'y envo\u00efer leurs\nEnfans pour les fa\u00e7onner. Ainsi toutes les Terres de l'Etat contribuent\nplus ou moins \u00e0 la subsistance des Habitans de la Capitale.\nSi un Souverain quitte une Ville pour faire sa r\u00e9sidence dans une autre,\nla Noblesse ne manquera pas de le suivre, & de faire sa r\u00e9sidence avec\nlui dans la nouvelle Ville, qui deviendra grande & consid\u00e9rable aux\nd\u00e9pens de la premiere. Nous en avons un exemple tout r\u00e9cent dans la\nVille de Petersbourg, au d\u00e9savantage de Moscou; & l'on voit beaucoup de\nVilles anciennes, qui \u00e9toient consid\u00e9rables, tomber en ruine, & d'autres\nrena\u00eetre de leurs d\u00e9bris. On construit ordinairement les grandes Villes\nsur le bord de la Mer ou des grandes Rivieres, pour la commodit\u00e9 des\ntransports; parceque le transport par eau, des denr\u00e9es & marchandises\nn\u00e9cessaires pour la subsistance & commodit\u00e9 des Habitans, est \u00e0 bien\nmeilleur march\u00e9, que les voitures & transport par terre.\nCHAPITRE VII.\n_Le travail d'un Laboureur vaut moins que celui d'un Artisan._\nLe Fils d'un Laboureur, \u00e0 l'\u00e2ge de sept ou douze ans, commence \u00e0 aider\nson Pere, soit \u00e0 garder les troupeaux, soit \u00e0 remuer la terre, soit \u00e0\nd'autres ouvrages de la Campagne, qui ne demandent point d'art ni\nd'habilet\u00e9.\nSi son Pere lui faisoit apprendre un m\u00e9tier, il perdroit \u00e0 son absence\npendant tout le tems de son apprentissage, & seroit encore oblig\u00e9 de\npa\u00efer son entretien & les frais de son apprentissage pendant plusieurs\nann\u00e9es: voil\u00e0 donc un Fils \u00e0 charge \u00e0 son Pere, & dont le travail ne\nrapporte aucun avantage qu'au bout d'un certain nombre d'ann\u00e9es. La vie\nd'un Homme n'est calcul\u00e9e qu'\u00e0 dix ou douze ann\u00e9es; & comme on en perd\nplusieurs \u00e0 apprendre un m\u00e9tier, dont la plupart demandent en Angleterre\nsept ann\u00e9es d'apprentissage, un Laboureur ne voudroit jamais en faire\napprendre aucun \u00e0 son Fils, si les Gens de m\u00e9tier ne gagnoient bien plus\nque les Laboureurs.\nCeux donc, qui emploient des Artisans ou Gens de m\u00e9tier, doivent\nn\u00e9cessairement pa\u00efer leur travail, plus haut que celui d'un Laboureur ou\nManoeuvre; & ce travail sera n\u00e9cessairement cher, \u00e0 proportion du tems\nqu'on perd \u00e0 l'apprendre, & de la d\u00e9pense & du risque qu'il faut pour\ns'y perfectionner.\nLes Gens de m\u00e9tier eux-m\u00eames ne font pas apprendre le leur \u00e0 tous leurs\nEnfans; il y en auroit trop pour le besoin qu'on en a dans une Ville, ou\nun Etat, il s'en trouverait beaucoup qui n'auroient point assez\nd'ouvrage; cependant ce travail et toujours naturellement plus cher que\ncelui des Laboureurs.\nCHAPITRE VIII.\n_Les Artisans gagnent, les uns plus les autres moins, selon les cas &\nles circonstances diff\u00e9rentes._\nSi deux Tailleurs font tous les habits d'un Village, l'un pourra avoir\nplus de Chalands que l'autre, soit par sa maniere d'attirer les\nPratiques, soit parce-qu'il travaille plus proprement ou plus\ndurablement que l'autre, soit qu'il suive mieux les modes dans la coupe\ndes habits.\nSi l'un meurt, l'autre se trouvant plus press\u00e9 d'ouvrage, pourra hausser\nle prix de son travail, en exp\u00e9diant les uns pr\u00e9f\u00e9rablement aux autres,\njusqu'au point que les Villageois trouveront mieux leur compte de porter\nleurs habits \u00e0 faire dans quelqu'autre Village, Bourg ou Ville, en\nperdant le tems d'y aller & revenir, ou jusqu'\u00e0 ce qu'il revienne un\nautre Tailleur pour demeurer dans leur Village, & pour y partager le\ntravail.\nLes M\u00e9tiers qui demandent le plus de tems pour s'y perfectionner, ou\nplus d'habilet\u00e9 & d'industrie, doivent naturellement \u00eatre les mieux\npa\u00ef\u00e9s. Un habile Faiseur de Cabinets doit recevoir un meilleur prix de\nson travail qu'un Menuisier ordinaire, & un bon Horloger plus qu'un\nMar\u00e9chal.\nLes Arts & M\u00e9tiers qui sont accompagn\u00e9s de risques & dangers, comme\nFondeurs, Mariniers, Mineurs d'argent, &c. doivent \u00eatre pa\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0\nproportion des risques. Lorsqu'outre les dangers, il faut de l'habilet\u00e9,\nils doivent encore \u00eatre pa\u00ef\u00e9s davantage; tels sont les Pilotes,\nPlongeurs, Ing\u00e9nieurs, &c. Lors-qu'il faut de la capacit\u00e9 & de la\nconfiance, on paie encore le travail plus cher, comme aux Jouailliers,\nTeneurs de compte, Caissiers, & autres.\nPar ces inductions, & cent autres qu'on pourroit tirer de l'exp\u00e9rience\nordinaire, on peut voir facilement que la diff\u00e9rence de prix qu'on paie\npour le travail journalier, est fond\u00e9e sur des raisons naturelles &\nsensibles.\nCHAPITRE IX.\n_Le nombre de Laboureurs, Artisans & autres, qui travaillent dans un\n\u00e9tat, se proportionne naturellement au besoin qu'on en a._\nSi tous les Laboureurs dans un Village \u00e9levent plusieurs Fils au m\u00eame\ntravail, il y aura trop de Laboureurs pour cultiver les Terres de la\nd\u00e9pendance de ce Village, & il faut que les Surnum\u00e9raires adultes\naillent quelqu'autre part chercher \u00e0 gagner leur vie, comme ils font\nordinairement dans les Villes: s'il en reste quelques-uns aupr\u00e8s de\nleurs Peres, comme ils ne trouveront pas tous suffisamment de l'emploi,\nils vivront dans une grande pauvret\u00e9, & ne se marieront pas, faute de\nmo\u00efens pour \u00e9lever des enfans, ou s'ils se marient, peu apr\u00e8s les enfans\nsurvenus p\u00e9rissent par la misere avec le Pere & la Mere, comme nous le\nvo\u00efons journellement en France.\nAinsi si le Village continue dans la m\u00eame situation de travail, & tire\nsa subsistance en travaillant dans la m\u00eame portion de terre, il\nn'augmentera pas dans mille ans en nombre d'habitans.\nIl est vrai que les Femmes & Filles de ce Village peuvent, aux heures\nqu'elles ne travaillent pas aux champs, s'occuper \u00e0 filer, \u00e0 tricotter,\nou \u00e0 faire d'autres ouvrages qu'on pourra vendre dans les Villes; mais\ncela suffit rarement pour \u00e9lever les enfans surnum\u00e9raires, qui quittent\nle Village pour chercher fortune ailleurs.\nOn peut faire le m\u00eame raisonnement des Artisans d'un Village. Si un seul\nTailleur y fait tous les habits, & qu'il \u00e9leve trois Fils au m\u00eame\nm\u00e9tier, comme il n'y a de l'ouvrage que pour un seul qui lui succ\u00e9dera,\nil faut que les deux autres aillent chercher \u00e0 gagner leur vie ailleurs:\ns'ils ne trouvent pas de l'emploi dans la Ville prochaine, il faut\nqu'ils aillent plus loin, ou qu'ils changent de profession pour gagner\nleur vie, qu'ils deviennent Laquais, Soldats, Mariniers, &c.\nIl est ais\u00e9 de juger par la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on de raisonner, que les Laboureurs,\nArtisans & autres, qui gagnent leur vie par le travail, doivent se\nproportionner en nombre \u00e0 l'emploi & au besoin qu'on en a dans les\nBourgs & dans les Villes.\nMais si quatre Tailleurs suffisent pour faire tous les habits d'un\nBourg, s'il y survient un cinquieme Tailleur, il y pourra attraper de\nl'emploi aux d\u00e9pens des autres quatre; de maniere que si l'ouvrage vient\n\u00e0 \u00eatre partag\u00e9 entre les cinq Tailleurs, aucun d'eux n'aura suffisamment\nde l'ouvrage, & chacun en vivra plus pauvrement.\nIl arrive souvent que les Laboureurs & Artisans n'ont pas suffisamment\nde l'emploi lorsqu'il en survient un trop grand nombre pour partager le\ntravail. Il arrive aussi qu'ils sont priv\u00e9s de l'emploi qu'ils avoient\npar des accidens & par une variation dans la consommation; il arrivera\naussi qu'il leur surviendra trop d'ouvrage, suivant les cas & les\nvariations: quoi qu'il en soit, lorsqu'ils manquent d'emploi, ils\nquittent les Villages, Bourgs, ou Villes o\u00f9 ils demeurent, en tel\nnombre, que celui qui reste est toujours proportionn\u00e9 \u00e0 l'emploi qui\nsuffit pour les faire subsister; & lorsqu'il survient une augmentation\nconstante de travail, il y a \u00e0 gagner, & il en survient assez d'autres\npour partager le travail.\nPar ces inductions il est ais\u00e9 de comprendre que les Ecoles de charit\u00e9\nen Angleterre & les projets en France, pour augmenter le nombre des\nArtisans sont fort inutiles. Si le Roi de France envo\u00efoit cent mille\nSujets \u00e0 ses frais en Hollande, pour y apprendre la Marine, ils seroient\ninutiles \u00e0 leur retour si on n'envo\u00efoit pas plus de Vaisseaux en Mer\nqu'auparavant. Il est vrai qu'il seroit d'un grand avantage dans un Etat\nde faire apprendre aux Sujets, \u00e0 faire les Manufactures qu'on a coutume\nde tirer de l'Etranger, & tous les autres ouvrages qu'on y achete; mais\nje ne considere \u00e0-pr\u00e9sent qu'un Etat par rapport \u00e0 lui-m\u00eame.\nComme les Artisans gagnent plus que les Laboureurs, ils sont plus en\n\u00e9tat que les derniers, d'\u00e9lever leurs enfans \u00e0 des m\u00e9tiers; & on ne peut\njamais manquer d'Artisans dans un Etat, lorsqu'il y a suffisamment de\nl'ouvrage pour les emplo\u00efer constamment.\nCHAPITRE X.\n_Le prix & valeur intrinseque d'une chose en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral est la mesure de la\nterre & du travail qui entre dans sa production._\nUn Arpent de terre produit plus de bl\u00e9, ou nourrit plus de Moutons,\nqu'un autre Arpent: le travail d'un homme est plus cher que celui d'un\nautre homme, suivant l'art & les occurrences, comme on l'a d\u00e9ja\nexpliqu\u00e9. Si deux Arpens de terre sont de m\u00eame bont\u00e9, l'un entretiendra\nautant de Moutons & produira la m\u00eame quantit\u00e9 de laine que l'autre\nArpent, supposant le travail le m\u00eame; & la laine produite par l'un se\nvendra au m\u00eame prix que celle qui est produite par l'autre.\nSi l'on travaille la Laine d'un c\u00f4t\u00e9 en un habit de gros drap, & la\nLaine de l'autre en un habit de drap fin; comme ce dernier habit\ndemandera un plus grand travail, & un travail plus cher que celui de\ngros drap, il sera quelquefois dix fois plus cher, quoique l'un &\nl'autre habits contiennent la m\u00eame quantit\u00e9 de Laine & d'une m\u00eame bont\u00e9.\nLa quantit\u00e9 du produit de la terre, & la quantit\u00e9 aussi-bien que la\nqualit\u00e9 du travail, entreront n\u00e9cessairement dans le prix.\nUne livre de Lin travaill\u00e9 en Dentelles fines de Bruxelles, demande le\ntravail de quatorze personnes pendant une ann\u00e9e ou le travail d'une\npersonne pendant quatorze ann\u00e9es, comme on peut le voir par un calcul\ndes diff\u00e9rentes parties du travail, dans le Suppl\u00e9ment. On y voit aussi\nque le prix qu'on donne de ces Dentelles suffit pour pa\u00efer l'entretien\nd'une personne pendant quatorze ans, & pour pa\u00efer encore les profits de\ntous les Entrepreneurs & Marchands qui s'en m\u00ealent.\nLe Ressort d'acier fin, qui regle une Montre d'Angleterre, se vend\nordinairement \u00e0 un prix qui rend la proportion de la matiere au travail,\nou de l'acier au Ressort, comme, un, \u00e0 un, de maniere que le travail\nfait ici la valeur presque entiere de ce Ressort, vo\u00efez-en le calcul au\nSuppl\u00e9ment.\nD'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, le prix du Foin d'une Prairie, rendu sur les lieux, ou\nd'un Bois qu'on veut couper, est r\u00e9gl\u00e9 sur la matiere, ou sur le produit\nde la terre, suivant sa bont\u00e9.\nLe prix d'une cruche d'eau de la riviere de Seine n'est rien, parceque\nc'est une matiere immense qui ne tarit point; mais on en donne un sol\ndans les rues de Paris, ce qui est le prix ou la mesure du travail du\nPorteur d'eau.\nPar ces inductions & exemples, je crois qu'on comprendra que le prix ou\nla valeur intrinseque d'une chose, est la mesure de la quantit\u00e9 de terre\n& du travail qui entre dans sa production, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 la bont\u00e9 ou\nproduit de la terre, & \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 du travail.\nMais il arrive souvent que plusieurs choses qui ont actuellement cette\nvaleur intrinseque, ne se vendent pas au March\u00e9, suivant cette valeur:\ncela d\u00e9pendra des humeurs & des fantaisies des hommes, & de la\nconsommation qu'ils feront.\nSi un Seigneur coupe des canaux & \u00e9leve des terasses dans son Jardin, la\nvaleur intrinseque en sera proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la terre & au travail; mais\nle prix de la verit\u00e9 ne suivra pas toujours cette proportion: s'il offre\nde vendre ce Jardin, il se peut faire que personne ne voudra lui en\ndonner la moiti\u00e9 de la d\u00e9pense qu'il y a faite; & il se peut aussi\nfaire, si plusieurs personnes en ont envie, qu'on lui en donnera le\ndouble de la valeur intrinseque, c'est-\u00e0-dire, de la valeur du fond & de\nla d\u00e9pense qu'il y a faite.\nSi les Fermiers dans un Etat sement plus de bl\u00e9 qu'\u00e0 l'ordinaire,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, beaucoup plus de bl\u00e9 qu'il n'en faut pour la consommation\nde l'ann\u00e9e, la valeur intrinseque & r\u00e9elle du bl\u00e9 correspondra \u00e0 la\nterre & au travail qui entrent dans sa production: mais comme il y en a\nune trop grande abondance, & plus de Vendeurs que d'Acheteurs; le prix\ndu bl\u00e9 au March\u00e9 tombera n\u00e9cessairement au-dessous du prix ou valeur\nintrinseque. Si au contraire les Fermiers sement moins de bl\u00e9 qu'il ne\nfaut pour la consommation, il y aura plus d'Acheteurs que de Vendeurs, &\nle prix du bl\u00e9 au March\u00e9 haussera au-dessus de sa valeur intrinseque.\nIl n'y a jamais de variation dans la valeur intrinseque des choses; mais\nl'impossibilit\u00e9 de proportionner la production des marchandises &\ndenr\u00e9es \u00e0 leur consommation dans un Etat, cause une variation\njournaliere, & un flux & reflux perp\u00e9tuel dans les prix du March\u00e9.\nCependant dans les Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s bien r\u00e9gl\u00e9es, les prix du March\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es\n& marchandises dont la consommation est assez constante & uniforme, ne\ns'\u00e9cartent pas beaucoup de la valeur intrinseque; & lorsqu'il ne\nsurvient pas des ann\u00e9es trop steriles ou trop abondantes, les Magistrats\ndes Villes sont toujours en \u00e9tat de fixer le prix du March\u00e9 de beaucoup\nde choses, comme du pain & de la viande, sans que personne ait de quoi\ns'en plaindre.\nLa Terre est la matiere, & le travail la forme, de toutes les denr\u00e9es &\nmarchandises; & comme ceux qui travaillent doivent n\u00e9cessairement\nsubsister du produit de la Terre, il semble qu'on pourroit trouver un\nrapport de la valeur du travail \u00e0 celui du produit de la Terre: ce sera\nle sujet du Chapitre suivant.\nCHAPITRE XI.\n_Du pair ou rapport de la valeur de la Terre \u00e0 la valeur du travail._\nIl ne paro\u00eet pas que la Providence ait donn\u00e9 le droit de la possession\ndes Terres \u00e0 un Homme plut\u00f4t qu'\u00e0 un autre. Les Titres les plus anciens\nsont fond\u00e9s sur la violence & les conqu\u00eates. Les Terres du Mexique\nappartiennent aujourd'hui \u00e0 des Espagnols, & celles de Jerusalem \u00e0 des\nTurcs. Mais de quelque maniere qu'on parvienne \u00e0 la propriet\u00e9 &\npossession des Terres, nous avons d\u00e9ja remarqu\u00e9 qu'elles \u00e9ch\u00e9ent\ntoujours \u00e0 un petit nombre de personnes par rapport \u00e0 tous les habitans.\nSi un Propri\u00e9taire d'une grande Terre entreprend de la faire valoir\nlui-m\u00eame, il emploiera des Esclaves, ou des Gens libres, pour y\ntravailler: s'il y emploie plusieurs Esclaves, il faut qu'il ait des\nInspecteurs pour les faire travailler; il faut qu'il ait aussi des\nEsclaves Artisans, pour se procurer toutes les commodit\u00e9s & agr\u00e9mens de\nla vie, & \u00e0 ceux qu'il emploie; il faut qu'il fasse apprendre des\nm\u00e9tiers \u00e0 d'autres pour la continuation du travail.\nDans cette oeconomie, il faut qu'il donne une simple subsistance \u00e0 ses\nLaboureurs esclaves & de quoi \u00e9lever leurs Enfans. Il faut qu'il donne \u00e0\nleurs Inspecteurs des avantages proportionn\u00e9s \u00e0 la confiance & \u00e0\nl'autorit\u00e9 qu'ils ont; il faut qu'il maintienne les Esclaves, auxquels\nil fait apprendre des M\u00e9tiers, pendant le tems de leur Aprentissage sans\nfruit, & qu'il accorde aux Esclaves artisans qui travaillent, & \u00e0 leurs\nInspecteurs, qui doivent \u00eatre entendus dans les M\u00e9tiers, une subsistance\nplus forte \u00e0 proportion que celle des Esclaves laboureurs, &c. \u00e0 cause\nque la perte d'un Artisan seroit plus grande que celle d'un Laboureur, &\nqu'on en doit avoir plus de soin, attendu qu'il en coute toujours pour\nfaire apprendre un m\u00e9tier pour les remplacer.\nDans cette supposition, le travail du plus vil Esclave adulte, vaut au\nmoins & correspond \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 de terre que le Propri\u00e9taire est oblig\u00e9\nd'emplo\u00efer pour sa nourriture & ses commodit\u00e9s n\u00e9cessaires, & encore au\ndouble de la quantit\u00e9 de terre qu'il faut pour \u00e9lever un Enfant jusqu'\u00e0\nl'\u00e2ge du travail, attendu que la moiti\u00e9 des Enfans qui naissent, meurent\navant l'\u00e2ge de dix-sept ans, suivant les calculs & observations du\nc\u00e9lebre Docteur Halley: ainsi il faut \u00e9lever deux Enfans pour en\nconserver un dans l'\u00e2ge de travail, & il sembleroit que ce compte ne\nsuppl\u00e9eroit pas assez pour la continuation du travail, parceque les\nHommes adultes meurent \u00e0 tout \u00e2ge.\nIl est vrai que la moiti\u00e9 des Enfans qui naissent & qui meurent avant\nl'\u00e2ge de dix-sept ans, d\u00e9cedent bien plus vite dans les premieres ann\u00e9es\nde leur vie que dans les suivantes, puisqu'il meurt un bon tiers de ceux\nqui naissent, d\u00e8s la premiere ann\u00e9e. Cette circonstance semble diminuer\nla d\u00e9pense qu'il faut pour \u00e9lever un Enfant jusqu'\u00e0 l'\u00e2ge du travail:\nmais comme les Meres perdent beaucoup de tems \u00e0 soigner leurs Enfans\ndans leurs infirmit\u00e9s & enfance, & que les Filles m\u00eames adultes\nn'\u00e9galent pas le travail des M\u00e2les, & gagnent \u00e0 peine de quoi subsister;\nil semble que pour conserver un de deux Enfans qu'on \u00e9leve jusqu'\u00e0 l'\u00e2ge\nde virilit\u00e9 ou du travail, il faut emplo\u00efer autant de produit de Terre\nque pour la subsistance d'un Esclave adulte, soit que le Propri\u00e9taire\n\u00e9leve lui-m\u00eame dans sa maison ou y fasse \u00e9lever ces Enfans, _soit que le\nPere esclave les \u00e9leve dans une Maison ou Hameau \u00e0 part. Ainsi je\nconclus que le travail journalier du plus vil Esclave, correspond en\nvaleur au double du produit de Terre dont il subsiste, soit que le\nPropri\u00e9taire le lui donne pour sa propre subsistance & celle de sa\nFamille_; soit qu'il le fasse subsister avec sa Famille dans sa Maison.\nC'est une matiere qui n'admet pas un calcul exact, & dans laquelle la\npr\u00e9cision n'est pas m\u00eame fort n\u00e9cessaire, il suffit qu'on ne s'y \u00e9loigne\npas beaucoup de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9.\nSi le Propri\u00e9taire emploie \u00e0 son travail des Vassaux ou Pa\u00efsans libres,\nil les entretiendra probablement un peu mieux qu'il ne feroit des\nEsclaves, & ce, suivant la coutume du lieu; mais encore dans cette\nsupposition, le travail du Laboureur libre doit correspondre en valeur\nau double du produit de terre qu'il faut pour son entretien; mais il\nseroit toujours plus avantageux au Propri\u00e9taire d'entretenir des\nEsclaves, que des Pa\u00efsans libres, attendu que lorsqu'il en aura \u00e9lev\u00e9 un\ntrop grand nombre pour son travail, il pourra vendre les Surnumeraires\ncomme ses bestiaux, & qu'il en pourra tirer un prix proportionn\u00e9 \u00e0 la\nd\u00e9pense qu'il aura faite pour les \u00e9lever jusqu'\u00e0 l'\u00e2ge de virilit\u00e9 ou de\ntravail; hors des cas de la vieillesse & de l'infirmit\u00e9.\nOn peut de m\u00eame estimer le travail des Artisans esclaves au double du\nproduit de terre qu'ils consument; celui des Inspecteurs de travail, de\nm\u00eame, suivant les douceurs & avantages qu'on leur donne au-dessus de\nceux qui travaillent sous leur conduite.\nLes Laboureurs ou Artisans, lorsqu'ils ont leur double portion dans leur\npropre disposition, s'ils sont mari\u00e9s emploient une portion pour leur\npropre entretien, & l'autre pour celui de leurs Enfans.\nS'ils sont Gar\u00e7ons, ils mettront \u00e0 part une petite partie de leur double\nportion, pour se mettre en \u00e9tat de se marier, & faire un petit fond pour\nle m\u00e9nage; mais le plus grand nombre consumera la double portion pour\nleur propre entretien.\nPar exemple, le Pa\u00efsan mari\u00e9 se contentera de vivre de pain, de fromage,\nde l\u00e9gumes, &c. mangera rarement de la viande, boira peu de vin ou de\nbiere, n'aura guere que des habits vieux & mauvais, qu'il portera le\nplus long-tems qu'il pourra: il emploiera le surplus de sa double\nportion \u00e0 \u00e9lever & entretenir ses Enfans; au lieu que le Pa\u00efsan gar\u00e7on\nmangera le plus souvent qu'il pourra de la viande, & se donnera des\nhabits neufs, &c. & par cons\u00e9quent emploiera sa double portion pour son\nentretien; ainsi il consumera deux fois plus de produit de terre sur sa\npersonne que ne fera le Pa\u00efsan mari\u00e9.\nJe ne considere pas ici la d\u00e9pense de la Femme, je suppose que son\ntravail suffit \u00e0 peine pour son propre entretien, & lorsqu'on voit un\ngrand nombre de petits Enfans dans un de ces pauvres m\u00e9nages, je suppose\nque quelques personnes charitables contribuent quelque chose \u00e0 leur\nsubsistance, sans quoi il faut que le Mari & la Femme se privent d'une\npartie de leur n\u00e9cessaire pour faire vivre leurs Enfans.\nPour mieux comprendre ceci, il faut savoir qu'un pauvre Pa\u00efsan peut\ns'entretenir, au plus bas calcul, du produit d'un Arpent & demi de\nterre, en se nourrissant de pain & de l\u00e9gumes, en portant des habits de\nChanvre & des sabots, &c. au lieu que s'il se peut donner du vin & de la\nviande, des habits de drap, &c. il pourra d\u00e9penser, sans ivrognerie ni\ngourmandise, & sans aucun exc\u00e8s, le produit de quatre jusqu'\u00e0 dix Arpens\nde terre de mo\u00efenne bont\u00e9, comme sont la pl\u00fbpart des terres en Europe,\nl'une portant l'autre; j'ai fait faire des calculs qu'on trouvera au\nSuppl\u00e9ment, pour constater la quantit\u00e9 de terre dont un Homme peut\nconsommer le produit de chaque espece de nourriture, habillement, &\nautres choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, dans une ann\u00e9e, suivant les fa\u00e7ons\nde vivre de notre Europe, o\u00f9 les Pa\u00efsans des diff\u00e9rens Pa\u00efs sont souvent\nnourris & entretenus assez diff\u00e9remment.\nC'est pourquoi je n'ai pas d\u00e9termin\u00e9 \u00e0 combien de Terre le travail du\nplus vil Pa\u00efsan ou Laboureur correspond en valeur, lorsque j'ai dit\nqu'il vaut le double du produit de la Terre qui sert \u00e0 l'entretenir; car\ncela varie suivant la fa\u00e7on de vivre dans les diff\u00e9rens Pa\u00efs. Dans\nquelques Provinces m\u00e9ridionales de France, le Pa\u00efsan s'entretient du\nproduit d'un arpent & demi de Terre, & on y peut estimer son travail,\n\u00e9gal au produit de trois arpens. Mais dans le Comt\u00e9 de Middlesex, le\nPa\u00efsan d\u00e9pense ordinairement le produit de 5 \u00e0 8 arpens de Terre, &\nainsi on peut estimer son travail au double.\nDans le Pa\u00efs des Iroquois, o\u00f9 les Habitans ne labourent pas la terre, &\no\u00f9 on vit uniquement de la chasse, le plus vil Chasseur peut consommer\nle produit de 50 arpens de Terre, puisqu'il faut vraisemblablement ce\nnombre d'arpens pour nourrir les b\u00eates qu'il mange dans l'ann\u00e9e,\nd'autant plus que ces Sauvages n'ont pas l'industrie de faire venir de\nl'herbe en abbattant quelque bois, & qu'ils laissent tout au gr\u00e9 de la\nnature.\nOn peut donc estimer le travail de ce Chasseur, comme \u00e9gal en valeur au\nproduit de cent arpens de Terre. Dans les Provinces m\u00e9ridionales de la\nChine, la Terre produit du Ris jusqu'\u00e0 trois fois l'ann\u00e9e, & rapporte\njusqu'\u00e0 cent fois la semence, \u00e0 chaque fois, par le grand soin qu'ils\nont de l'Agriculture, & par la bont\u00e9 de la terre qui ne se repose\njamais. Les Pa\u00efsans, qui y travaillent presque tout nus, ne vivent que\nde Ris, & ne boivent que de l'eau de Ris; & il y a apparence qu'un\narpent y entretient plus de dix Pa\u00efsans: ainsi il n'est pas \u00e9tonnant que\nles Habitans y soient dans un nombre prodigieux. Quoi qu'il en soit, il\nparo\u00eet par ces exemples, qu'il est tr\u00e8s indiff\u00e9rent \u00e0 la nature, que les\nTerres produisent de l'herbe, des bois ou des grains, & qu'elle\nentretienne un grand ou un petit nombre de Vegetaux, d'Animaux, ou\nd'Hommes.\nLes Fermiers en Europe semblent correspondre aux Inspecteurs des\nEsclaves laboureurs dans les autres Pa\u00efs, & les Ma\u00eetres Artisans qui\nfont travailler plusieurs Compagnons, aux Inspecteurs des Esclaves\nartisans.\nCes Ma\u00eetres Artisans savent \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s combien d'ouvrage un Compagnon\nartisan peut faire par jour dans chaque M\u00e9tier, & les paient souvent \u00e0\nproportion de l'ouvrage qu'ils font; ainsi ces Compagnons travaillent\nautant qu'ils peuvent, pour leur propre int\u00e9r\u00eat, sans autre inspection.\nComme les Fermiers & Ma\u00eetres artisans en Europe sont tous Entrepreneurs\n& travaillent au hasard, les uns s'enrichissent & gagnent plus qu'une\ndouble subsistance, d'autres se ruinent & font banqueroute, comme on\nl'expliquera plus particulierement en traitant des Entrepreneurs; mais\nle plus grand nombre s'entretiennent au jour la journ\u00e9e avec leurs\nFamilles, & on pourroit estimer le travail ou inspection de ceux-ci,\n\u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s au triple du produit de Terre qui sert pour leur entretien.\nIl est certain que ces Fermiers & Ma\u00eetres artisans, s'ils conduisent le\ntravail de dix Laboureurs ou Compagnons, seroient \u00e9galement capables de\nconduire le travail de vingt, suivant la grandeur de leurs Fermes ou le\nnombre de leurs Chalans: ce qui rend incertain la valeur de leur travail\nou inspection.\nPar ces inductions, & autres qu'on pourroit faire dans le m\u00eame go\u00fbt,\nl'on voit que la valeur du travail journalier a un rapport au produit de\nla Terre, & que la valeur intrinseque d'une chose peut \u00eatre mesur\u00e9e par\nla quantit\u00e9 de Terre qui est emplo\u00ef\u00e9e pour sa production, & par la\nquantit\u00e9 du travail qui y entre, c'est-\u00e0-dire encore par la quantit\u00e9 de\nTerre dont on attribue le produit \u00e0 ceux qui y ont travaill\u00e9; & comme\ntoutes ces Terres appartiennent au Prince & aux Propri\u00e9taires, toutes\nles choses qui ont cette valeur intrinseque ne l'ont qu'\u00e0 leurs d\u00e9pens.\n_L'Argent ou la Monnoie, qui trouve dans le troc les proportions des\nvaleurs, est la mesure la plus certaine pour juger du pair de la Terre &\ndu travail, & du rapport que l'un a \u00e0 l'autre dans les diff\u00e9rens Pa\u00efs o\u00f9\nce Pair varie suivant le plus ou moins de produit de Terre qu'on\nattribue \u00e0 ceux qui travaillent._\nPar exemple, si un Homme gagne une once d'argent tous les jours par son\ntravail, & si un autre n'en gagne qu'une demi-once dans le m\u00eame lieu; on\npeut d\u00e9terminer que le premier a une fois plus de produit de Terre \u00e0\nd\u00e9penser que le second.\nMonsieur le Chevalier Petty, dans un petit Manuscrit de l'ann\u00e9e 1685,\nregarde ce pair, en Equation de la Terre & du travail, comme la\nconsid\u00e9ration la plus importante dans l'Arithm\u00e9tique politique; mais la\nrecherche qu'il en a faite en passant, n'est bisarre & \u00e9loign\u00e9e des\nregles de la nature, que parcequ'il ne s'est pas attach\u00e9 aux causes &\naux principes, mais seulement aux effets; comme Messieurs Locke &\nd'Avenant, & tous les autres Auteurs Anglois qui ont \u00e9crit quelque chose\nde cette matiere, ont fait apr\u00e8s lui.\nCHAPITRE XII.\n_Tous les Ordres & tous les Hommes d'un Etat subsistent ou\ns'enrichissent aux d\u00e9pens des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres._\nIl n'y a que le Prince & les Propri\u00e9taires des Terres, qui vivent dans\nl'ind\u00e9pendance; tous les autres Ordres & tous les Habitans sont \u00e0 gages\nou sont Entrepreneurs. On en verra plus particulierement l'induction &\nle d\u00e9tail, dans le Chapitre suivant.\nSi le Prince & les Propri\u00e9taires des Terres renfermoient leurs Terres, &\ns'ils n'y vouloient laisser travailler personne, il est visible qu'il\nn'y auroit ni nourriture ni habillement pour aucun des Habitans de\nl'Etat: parcons\u00e9quent, non-seulement tous les Habitans de l'Etat\nsubsistent du produit de la Terre qui est cultiv\u00e9e pour le compte des\nPropri\u00e9taires, mais aussi aux d\u00e9pens des m\u00eames Propri\u00e9taires du fond\ndesquels ils tirent tout ce qu'ils ont.\nLes Fermiers ont ordinairement les deux tiers du produit de la Terre,\nl'un pour les frais & le maintien de leurs Assistans, l'autre pour le\nprofit de leur entreprise: de ces deux tiers le Fermier fait subsister\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ralement tous ceux qui vivent \u00e0 la Campagne directement ou\nindirectement, & m\u00eame plusieurs Artisans ou Entrepreneurs dans la Ville,\n\u00e0 cause des marchandises de la Ville qui sont consomm\u00e9es \u00e0 la Campagne.\nLe Propri\u00e9taire a ordinairement le tiers du produit de sa Terre, & de ce\ntiers, il fait non-seulement subsister tous les Artisans & autres qu'il\nemploie dans la Ville, mais bien souvent aussi les Voituriers qui\napportent les denr\u00e9es de la Campagne \u00e0 la Ville.\nOn suppose g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement que la moiti\u00e9 des Habitans d'un Etat subsiste &\nfait sa demeure dans les Villes, & l'autre moiti\u00e9 \u00e0 la Campagne: cela\n\u00e9tant, le Fermier qui a les deux tiers ou quatre sixiemes du produit de\nla Terre, en donne directement ou indirectement un sixieme aux Habitans\nde la Ville en \u00e9change des marchandises qu'il en tire; ce qui avec le\ntiers ou deux sixiemes que le Propri\u00e9taire d\u00e9pense dans la Ville, fait\ntrois sixiemes ou une moiti\u00e9 du produit de la Terre. Ce calcul n'est que\npour donner une id\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la proportion; car au fond, si la\nmoiti\u00e9 des Habitans demeure dans la Ville, elle d\u00e9pense plus de la\nmoiti\u00e9 du produit de la Terre, attendu que ceux de la Ville vivent mieux\nque ceux de la Campagne, & d\u00e9pensent plus de produit de Terre, \u00e9tant\ntous Artisans ou D\u00e9pendans des Propri\u00e9taires, & parcons\u00e9quent mieux\nentretenus que les Assistans & D\u00e9pendans des Fermiers.\nQuoi qu'il en soit, qu'on examine les mo\u00efens dont un Habitant subsiste,\non trouvera toujours en remontant \u00e0 leur source, qu'ils sortent du fond\ndu Propri\u00e9taire, soit dans les deux tiers du produit qui est attribu\u00e9 au\nFermier, soit dans le tiers qui reste au Propri\u00e9taire.\nSi un Propri\u00e9taire n'avoit que la quantit\u00e9 de Terre qu'il donne \u00e0 un\nseul Fermier, ce Fermier en tireroit une meilleure subsistance que lui;\nmais les Seigneurs & Propri\u00e9taires de grandes Terres dans les Villes,\nont quelquefois plusieurs centaines de Fermiers, & ne font dans un Etat\nqu'un tr\u00e8s petit nombre par rapport \u00e0 tous les Habitans.\nIl est vrai qu'il y a souvent dans les grandes Villes plusieurs\nEntrepreneurs & Artisans qui subsistent par un Commerce \u00e9tranger, &\nparcons\u00e9quent aux d\u00e9pens des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres en Pa\u00efs \u00e9tranger:\nmais je ne considere jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent un Etat, que par rapport \u00e0 son\nproduit & a son industrie, afin de ne pas embarasser mon sujet par des\nchoses accidentelles.\nLe fond des Terres appartient aux Propri\u00e9taires, mais ce fond leur\ndeviendroit inutile si on ne le cultivoit pas, & plus on y travaille,\ntoutes autres choses \u00e9tant \u00e9gales, plus il rend de denr\u00e9es; & plus on\ntravaille ces denr\u00e9es, toutes autres choses \u00e9tant \u00e9gales, lorsqu'on en\nfait des marchandises, plus elles ont de valeur. Tout cela fait que les\nPropri\u00e9taires ont besoin des autres Habitans, comme ceux-ci ont besoin\ndes Propri\u00e9taires; mais dans cette oeconomie, c'est aux Propri\u00e9taires,\nqui ont la disposition & la direction des fonds, \u00e0 donner le tour & le\nmouvement le plus avantageux au tout. Aussi tout d\u00e9pend dans un Etat,\ndes humeurs, modes & fa\u00e7ons de vivre des Propri\u00e9taires de Terres\nprincipalement, comme je tacherai de le faire voir clairement dans la\nsuite de cet Essai.\nC'est le besoin & la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 qui font subsister dans l'Etat, les\nFermiers & les Artisans de toute espece, les Marchands, les Officiers,\nles Soldats & les Matelots, les Domestiques, & tous les autres Ordres\nqui travaillent ou sont emplo\u00ef\u00e9s dans l'Etat. Tous ces Gens de travail\nservent non-seulement le Prince & les Propri\u00e9taires, mais se servent\nmutuellement les uns les autres; de maniere qu'il y en a plusieurs qui\nne travaillent pas directement pour les Propri\u00e9taires de Terres, ce qui\nfait qu'on ne s'apper\u00e7oit pas qu'ils subsistent de leurs fonds, & qu'ils\nvivent \u00e0 leurs d\u00e9pens. Quant \u00e0 ceux qui exercent des Professions qui ne\nsont pas n\u00e9cessaires, comme les Danseurs, les Com\u00e9diens, les Peintres,\nles Musiciens, &c. ils ne sont entretenus dans l'Etat que pour le\nplaisir ou l'ornement; & leur nombre est toujours tr\u00e8s petit par rapport\naux autres Habitans.\nCHAPITRE XIII.\n_La circulation & le troc des denr\u00e9es & des marchandises, de m\u00eame que\nleur production, se conduisent en Europe par des Entrepreneurs, & au\nhazard._\nLe Fermier est un Entrepreneur qui promet de pa\u00efer au Propri\u00e9taire, pour\nsa Ferme ou Terre, une somme fixe d'argent (qu'on suppose ordinairement\n\u00e9gale en valeur au tiers du produit de la Terre), sans avoir de\ncertitude de l'avantage qu'il tirera de cette entreprise. Il emploie une\npartie de cette Terre \u00e0 nourrir des Troupeaux, \u00e0 produire du grain, du\nvin, des foins, &c. suivant ses id\u00e9es, sans pouvoir pr\u00e9voir laquelle des\nespeces de ces denr\u00e9es rapportera le meilleur prix. Ce prix des denr\u00e9es\nd\u00e9pendra en partie des Saisons & en partie de la consommation; s'il y a\nabondance de bl\u00e9 par rapport \u00e0 la consommation, il sera \u00e0 vil prix, s'il\ny a raret\u00e9, il sera cher. Qui est celui qui peut pr\u00e9voir le nombre des\nnaissances & morts des Habitans de l'Etat, dans le courant de l'ann\u00e9e?\nQui peut pr\u00e9voir l'augmentation ou la diminution de d\u00e9pense qui peut\nsurvenir dans les Familles? cependant le prix des denr\u00e9es du Fermier\nd\u00e9pend naturellement de ces \u00e9v\u00e9nemens qu'il ne sauroit pr\u00e9voir, &\nparcons\u00e9quent il conduit l'entreprise de sa Ferme avec incertitude.\nLa Ville consume plus de la moiti\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es du Fermier. Il les y\nporte au March\u00e9, ou il les vend au March\u00e9 du plus prochain Bourg, ou\nbien quelques-uns s'\u00e9rigent en Entrepreneurs pour faire ce transport.\nCeux-ci s'obligent de pa\u00efer au Fermier un prix certain de ses denr\u00e9es,\nqui est celui du March\u00e9 du jour, pour en tirer dans la Ville un prix\nincertain, qui doit n\u00e9anmoins les d\u00e9fra\u00efer des frais de la voiture, &\nleur laisser un profit pour leur entreprise; cependant la variation\njournaliere du prix des denr\u00e9es dans la Ville, quoiquelle ne soit pas\nconsid\u00e9rable, rend leur profit incertain.\nL'Entrepreneur ou Marchand qui voiture les denr\u00e9es de la Campagne \u00e0 la\nVille, n'y peut pas demeurer pour les vendre en d\u00e9tail lors de leur\nconsommation: pas une des Familles de la Ville ne se chargera d'acheter\ntout-\u00e0-la-fois les denr\u00e9es dont elle pourroit faire la consommation;\nchaque Famille pouvant augmenter ou diminuer en nombre aussi-bien qu'en\nconsommation, ou au moins varier dans les especes de denr\u00e9es quelle\nconsommera: on ne fait guere de provisions dans les Familles que de vin.\nQuoi qu'il en soit, le plus grand nombre des Habitans de la Ville, qui\nne subsiste qu'au jour la journ\u00e9e, & qui cependant fait la plus forte\nconsommation, ne pourra faire aucune provision des denr\u00e9es de la\nCampagne.\nCela fait que plusieurs personnes dans la Ville s'\u00e9rigent en Marchands\nou Entrepreneurs, pour acheter les denr\u00e9es de la Campagne de ceux qui\nles apportent, ou pour les faire apporter pour leur compte: ils en\ndonnent un prix certain suivant celui du lieu o\u00f9 ils les achetent, pour\nles revendre en gros ou en d\u00e9tail \u00e0 un prix incertain.\nCes Entrepreneurs sont les Marchands, en gros, de laine, de grains, les\nBoulangers, Bouchers, Manufacturiers, & tous les Marchands de toute\nespece qui achetent les denr\u00e9es & mat\u00e9riaux de la Campagne, pour les\ntravailler & revendre \u00e0 mesure que les Habitans ont besoin de les\nconsommer.\nCes Entrepreneurs ne peuvent jamais savoir la quantit\u00e9 de la\nconsommation dans leur Ville, ni m\u00eame combien de tems leurs Chalans\nacheteront d'eux, vu que leurs Rivaux tacheront par toutes sortes de\nvoies de s'en attirer les Pratiques: tout cela cause tant d'incertitude\nparmi tous ces Entrepreneurs, qu'on en voit qui font journellement\nbanqueroute.\nLe Manufacturier qui a achet\u00e9 la laine du Marchand ou du Fermier en\ndroiture, ne peut pas savoir le profit qu'il tirera de son entreprise,\nen vendant ses draps & \u00e9toffes au Marchand drapier. Si celui-ci n'a pas\nun d\u00e9bit raisonnable, il ne se chargera pas des draps & \u00e9toffes du\nManufacturier, encore moins si ces \u00e9toffes cessent d'\u00eatre \u00e0 la mode.\nLe Drapier est un Entrepreneur qui achete des draps & des \u00e9toffes du\nManufacturier \u00e0 un prix certain, pour les revendre \u00e0 un prix incertain,\nparcequ'il ne peut pas pr\u00e9voir la quantit\u00e9 de la consommation; il est\nvrai qu'il peut fixer un prix & s'obstiner \u00e0 ne pas vendre \u00e0 moins qu'il\nne l'obtienne, mais si ses Pratiques le quittent pour acheter \u00e0 meilleur\nmarch\u00e9 de quelqu'autre, il se consumera en frais en attendant de vendre\nau prix qu'il se propose, & cela le ruinera autant ou plus que s'il\nvendoit sans profit.\nLes Marchands en boutique, & les D\u00e9tailleurs de toutes especes, sont des\nEntrepreneurs qui achetent \u00e0 un prix certain, & qui revendent dans leurs\nBoutiques ou dans les Places publiques, \u00e0 un prix incertain. Ce qui\nencourage & maintient ces sortes d'Entrepreneurs dans un Etat, c'est que\nles Consommateurs qui sont leurs Chalans, aiment mieux donner quelque\nchose de plus dans le prix, pour trouver \u00e0 port\u00e9e ce dont ils ont besoin\ndans le d\u00e9tail, que d'en faire provision, & que la plus grande partie\nn'ont pas le mo\u00efen de faire une telle provision, en achetant de la\npremiere main.\nTous ces Entrepreneurs deviennent consommateurs & Chalans r\u00e9ciproquement\nles uns des autres; le Drapier, du Marchand de vin; celui-ci, du\nDrapier: ils se proportionnent dans l'Etat \u00e0 leurs Chalans ou \u00e0 leur\nconsommation. S'il y a trop de Chapeliers dans une Ville ou dans une rue\npour le nombre de personnes qui y achetent des chapeaux, il faut que\nquelques-uns qui seront les plus mal achaland\u00e9s fassent banqueroute;\ns'il y en a trop peu, ce sera une entreprise avantageuse, qui\nencouragera quelques nouveaux Chapeliers d'y ouvrir boutique, & c'est\nainsi que les Entrepreneurs de toutes especes se proportionnent au\nhazard dans un Etat.\nTous les autres Entrepreneurs, comme ceux qui se chargent des Mines, des\nSpectacles, des B\u00e2timens, &c., les N\u00e9gocians sur mer & sur terre, &c.,\nles Rotisseurs, les P\u00e2tissiers, les Cabaretiers, &c. de m\u00eame que les\nEntrepreneurs dans leur propre travail & qui n'ont pas besoin de fonds\npour s'\u00e9tablir, comme Compagnons artisans, Chauderoniers, Ravaudeuses,\nRamoneurs, Porteurs-d'eau, subsistent avec incertitude, & se\nproportionnent \u00e0 leurs Chalans. Les Ma\u00eetres artisans, comme Cordonniers,\nTailleurs, Menuisiers, Perruquiers, &c. qui emploient des Compagnons \u00e0\nproportion de l'ouvrage qu'ils ont, vivent dans la m\u00eame incertitude,\npuisque leurs Chalans les peuvent quitter du jour au lendemain: les\nEntrepreneurs de leur propre travail dans les Arts & Sciences, comme\nPeintres, M\u00e9decins, Avocats, &c. subsistent dans la m\u00eame incertitude. Si\nun Procureur ou Avocat gagne 5000 livres sterlins par an, en servant ses\nCliens ou pratiques, & qu'un autre n'en gagne que 500, on peut les\nconsid\u00e9rer comme a\u00efant autant de gages incertains de ceux qui les\nemploient.\nOn pourroit peut-\u00eatre avancer que tous les Entrepreneurs cherchent \u00e0\nattrapper tout ce qu'ils peuvent dans leur \u00e9tat, & \u00e0 dupper leurs\nChalans, mais cela n'est pas de mon sujet.\nPar toutes ces inductions & par une infinit\u00e9 d'autres qu'on pourroit\nfaire dans une matiere qui a pour objet tous les Habitans d'un Etat, on\npeut \u00e9tablir que, except\u00e9 le Prince & les Propri\u00e9taires de Terres, tous\nles Habitans d'un Etat sont d\u00e9pendans; qu'ils peuvent se diviser en deux\nclasses, savoir en Entrepreneurs, & en Gens \u00e0 gages; & que les\nEntrepreneurs sont comme \u00e0 gages incertains, & tous les autres \u00e0 gages\ncertains pour le tems qu'ils en jouissent, bien que leurs fonctions &\nleur rang soient tr\u00e8s disproportionn\u00e9s. Le G\u00e9n\u00e9ral qui a une paie, le\nCourtisan qui a une pension, & le Domestique qui a des gages, tombent\nsous cette derniere espece. Tous les autres sont Entrepreneurs, soit\nqu'ils s'\u00e9tablissent avec un fond pour conduire leur entreprise, soit\nqu'ils soient Entrepreneurs de leur propre travail sans aucuns fonds, &\nils peuvent \u00eatre consider\u00e9s comme vivant \u00e0 l'incertain; les Gueux m\u00eame &\nles Voleurs sont des Entrepreneurs de cette classe. Enfin tous les\nHabitans d'un Etat tirent leur subsistance & leurs avantages du fond des\nPropri\u00e9taires de Terres, & sont d\u00e9pendans.\nIl est cependant vrai que si quelqu'Habitant \u00e0 gros gages ou\nquelqu'Entrepreneur consid\u00e9rable a \u00e9pargn\u00e9 du bien ou des richesses,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, s'il a des magasins de bl\u00e9, de laines, de cuivre, d'or ou\nd'argent, ou de quelque denr\u00e9e ou marchandise qui soit d'un usage ou\nd\u00e9bit constant dans un Etat & qui ait une valeur intrinseque ou r\u00e9elle,\non pourra \u00e0 juste titre le regarder comme ind\u00e9pendant jusqu'\u00e0 la\nconcurrence de ce fond. Il peut en disposer pour s'acqu\u00e9rir une\nhypotheque, & une rente sur des Terres, & sur les fonds de l'Etat,\nlorsqu'il fait des emprunts assur\u00e9s sur les terres: il peut m\u00eame vivre\nbien mieux que les Propri\u00e9taires de petites terres, & m\u00eame acheter la\npropri\u00e9t\u00e9 de quelques-unes.\nMais les denr\u00e9es & les marchandises, m\u00eame l'or & l'argent, sont bien\nplus sujets aux accidens & aux pertes, que la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 des terres; & de\nquelque fa\u00e7on qu'on les ait gagn\u00e9es ou \u00e9pargn\u00e9es, on les a toujours\ntir\u00e9es du fond des Propri\u00e9taires actuels, soit par gain, soit par\n\u00e9pargne des gages destin\u00e9s \u00e0 sa subsistance.\nLe nombre des Propri\u00e9taires d'argent, dans un grand Etat, est souvent\nassez consid\u00e9rable; & quoique la valeur de tout l'argent qui circule\ndans l'Etat n'excede guere la neuvieme ou la dixieme partie de la valeur\ndes denr\u00e9es qu'on tire actuellement de la terre, n\u00e9anmoins comme les\nPropri\u00e9taires d'argent pr\u00eatent des sommes consid\u00e9rables dont ils tirent\nint\u00e9r\u00eat, soit par l'hypotheque des terres, soit par les denr\u00e9es m\u00eames &\nmarchandises de l'Etat, les sommes qu'on leur doit excedent le plus\nsouvent tout l'argent r\u00e9el de l'Etat, & ils deviennent souvent un corps\nsi consid\u00e9rable, qu'ils le disputeroient dans certains cas aux\nPropri\u00e9taires de terres, si ceux-ci n'\u00e9toient pas souvent \u00e9galement des\nPropri\u00e9taires d'argent, & si les Propri\u00e9taires de grandes sommes en\nargent ne cherchoient toujours aussi \u00e0 devenir Propri\u00e9taires de terres.\nIl est cependant toujours vrai que toutes les sommes qu'ils ont gagn\u00e9es\nou \u00e9pargn\u00e9es, ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9es du fond des Propri\u00e9taires actuels; mais\ncomme plusieurs de ceux-ci se ruinent journellement dans un Etat, & que\nles autres qui acquerent la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 de leurs terres prennent leur\nplace, l'ind\u00e9pendance que donne la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 des terres ne regarde que\nceux qui s'en conservent la possession; & comme toutes les terres ont\ntoujours un Ma\u00eetre ou Propri\u00e9taire actuel, je suppose toujours que c'est\ndu fond de ceux-ci que tous les Habitans de l'Etat, tirent leur\nsubsistance & toutes leurs richesses. Si ces Propri\u00e9taires se bornoient\ntous \u00e0 vivre de leurs rentes, cela ne seroit pas douteux, & en ce cas il\nseroit bien plus difficile aux autres Habitans de s'enrichir \u00e0 leurs\nd\u00e9pens.\nJ'\u00e9tablirai donc pour principe que les Propri\u00e9taires de terres sont\nseuls ind\u00e9pendans naturellement dans un Etat; que tous les autres ordres\nsont d\u00e9pendans, soit comme Entrepreneurs, ou comme \u00e0 gages, & que tout\nle troc & la circulation de l'Etat se conduit par l'entremise de ces\nEntrepreneurs.\nCHAPITRE XIV.\n_Les humeurs, les modes & les fa\u00e7ons de vivre du Prince, &\nprincipalement des Propri\u00e9taires de terres, d\u00e9terminent les usages\nauxquels on emploie les terres dans un Etat, & causent, au March\u00e9, les\nvariations des prix de toutes choses._\nSi le Propri\u00e9taire d'une grande terre (que je veux considerer ici comme\ns'il n'y en avoit aucune autre au monde) la fait cultiver lui-m\u00eame, il\nsuivra sa fantaisie dans les usages auxquels il l'emploiera. 1\u00ba Il en\nemploiera n\u00e9cessairement une partie en grains pour la subsistance de\ntous les Laboureurs, Artisans & Inspecteurs qui doivent travailler pour\nlui; & une autre portion pour nourrir les Boeufs, les Moutons & les\nautres Animaux n\u00e9cessaires pour leur habillement & leur nourriture, ou\npour d'autres commodit\u00e9s, suivant la fa\u00e7on dont il veut les entretenir;\n2\u00ba. il mettra une portion de sa terre en parcs, jardins & arbres\nfruitiers, ou en vignes, suivant son inclination, & en prairies pour\nl'entretien des Chevaux dont il se servira pour son plaisir, &c.\nSupposons maintenant que pour \u00e9viter tant de soins & d'embarras, il\nfasse un calcul avec les Inspecteurs de ses Laboureurs; qu'il leur donne\ndes Fermes ou portions de sa terre; qu'il leur laisse le soin\nd'entretenir \u00e0 l'ordinaire tous ces Laboureurs dont ils avoient\nl'inspection, de maniere que ces Inspecteurs, devenus ainsi Fermiers ou\nEntrepreneurs, cedent aux Laboureurs, pour le travail de la terre ou\nferme, un autre tiers du produit, tant pour leur nourriture que pour\nleur habillement & autres commodit\u00e9s, telles qu'ils les avoient lorsque\nle Propri\u00e9taire faisoit conduire le travail: supposons encore que le\nPropri\u00e9taire fasse un calcul avec les Inspecteurs des Artisans, pour la\nquantit\u00e9 de nourriture, & pour les autres commodit\u00e9s qu'on leur donnoit;\nqu'il les fasse devenir Ma\u00eetres artisans; qu'il regle une mesure\ncommune, comme l'argent, pour fixer le prix auquel les Fermiers leur\ncederont la laine, & celui auquel ils lui fourniront le drap, & que les\ncalculs de ces prix soient regl\u00e9s de maniere que les Ma\u00eetres artisans\naient les m\u00eames avantages & les m\u00eames douceurs qu'ils avoient \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s\nlorsqu'ils \u00e9toient Inspecteurs, & que les Compagnons artisans aient\naussi le m\u00eame entretien qu'auparavant: le travail des Compagnons\nartisans sera regl\u00e9 \u00e0 la journ\u00e9e ou \u00e0 la piece; les marchandises qu'ils\nauront faites, soit chapeaux, soit bas, souliers, habits, &c. seront\nvendues au Propri\u00e9taire, aux Fermiers, aux Laboureurs & aux autres\nArtisans, r\u00e9ciproquement \u00e0 un prix qui laisse \u00e0 tous les m\u00eames avantages\ndont ils jouissoient; & les Fermiers vendront, \u00e0 un prix proportionn\u00e9,\nleurs denr\u00e9es & mat\u00e9riaux.\nIl arrivera d'abord que les Inspecteurs devenus Entrepreneurs\ndeviendront aussi les ma\u00eetres absolus de ceux qui travaillent sous leur\nconduite, & qu'ils auront plus de soin & d'agr\u00e9ment en travaillant ainsi\npour leur compte. Nous supposons donc qu'apr\u00e8s ce changement tous les\nHabitans de cette grande terre subsistent tout de m\u00eame qu'auparavant; &\npar cons\u00e9quent je dis qu'on emploiera toutes les portions & Fermes de\ncette grande terre, aux m\u00eames usages auxquels on les emplo\u00efoit\nauparavant.\nCar si quelques-uns des Fermiers semoient dans leur Ferme ou portion de\nterre plus de grains qu'\u00e0 l'ordinaire, il faudra qu'ils nourrissent un\nplus petit nombre de Moutons, & qu'ils aient moins de laine & moins de\nviande de mouton \u00e0 vendre; par cons\u00e9quent il y aura trop de grains &\ntrop peu de laine pour la consommation des Habitans. Il y aura donc\nchert\u00e9 de laine, ce qui forcera les Habitans \u00e0 porter leurs habits plus\nlong-tems qu'\u00e0 l'ordinaire; & il y aura grand march\u00e9 de grains & un\nsurplus pour l'ann\u00e9e suivante. Et comme nous supposons que le\nPropri\u00e9taire a stipul\u00e9 en argent le paiement du tiers du produit de la\nFerme, qu'on doit lui pa\u00efer, les Fermiers qui ont trop de bl\u00e9 & trop peu\nde laines, ne seront pas en \u00e9tat de lui pa\u00efer sa rente. S'il leur fait\nquartier, ils auront soin l'ann\u00e9e suivante d'avoir moins de bl\u00e9 & plus\nde laine; car les Fermiers ont toujours soin d'emplo\u00efer leurs terres au\nproduit des denr\u00e9es, qu'ils jugent devoir rapporter le plus haut prix au\nMarch\u00e9. Mais si dans l'ann\u00e9e suivante ils avoient trop de laine & trop\npeu de grains pour la consommation, ils ne manqueront pas de changer\nd'ann\u00e9e en ann\u00e9e l'emploi des terres, jusqu'\u00e0 ce qu'ils puissent\nparvenir \u00e0 proportionner \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s leurs denr\u00e9es \u00e0 la consommation des\nHabitans. Ainsi un Fermier qui a attrap\u00e9 \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s la proportion de la\nconsommation, mettra une portion de sa ferme en Prairie, pour avoir du\nfoin, une autre pour les grains, pour la laine, & ainsi du reste; & il\nne changera pas de m\u00e9thode, \u00e0 moins qu'il ne voie quelque variation\nconsid\u00e9rable dans la consommation; mais dans l'exemple pr\u00e9sent nous\navons suppos\u00e9 que tous les Habitans vivent \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s de la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on,\nqu'ils vivoient lorsque le Propri\u00e9taire faisoit lui-m\u00eame valoir sa\nterre, & par cons\u00e9quent les Fermiers emploieront les terres aux m\u00eames\nusages qu'auparavant.\nLe Propri\u00e9taire, qui a le tiers du produit de la terre \u00e0 sa disposition,\nest l'Acteur principal dans les variations qui peuvent arriver \u00e0 la\nconsommation. Les Laboureurs & Artisans qui vivent au jour la journ\u00e9e,\nne changent que par n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 leurs fa\u00e7ons de vivre; s'il y a quelques\nFermiers, Ma\u00eetres artisans, ou autres Entrepreneurs accommod\u00e9s, qui\nvarient dans leur d\u00e9pense & consommation, ils prennent toujours pour\nmodele les Seigneurs & Propri\u00e9taires des terres. Ils les imitent dans\nleur habillement, dans leur cuisine, & dans leur fa\u00e7on de vivre. Si les\nPropri\u00e9taires se plaisent \u00e0 porter de beau linge, des soieries, ou de la\ndentelle, la consommation de ces marchandises sera plus forte que celle\nque les Propri\u00e9taires font sur eux.\nSi un Seigneur, ou Propri\u00e9taire, qui a donn\u00e9 toutes ses Terres \u00e0 ferme,\nprend la fantaisie de changer notablement sa fa\u00e7on de vivre; si par\nexemple il diminue le nombre de ses Domestiques, & augmente celui de ses\nChevaux; non seulement ses Domestiques seront oblig\u00e9s de quitter la\nTerre en question, mais aussi un nombre proportionn\u00e9 d'Artisans & de\nLaboureurs qui travailloient \u00e0 procurer leur entretien: la portion de\nterre qu'on emplo\u00efoit \u00e0 entretenir ces Habitans, sera emplo\u00ef\u00e9e en\nPrairies pour les Chevaux d'augmentation, & si tous les Propri\u00e9taires\nd'un Etat faisoient de m\u00eame, ils multiplieroient bient\u00f4t le nombre des\nChevaux, & diminueroient celui des Habitans.\nLorsqu'un Propri\u00e9taire a congedi\u00e9 un grand nombre de Domestiques, &\naugment\u00e9 le nombre de ses Chevaux, il y aura trop de bl\u00e9 pour la\nconsommation des Habitans, & par cons\u00e9quent le bl\u00e9 sera \u00e0 bas prix, au\nlieu que le foin sera cher. Cela fera que les Fermiers augmenteront\nleurs Prairies, & diminueront la quantit\u00e9 de bl\u00e9 pour se proportionner \u00e0\nla consommation. C'est ainsi que les humeurs ou fa\u00e7ons des Propri\u00e9taires\nd\u00e9terminent l'emploi qu'on fait des terres, & occasionnent les\nvariations de la consommation qui causent celles du prix des March\u00e9s. Si\ntous les Propri\u00e9taires de terres, dans un Etat, les faisoient valoir\neux-m\u00eames, il les emploieroient \u00e0 produire ce qui leur plairoit; & comme\nles variations de la consommation sont principalement caus\u00e9es par leurs\nfa\u00e7ons de vivre, les prix qu'ils offrent aux March\u00e9s, d\u00e9terminent les\nFermiers \u00e0 toutes les variations qu'ils font dans l'emploi & l'usage des\nterres.\nJe ne considere pas ici la variation des prix du March\u00e9 qui peut\nsurvenir de l'abondance ou de la st\u00e9rilit\u00e9 des ann\u00e9es, ni la\nconsommation extraordinaire qui peut arriver par des Arm\u00e9es \u00e9trangeres\nou par d'autres accidens, pour ne point embarrasser ce sujet; ne\nconsid\u00e9rant un Etat, que dans sa situation naturelle & uniforme.\nCHAPITRE XV.\n_La multiplication & le d\u00e9croissement des Peuples dans un Etat d\u00e9pendent\nprincipalement de la volont\u00e9, des modes & des fa\u00e7ons de vivre des\nPropri\u00e9taires de Terres._\nL'Exp\u00e9rience nous fait voir qu'on peut multiplier les Arbres, Plantes &\nautres sortes de v\u00e9g\u00e9taux, & qu'on en peut entretenir toute la quantit\u00e9\nque la portion de terre qu'on y destine peut nourrir.\nLa m\u00eame exp\u00e9rience nous fait voir qu'on peut \u00e9galement multiplier toutes\nles especes d'Animaux, & les entretenir en telle quantit\u00e9 que la portion\nde terre qu'on y destine peut en nourrir. Si l'on \u00e9leve des Haras, des\ntroupeaux de Boeufs ou de Moutons, on les multipliera aisement, jusqu'au\nnombre que la terre qu'on destine pour cela peut en entretenir. On peut\nm\u00eame am\u00e9liorer les Prairies qui servent pour cet entretien, en y faisant\ncouler plusieurs petits ruisseaux & torrens, comme dans le Milanez. On\npeut faire du foin, & par ce mo\u00efen entretenir ces Bestiaux dans les\nEtables, & les nourrir en plus grand nombre que si on les laissoit en\nlibert\u00e9 dans les Prairies. On peut nourrir quelquefois les Moutons avec\ndes navets, comme on fait en Angleterre, au mo\u00efen de quoi un arpent de\nterre ira plus loin pour leur nourriture, que s'il ne produisoit que de\nl'herbe.\nOn peut en un mot multiplier toutes sortes d'Animaux, en tel nombre\nqu'on en veut entretenir, m\u00eame \u00e0 l'infini, si on pouvoit attribuer des\nterres propres \u00e0 l'infini pour les nourrir; & la multiplication des\nAnimaux n'a d'autres bornes que le plus ou moins de mo\u00efens qu'on leur\nlaisse pour subsister. Il n'est pas douteux que si on emplo\u00efoit toutes\nles terres \u00e0 la simple nourriture de l'Homme, l'espece en multiplieroit\njusqu'\u00e0 la concurrence du nombre que ces terres pourroient nourrir, de\nla fa\u00e7on qu'on expliquera.\nIl n'y a point de Pa\u00efs o\u00f9 l'on porte la multiplication des Hommes si\nloin qu'\u00e0 la Chine. Les pauvres gens y vivent uniquement de riz & d'eau\nde riz; ils y travaillent presque nus, & dans les Provinces m\u00e9ridionales\nils font trois moissons abondantes de riz, chaque ann\u00e9e, par le grand\nsoin qu'ils ont de l'Agriculture. La terre ne s'y repose jamais, & rend\nchaque fois, plus de cent pour un; ceux qui sont habill\u00e9s, le sont pour\nla pl\u00fbpart de coton, qui demande si peu de terre pour sa production,\nqu'un arpent en peut vraisemblablement produire de quoi habiller cinq\ncens personnes adultes. Ils se marient tous par religion, & \u00e9levent\nautant d'enfans qu'ils en peuvent faire subsister. Ils regardent comme\nun crime l'emploi des terres en Parcs ou Jardins de plaisance, comme si\non fraudoit par l\u00e0 les Hommes de leur nourriture. Ils portent les\nVo\u00efageurs en Chaise \u00e0 porteurs, & \u00e9pargnent le travail des Chevaux en\ntout ce qui se peut faire par les Hommes. Leur nombre est incro\u00efable,\nsuivant les Relations, & cependant ils sont forc\u00e9s de faire mourir\nplusieurs de leurs Enfans d\u00e8s le berceau, lorsqu'ils ne se voient pas le\nmo\u00efen de les \u00e9lever, n'en gardant que le nombre qu'ils peuvent nourrir.\nPar un travail rude & obstin\u00e9, ils tirent, des Rivieres, une quantit\u00e9\nextraordinaire de Poissons, & de la Terre, tout ce qu'on en peut tirer.\nN\u00e9anmoins lorsqu'il survient des ann\u00e9es st\u00e9riles, ils meurent de faim\npar milliers, malgr\u00e9 le soin de l'Empereur, qui fait des amas de riz\npour de pareils cas. Ainsi tous nombreux que sont les Habitans de la\nChine, ils se proportionnent n\u00e9cessairement aux mo\u00efens qu'ils ont de\nsubsister, & ne passent pas le nombre que le Pa\u00efs peut entretenir,\nsuivant la fa\u00e7on de vivre dont ils se contentent; & sur ce pi\u00e9, un seul\narpent de terre suffit pour en entretenir plusieurs.\nD'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, il n'y a pas de Pa\u00efs, o\u00f9 la multiplication des Hommes\nsoit plus born\u00e9e que parmi les Sauvages de l'Am\u00e9rique, dans l'int\u00e9rieur\ndes terres. Ils n\u00e9gligent l'Agriculture, ils habitent dans les Bois, &\nvivent de la Chasse des Animaux qu'ils y trouvent. Comme les Arbres\nconsument le suc & la substance de la terre, il y a peu d'herbe pour la\nnourriture de ces Animaux; & comme un Indien en mange plusieurs dans\nl'ann\u00e9e, cinquante \u00e0 cent arpens de terre ne donnent souvent que la\nnourriture d'un seul Indien.\nUn petit Peuple de ces Indiens aura quarante lieues quarr\u00e9es d'\u00e9tendue\npour les limites de sa Chasse. Ils se font des guerres regl\u00e9es &\ncruelles pour ces limites, & proportionnent toujours leur nombre aux\nmo\u00efens qu'ils trouvent de subsister par la Chasse.\nLes Habitans de l'Europe cultivent les terres, & en tirent des grains\npour leur subsistance. La laine des Moutons qu'ils nourrissent, leur\nsert d'habillement. Le froment est le grain dont le plus grand nombre se\nnourrit; quoique plusieurs Pa\u00efsans fassent leur pain de s\u00e9gle, & dans le\nNord, d'orge & d'aveine. La subsistance des Pa\u00efsans & du Peuple n'est\npas la m\u00eame dans tous les Pa\u00efs de l'Europe, & les terres y sont souvent\ndiff\u00e9rentes en bont\u00e9 & en fertilit\u00e9.\nLa pl\u00fbpart des terres de Flandres, & une partie de celles de la\nLombardie, rapportent dix-huit \u00e0 vingt fois le froment qu'on y a sem\u00e9,\nsans se reposer: la Campagne de Naples en rapporte encore d'avantage. Il\ny a quelques terres en France, en Espagne, en Angleterre & en Allemagne\nqui rapportent la m\u00eame quantit\u00e9. Ciceron nous apprend que les terres de\nSicile produisoient, de son tems, dix pour un; & Pline l'Ancien dit que\nles terres L\u00e9ontines en Sicile, rapportoient cent fois la semence; que\ncelles de Babylone la rendoient jusqu'\u00e0 cent cinquante fois; & quelques\nterres en Afrique, encore bien plus.\nAujourd'hui les terres en Europe peuvent rapporter, l'un portant\nl'autre, six fois la semence; de maniere qu'il reste cinq fois la\nsemence pour la consommation des Habitans. Les terres s'y reposent\nordinairement la troisieme ann\u00e9e, a\u00efant rapport\u00e9 du froment la premiere\nann\u00e9e, & du petit bl\u00e9, dans la seconde.\nOn pourra voir dans le Suppl\u00e9ment les calculs de la terre n\u00e9cessaire\npour la subsistance d'un Homme, dans les diff\u00e9rentes suppositions de sa\nmaniere de vivre.\nOn y verra qu'un Homme qui vit de pain, d'ail & de racines, qui ne porte\nque des habits de chanvre, du gros linge, des sabots, & qui ne boit que\nde l'eau, comme c'est le cas de plusieurs Pa\u00efsans dans les Parties\nm\u00e9ridionales de France, peut subsister du produit d'un arpent & demi de\nterre de mo\u00efenne bont\u00e9, qui rapporte six fois la semence, & qui se\nrepose tous les trois ans.\nD'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, un Homme adulte, qui porte des souliers de cuir, des\nbas, du drap de laine, qui vit dans des Maisons, qui a du linge \u00e0\nchanger, un lit, des chaises, une table, & autres choses n\u00e9cessaires,\nqui boit mod\u00e9r\u00e9ment de la biere, ou du vin, qui mange de la viande tous\nles jours, du beurre, du fromage, du pain, des l\u00e9gumes, &c. le tout\nsuffisamment, mais mod\u00e9r\u00e9ment, ne demande guere pour tout cela, que le\nproduit de quatre \u00e0 cinq arpens de terre de mo\u00efenne bont\u00e9. Il est vrai\nque dans ces calculs, on ne donne aucune terre pour le maintien d'autres\nChevaux, que de ceux qui sont n\u00e9cessaires pour labourer la terre, & pour\nle transport des denr\u00e9es, \u00e0 dix milles de distance.\nL'Histoire rapporte que les premiers Romains entretenoient chacun leur\nFamille, du produit de deux journaux de terre, qui ne faisoient qu'un\narpent de Paris, & 330 pi\u00e9s quarr\u00e9s, ou environ. Aussi ils \u00e9toient\npresque nus; ils n'usoient ni de vin, ni d'huile, couchoient dans la\npaille, & n'avoient presque point de commodit\u00e9s; mais comme ils\ntravailloient beaucoup la terre, qui est assez bonne aux environs de\nRome, ils en tiroient beaucoup de grains & de l\u00e9gumes.\nSi les Propri\u00e9taires de terres avoient \u00e0 coeur la multiplication des\nHommes, s'ils encourageoient les Pa\u00efsans \u00e0 se marier jeunes, & \u00e0 \u00e9lever\ndes Enfans, par la promesse de pourvoir \u00e0 leur subsistance, en destinant\nles terres uniquement \u00e0 cela, ils multiplieroient sans doute les Hommes,\njusqu'au nombre que les terres pourroient entretenir; & cela suivant les\nproduits de terre qu'ils destineroient \u00e0 la subsistance de chacun, soit\ncelui d'un arpent & demi, soit celui de quatre \u00e0 cinq arpens, par t\u00eate.\nMais si au lieu de cela le Prince, ou les Propri\u00e9taires de terres, les\nfont emplo\u00efer \u00e0 d'autres usages qu'\u00e0 l'entretien des Habitans; si, par\nle prix qu'ils donnent au March\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es & marchandises, ils\nd\u00e9terminent les Fermiers \u00e0 mettre les terres \u00e0 d'autres usages, que ceux\nqui servent \u00e0 l'entretien des Hommes (car nous avons v\u00fb que le prix que\nles Propri\u00e9taires offrent au March\u00e9, & la consommation qu'ils font,\nd\u00e9terminent l'emploi qu'on fait des terres, de la m\u00eame maniere que s'ils\nles faisoient valoir eux-m\u00eames), les Habitans diminueront n\u00e9cessairement\nen nombre. Les uns faute d'emploi seront oblig\u00e9s de quitter le Pa\u00efs,\nd'autres, ne se vo\u00efant pas les mo\u00efens n\u00e9cessaires pour \u00e9lever des\nEnfans, ne se marieront pas, ou ne se marieront que tard, apr\u00e8s avoir\nmis quelque chose \u00e0 part pour le soutien du m\u00e9nage.\nSi les Propri\u00e9taires de terres, qui vivent \u00e0 la Campagne, vont demeurer\ndans les Villes \u00e9loign\u00e9es de leurs Terres, il faudra nourrir des\nChevaux, tant pour le transport de leur subsistance \u00e0 la Ville, que de\ncelle de tous les Domestiques, Artisans, & autres, que leur r\u00e9sidence\ndans la Ville y attire.\nLa voiture des vins de Bourgogne \u00e0 Paris, coute souvent plus que le vin\nm\u00eame ne coute sur les lieux; & par cons\u00e9quent la terre emplo\u00ef\u00e9e pour\nl'entretien des Chevaux de voiture, & de ceux qui en ont soin, est plus\nconsid\u00e9rable que celle qui produit le vin, & qui entretient ceux qui ont\neu part \u00e0 sa production. Plus on entretient de Chevaux dans un Etat, &\nmoins il restera de subsistance pour les Habitans. L'entretien des\nChevaux de carrosse, de chasse ou de parade, coute souvent trois \u00e0\nquatre arpens de terre.\nMais lorsque les Seigneurs & les Propri\u00e9taires de terres tirent des\nManufactures \u00e9trangeres, leurs draps, leurs soieries, leurs dentelles,\n&c. & s'ils les paient en envo\u00efant chez l'Etranger le produit des\ndenr\u00e9es de l'Etat, ils diminuent par-l\u00e0 extraordinairement la\nsubsistance des Habitans, & augmentent celle des Etrangers qui\ndeviennent souvent les Ennemis de l'Etat.\nSi un Propri\u00e9taire, ou Seigneur Polonois, \u00e0 qui ses Fermiers paient\nannuellement une rente \u00e9gale \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s au produit du tiers de ses\nterres, se pla\u00eet \u00e0 se servir de draps, de linges, &c. d'Hollande, il\ndonnera pour ces marchandises la moiti\u00e9 de sa rente, & emploiera\npeut-\u00eatre l'autre pour la subsistance de sa Famille, en d'autres denr\u00e9es\n& marchandises du cr\u00fb de Pologne: or la moiti\u00e9 de sa rente, dans notre\nsupposition, r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la sixieme partie du produit de sa terre, & cette\nsixieme partie sera emport\u00e9e par les Hollandois, auxquels les Fermiers\nPolonois la donneront en bl\u00e9, laines, chanvres & autres denr\u00e9es: voil\u00e0\ndonc une sixieme partie de la terre de Pologne qu'on \u00f4te aux Habitans,\nsans comprendre la nourriture des Chevaux de voiture, de carrosse & de\nparade, qu'on entretient en Pologne, par la fa\u00e7on de vivre que les\nSeigneurs y suivent; & de plus, si sur les deux tiers du produit des\nterres qu'on attribue aux Fermiers, ceux-ci, \u00e0 l'exemple de leurs\nMa\u00eetres, consument des Manufactures \u00e9trangeres, qu'ils paieront aussi\naux Etrangers en denr\u00e9es du cr\u00fb de la Pologne, il y aura bien un bon\ntiers du produit des terres en Pologne qu'on \u00f4te \u00e0 la subsistance des\nHabitans, & qui pis est, dont la plus grande partie est envo\u00ef\u00e9e \u00e0\nl'Etranger, & sert souvent \u00e0 l'entretien des Ennemis de l'Etat. Si les\nPropri\u00e9taires des terres & les Seigneurs en Pologne ne vouloient\nconsommer que des Manufactures de leur Etat, quelque mauvaises qu'elles\nfussent dans leurs commencemens, ils les feroient devenir peu-\u00e0-peu\nmeilleures, & entretiendroient un grand nombre de leurs propres Habitans\n\u00e0 y travailler, au lieu de donner cet avantage \u00e0 des Etrangers: & si\ntous les Etats avoient un pareil soin de n'\u00eatre pas les dupes des autres\nEtats dans le Commerce, chaque Etat seroit consid\u00e9rable uniquement, \u00e0\nproportion de son produit & de l'industrie de ses Habitans.\nSi les Dames de Paris se plaisent \u00e0 porter des dentelles de Bruxelles, &\nsi la France paie ces dentelles en vin de Champagne, il faudra pa\u00efer le\nproduit d'un seul arpent de lin, par le produit de plus de seize mille\narpens en vignes, si j'ai bien calcul\u00e9. On expliquera cela plus\nparticuli\u00e9rement ailleurs, & on en pourra voir les calculs au\nSuppl\u00e9ment. Je me contenterai de remarquer ici qu'on \u00f4te dans ce\ncommerce un grand produit de terre \u00e0 la subsistance des Fran\u00e7ois, & que\ntoutes les denr\u00e9es qu'on envoie en Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, lorsqu'on n'en fait\npas revenir en \u00e9change un produit \u00e9galement consid\u00e9rable, tendent \u00e0\ndiminuer le nombre des Habitans de l'Etat.\nLorsque j'ai dit que les Propri\u00e9taires de terres pourroient multiplier\nles Habitans \u00e0 proportion du nombre que ces terres pourroient en\nentretenir, j'ai suppos\u00e9 que le plus grand nombre des Hommes ne demande\npas mieux qu'\u00e0 se marier, si on les met en \u00e9tat d'entretenir leurs\nFamilles de la m\u00eame maniere qu'ils se contentent de vivre eux-m\u00eames;\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, que si un Homme se contente du produit d'un arpent & demi\nde terre, il se mariera, pourvu qu'il soit s\u00fbr d'avoir de quoi\nentretenir sa Famille \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s de la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on; que s'il ne se\ncontente que du produit de cinq \u00e0 dix arpens, il ne s'empressera pas de\nse marier, \u00e0 moins qu'il ne croie pouvoir faire subsister sa Famille\n\u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s de m\u00eame.\nLes Enfans de la Noblesse en Europe sont \u00e9lev\u00e9s dans l'affluence; &\ncomme on donne ordinairement la plus grande partie du bien aux A\u00een\u00e9s,\nles Cadets ne s'empressent guere de se marier; ils vivent pour la\npl\u00fbpart gar\u00e7ons, soit dans les Arm\u00e9es, soit dans les Clo\u00eetres, mais\nrarement en trouvera-t-on qui ne soient pr\u00eats \u00e0 se marier, si on leur\noffre des H\u00e9ritieres & des Fortunes, c'est-\u00e0-dire, le mo\u00efen d'entretenir\nune Famille sur le pi\u00e9 de vivre qu'ils ont en vue, & sans lequel ils\ncroiroient rendre leurs Enfans malheureux.\nIl se trouve aussi dans les classes inf\u00e9rieures de l'Etat plusieurs\nHommes, qui, par orgueil & par des raisons semblables \u00e0 celles de la\nNoblesse, aiment mieux vivre dans le C\u00e9libat, & d\u00e9penser sur eux-m\u00eames\nle peu de bien qu'ils ont, que de se mettre en m\u00e9nage. Mais la plupart\ns'y mettroient volontiers, s'ils pouvoient compter sur un entretien pour\nleur Famille tel qu'ils le voudroient: ils croiroient faire tort \u00e0 leurs\nEnfans, s'ils en \u00e9levoient pour les voir tomber dans une Classe\ninf\u00e9rieure \u00e0 la leur. Il n'y a qu'un tr\u00e8s petit nombre d'Habitans dans\nun Etat, qui \u00e9vitent le mariage par pur esprit de libertinage: tous les\nbas Ordres des Habitans ne demandent qu'\u00e0 vivre, & \u00e0 \u00e9lever des Enfans\nqui puissent au moins vivre comme eux. Lorsque les Laboureurs & les\nArtisans ne se marient pas, c'est qu'ils attendent \u00e0 \u00e9pargner quelque\nchose pour se mettre en \u00e9tat d'entrer en m\u00e9nage, ou \u00e0 trouver quelque\nFille qui apporte quelque petit fond pour cela; parcequ'ils voient\njournellement plusieurs autres de leur espece, qui, faute de prendre de\npareilles pr\u00e9cautions, entrent en m\u00e9nage & tombent dans la plus affreuse\npauvret\u00e9, \u00e9tant oblig\u00e9s de se frauder de leur propre subsistance, pour\nnourrir leurs Enfans.\nPar les observations de M. Halley \u00e0 Breslaw en Sil\u00e9sie, on remarque que\nde toutes les Femelles qui sont en \u00e9tat de porter des enfans, depuis\nl'\u00e2ge de seize jusqu'\u00e0 quarante cinq ans, il n'y en a pas une, en six,\nqui porte effectivement un enfant tous les ans; au lieu, dit M. Halley,\nqu'il devroit y en avoir au moins quatre ou six qui accouchassent tous\nles ans, sans y compter celles qui peuvent \u00eatre st\u00e9riles ou qui peuvent\navorter. Qui est ce qui emp\u00eache que quatre Filles en six ne portent tous\nles ans des Enfans, c'est qu'elles ne peuvent pas se marier \u00e0 cause des\nd\u00e9couragemens & emp\u00eachemens qui s'y trouvent. Une Fille prend soin de ne\npas devenir Mere, si elle n'est mari\u00e9e; elle ne se peut marier si elle\nne trouve un Homme qui veuille en courir les risques. La plus grande\npartie des Habitans dans un Etat sont \u00e0 gages ou Entrepreneurs; la\npl\u00fbpart sont d\u00e9pendans, la pl\u00fbpart sont dans l'incertitude, s'ils\ntrouveront par leur travail ou par leurs entreprises, le mo\u00efen de faire\nsubsister leur m\u00e9nage sur le pi\u00e9 qu'ils l'envisagent; cela fait qu'ils\nne se marient pas tous, ou qu'ils se marient si tard, que de six\nFemelles, ou du moins de quatre, qui devroient tous les ans produire un\nEnfant, il ne s'en trouve effectivement qu'une, en six, qui devienne\nMere.\nQue les Propri\u00e9taires de terres aident \u00e0 entretenir les m\u00e9nages, il ne\nfaut qu'une g\u00e9n\u00e9ration pour porter la multiplication des Hommes aussi\nloin que les produits des terres peuvent fournir de mo\u00efens de subsister.\nLes Enfans ne demandent pas tant de produit de terre que les personnes\nadultes. Les uns & les autres peuvent vivre de plus ou de moins de\nproduit de terre, suivant ce qu'ils consument. On a vu des Peuples du\nNord, o\u00f9 les terres produisent peu, vivre de si peu de produit de terre,\nqu'ils ont envo\u00ef\u00e9 des Colonies & des essains d'Hommes envahir les terres\ndu Sud & en d\u00e9truire les Habitans, pour s'approprier leurs terres.\nSuivant les diff\u00e9rentes fa\u00e7ons de vivre, quatre cens mille Habitans\npourroient subsister sur le m\u00eame produit de terre, qui n'en entretient\nr\u00e9gulierement que cent mille. Et celui qui ne d\u00e9pense que le produit\nd'un arpent & demi de terre sera peut-\u00eatre plus robuste & plus brave que\ncelui qui d\u00e9pense le produit de cinq \u00e0 dix arpens. Voil\u00e0, ce me semble,\nassez d'inductions pour faire sentir que le nombre des Habitans, dans un\nEtat, d\u00e9pend des mo\u00efens de subsister; & comme les mo\u00efens de subsistance\nd\u00e9pendent de l'application & des usages qu'on fait des terres, & que ces\nusages d\u00e9pendent des volont\u00e9s, du go\u00fbt & de la fa\u00e7on de vivre des\nPropri\u00e9taires de terres principalement, il est clair que la\nmultiplication ou le d\u00e9croissement des Peuples d\u00e9pendent d'eux.\nLa multiplication des Hommes peut \u00eatre port\u00e9e au plus loin dans les Pa\u00efs\no\u00f9 les Habitans se contentent de vivre le plus pauvrement & de d\u00e9penser\nle moins de produit de la terre; mais dans les Pa\u00efs o\u00f9 tous les Pa\u00efsans\n& Laboureurs sont dans l'habitude de manger souvent de la viande, & de\nboire du vin, ou de la biere, &c. on ne sauroit entretenir tant\nd'Habitans.\nLe Chevalier Guille Petty, & apr\u00e8s lui M. Davenent, Inspecteurs des\nDouanes en Angleterre, semblent s'\u00e9loigner beaucoup des voies de la\nnature, lorsqu'ils t\u00e2chent de calculer la propagation des Hommes, par\ndes progressions de g\u00e9n\u00e9ration depuis le premier Pere Adam. Leurs\ncalculs semblent \u00eatre purement imaginaires & dress\u00e9s au hasard. Sur ce\nqu'ils ont pu observer de la propagation r\u00e9elle dans certains cantons,\ncomment pourroient-ils rendre raison de la diminution de ces Peuples\ninnombrables qu'on vo\u00efoit autrefois en Asie, en Egypte, &c. m\u00eame de\ncelle des Peuples de l'Europe? Si l'on vo\u00efoit, il y a dix-sept siecles,\nvingt-six millions d'Habitans en Italie, qui pr\u00e9sentement est r\u00e9duite \u00e0\nsix millions pour le plus, comment pourra-t-on d\u00e9terminer par les\nprogressions de M. King, que l'Angleterre qui contient aujourd'hui cinq\n\u00e0 six millions d'Habitans, en aura probablement treize millions dans un\ncertain nombre d'ann\u00e9es? Nous vo\u00efons tous les jours que les Anglois, en\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ral, consomment plus de produit de terre que leurs Peres ne\nfaisoient, c'est le vrai mo\u00efen qu'il y ait moins d'Habitans que par le\npass\u00e9.\nLes Hommes se multiplient comme des Souris dans une grange, s'ils ont le\nmo\u00efen de subsister sans limitation; & les Anglois dans les Colonies\ndeviendront plus nombreux, \u00e0 proportion, dans trois g\u00e9n\u00e9rations, qu'ils\nne seront en Angleterre en trente; parceque dans les Colonies ils\ntrouvent \u00e0 d\u00e9fricher de nouveaux fonds de terre dont ils chassent les\nSauvages.\nDans tous les Pa\u00efs les Hommes ont eu en tout tems des guerres pour les\nterres, & pour les mo\u00efens de subsister. Lorsque les guerres ont d\u00e9truit\nou diminu\u00e9 les Habitans d'un Pa\u00efs, les Sauvages, & les Nations polic\u00e9es,\nle repeuplent bient\u00f4t en tems de paix; sur-tout lorsque le Prince & les\nPropri\u00e9taires de terres y donnent de l'encouragement.\nUn Etat qui a conquis plusieurs Provinces, peut acquerir, par les\ntributs qu'il impose \u00e0 ses Peuples vaincus, une augmentation de\nsubsistance pour ses Habitans. Les Romains tiroient une grande partie de\nla leur, d'Egypte, de Sicile & d'Afrique, & c'est ce qui faisoit que\nl'Italie contenoit tant d'Habitans alors.\nUn Etat, o\u00f9 il se trouve des Mines, qui a des Manufactures o\u00f9 il se fait\ndes ouvrages qui ne demandent pas beaucoup de produit de terre pour leur\nenvoi dans les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, & qui en retire, en \u00e9change, beaucoup de\ndenr\u00e9es & de produit de terre, acquert une augmentation de fond pour la\nsubsistance de ses Sujets.\nLes Hollandois \u00e9changent leur travail, soit dans la Navigation, soit\ndans la P\u00eache ou les Manufactures, avec les Etrangers g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement,\ncontre le produit des terres. La Hollande sans cela ne pourroit\nentretenir de son fond la moiti\u00e9 de ses Habitans. L'Angleterre tire de\nl'Etranger des quantit\u00e9s consid\u00e9rables de Bois, de Chanvres, & d'autres\nmat\u00e9riaux ou produits de terre, & consomme beaucoup de vins qu'elle paie\nen Mines, Manufactures, &c. Cela \u00e9pargne chez eux une grande quantit\u00e9 de\nproduits de terre; & sans ces avantages, les Habitans en Angleterre, sur\nle pi\u00e9 de la d\u00e9pense qu'on y fait pour l'entretien des Hommes, ne\npourroient \u00eatre si nombreux qu'ils le sont. Les Mines de Charbon y\n\u00e9pargnent plusieurs millions d'arpens de terre, qu'on seroit oblig\u00e9 sans\ncela d'emplo\u00efer \u00e0 produire des Bois.\nMais tous ces avantages sont des raffinemens & des cas accidentels, que\nje ne considere ici qu'en passant. La voie naturelle & constante,\nd'augmenter les Habitans d'un Etat, c'est de leur y donner de l'emploi,\n& de faire servir les terres \u00e0 produire de quoi les entretenir.\nC'est aussi une question qui n'est pas de mon sujet de savoir s'il vaut\nmieux avoir une grande multitude d'Habitans pauvres & mal entretenus,\nqu'un nombre moins consid\u00e9rable, mais bien plus \u00e0 leur aise; un million\nd'Habitans qui consomment le produit de six arpens par t\u00eate, ou quatre\nmillions qui vivent de celui d'un arpent & demi.\nCHAPITRE XVI.\n_Plus il y a de travail dans un Etat, & plus l'Etat est cens\u00e9 riche\nnaturellement._\nPar un long calcul fait dans le Suppl\u00e9ment, il est facile \u00e0 voir que le\ntravail de vingt-cinq personnes adultes suffit pour procurer \u00e0 cent\nautres, aussi adultes, toutes les choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, suivant\nla consommation de notre Europe. Dans ces calculs, il est vrai, la\nnourriture, l'habillement, le logement, &c. sont grossiers & peu\ntravaill\u00e9s; mais l'aisance & l'abondance s'y trouvent. On peut pr\u00e9sumer\nqu'il y a un bon tiers des Habitans d'un Etat trop jeunes ou trop vieux\npour le travail journalier, & encore une sixieme partie compos\u00e9e de\nPropri\u00e9taires de terres, de Malades, & de diff\u00e9rentes esp\u00e9ces\nd'Entrepreneurs, qui ne contribuent point, par le travail de leurs\nmains, aux diff\u00e9rens besoins des Hommes. Tout cela fait une moiti\u00e9 des\nHabitans qui sont sans travail, ou du moins sans le travail dont il\ns'agit. Ainsi, si vingt-cinq personnes font tout le travail n\u00e9cessaire\npour l'entretien de cent autres, il restera vingt-cinq personnes, en\ncent, qui sont en \u00e9tat de travailler & qui n'auront rien \u00e0 faire.\nLes Gens de guerre, & les Domestiques dans les Familles ais\u00e9es, feront\nune partie de ces vingt-cinq personnes; & si on emploie tous les autres\n\u00e0 raffiner, par un travail additionnel, les choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie,\ncomme \u00e0 faire du linge fin, des draps fins, &c. l'Etat sera cens\u00e9 riche\n\u00e0 proportion de cette augmentation de travail, quoiqu'elle n'ajoute rien\n\u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 des choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la subsistance & \u00e0 l'entretien\ndes Hommes.\nLe travail donne un surcro\u00eet de go\u00fbt \u00e0 la nourriture & \u00e0 la boisson. Une\nFourchette, un Couteau, &c. travaill\u00e9s finement sont plus estim\u00e9s que\nceux qui sont travaill\u00e9s grossierement & \u00e0 la h\u00e2te: on en peut dire\nautant d'une Maison, d'un lit, d'une table, & g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement de tout ce\nqui est n\u00e9cessaire aux commodit\u00e9s de la vie.\nIl est vrai qu'il est assez indiff\u00e9rent dans un Etat, qu'on soit dans\nl'usage de porter de gros draps, ou des draps fins, si les uns & les\nautres sont \u00e9galement durables, & qu'on y mange d\u00e9licatement, ou\ngrossierement, si l'on suppose qu'on en ait assez & qu'on se porte bien;\nattendu que le boire, le manger, l'habillement, &c. se consument\n\u00e9galement, soit qu'on les pr\u00e9pare proprement ou grossierement, & qu'il\nne reste rien dans l'Etat de ces esp\u00e9ces de richesses.\nMais il est toujours vrai de dire que les Etats, o\u00f9 l'on porte de beaux\ndraps, de beau linge, &c., & o\u00f9 l'on mange proprement & d\u00e9licatement,\nsont plus riches & plus estim\u00e9s que ceux o\u00f9 tout cela est grossier; &\nm\u00eame que les Etats o\u00f9 l'on voit plus d'Habitans, vivant de la fa\u00e7on des\npremiers, sont plus estim\u00e9s que ceux o\u00f9 l'on en voit moins, \u00e0\nproportion.\nMais si l'on emplo\u00efoit les vingt-cinq personnes, en cent, dont nous\navons parl\u00e9, \u00e0 procurer des choses durables, comme \u00e0 tirer des Mines le\nFer, le Plomb, l'Etaim, le Cuivre, &c. & \u00e0 les travailler pour en faire\ndes outils & des instrumens pour la commodit\u00e9 des Hommes, des vases, de\nla vaisselle, & d'autres choses utiles, qui durent beaucoup plus que\nceux qu'on peut faire de terre, l'Etat n'en paro\u00eetra pas seulement plus\nriche, mais le sera r\u00e9ellement.\nIl le sera sur-tout, si l'on emploie ces Habitans \u00e0 tirer, du sein de la\nTerre, de l'Or & de l'Argent, qui sont des M\u00e9taux non-seulement\ndurables, mais pour ainsi dire, permanens, que le feu m\u00eame ne sauroit\nconsumer, qui sont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement re\u00e7us, comme la mesure des valeurs, &\nqu'on peut \u00e9ternellement \u00e9changer pour tout ce qui est n\u00e9cessaire dans\nla vie: & si ces Habitans travaillent \u00e0 attirer l'or & l'argent dans\nl'Etat, en \u00e9change des Manufactures & des ouvrages qu'ils y font & qui\nsont envo\u00ef\u00e9s dans les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, leur travail sera \u00e9galement utile,\n& ameliorera r\u00e9ellement l'Etat.\nCar le point, qui semble d\u00e9terminer la grandeur comparative des Etats,\nest le corps de r\u00e9serve qu'ils ont, au-del\u00e0 de la consommation annuelle,\ncomme les Magasins de draps, de linge, de bl\u00e9s, &c. pour servir dans les\nann\u00e9es st\u00e9riles, en cas de besoin, ou de guerre. Et d'autant que l'or &\nl'argent peuvent toujours acheter tout cela des Ennemis m\u00eame de l'Etat,\nle vrai Corps de r\u00e9serve d'un Etat est l'or & l'argent, dont la plus\ngrande ou la plus petite quantit\u00e9 actuelle d\u00e9termine n\u00e9cessairement la\ngrandeur comparative des Ro\u00efaumes & des Etats.\nSi on est dans l'habitude d'attirer l'or & l'argent de l'Etranger par\nl'exportation des denr\u00e9es & des produits de l'Etat, comme des bl\u00e9s, des\nvins, des laines, &c. cela ne laissera pas d'enrichir l'Etat aux d\u00e9pens\ndu d\u00e9croissement des Peuples; mais si on attire l'or & l'argent de\nl'Etranger, en \u00e9change du travail des Habitans, comme des Manufactures &\ndes ouvrages o\u00f9 il entre peu de produit de terre, cela enrichira cet\nEtat utilement & essentiellement. Il est vrai que dans un grand Etat on\nne sauroit emplo\u00efer les vingt-cinq personnes en cent, dont nous avons\nparl\u00e9, pour faire des Ouvrages qui puissent \u00eatre consomm\u00e9s chez\nl'Etranger. Un million d'Hommes feront plus de draps, par exemple, qu'il\nn'en sera consomm\u00e9 annuellement dans toute la Terre commer\u00e7ante;\nparceque le gros des Habitans de chaque Pa\u00efs est toujours habill\u00e9 du cr\u00fb\ndu Pa\u00efs: & rarement trouvera-t-on en aucun Etat cent mille personnes\nemplo\u00ef\u00e9es pour l'habillement des Etrangers; comme on peut voir au\nSuppl\u00e9ment, par rapport \u00e0 l'Angleterre, qui de toutes les Nations de\nl'Europe, est celle qui fournit le plus d'\u00e9toffes aux Etrangers.\nAfin que la consommation des Manufactures d'un Etat devienne\nconsid\u00e9rable chez l'Etranger, il faut les rendre bonnes & estimables par\nune grande consommation dans l'int\u00e9rieur de l'Etat; il faut y d\u00e9cr\u00e9diter\ntoutes les Manufactures Etrangeres, & y donner beaucoup d'emploi aux\nHabitans.\nSi on ne trouvoit pas assez d'emploi pour occuper les vingt-cinq\npersonnes, en cent, \u00e0 des choses utiles & avantageuses \u00e0 l'Etat, je ne\ntrouverois pas d'inconvenient qu'on y encourage\u00e2t le travail qui ne sert\nqu'\u00e0 l'ornement ou \u00e0 l'amusement. L'Etat n'est pas moins cens\u00e9 riche,\npar mille babioles qui regardent l'ajustement des Dames, & m\u00eame des\nHommes, & qui servent aux jeux & aux divertissemens qu'on y voit, que\npar les ouvrages qui sont utiles & commodes. Diogene, au siege de\nCorinthe, se mit, dit-on, \u00e0 rouler son tonneau, afin de ne pas paro\u00eetre\noisif, pendant que tout le monde \u00e9toit occup\u00e9; & nous avons aujourd'hui\ndes Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s entieres, tant d'Hommes que de Femmes, qui s'occupent de\ntravaux & d'exercices aussi inutiles \u00e0 l'Etat, que celui de Diogene.\nPour peu que le travail d'un Homme apporte d'ornement ou m\u00eame\nd'amusement dans un Etat, il vaut la peine d'\u00eatre encourag\u00e9; \u00e0 moins que\ncet Homme ne trouve mo\u00efen de s'emplo\u00efer utilement.\nC'est toujours le g\u00e9nie des Propri\u00e9taires de terres qui encourage ou\nd\u00e9courage les diff\u00e9rentes occupations des Habitans & les diff\u00e9rens\ngenres de travail que ceux-ci imaginent.\nL'exemple du Prince, qui est suivi de sa Cour, est ordinairement capable\nde d\u00e9terminer le g\u00e9nie & les go\u00fbts des autres Propri\u00e9taires de terres\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ralement; & l'exemple de ceux-ci influe naturellement sur tous les\nordres subalternes. Ainsi il n'est pas douteux qu'un Prince ne puisse\npar le seul exemple, & sans aucune contrainte, donner telle tournure\nqu'il voudra au travail de ses Sujets.\nSi chaque Propri\u00e9taire, dans un Etat, n'avoit qu'une petite portion de\nterre, semblable \u00e0 celle qu'on laisse ordinairement \u00e0 la conduite d'un\nseul Fermier, il n'y auroit presque point de Ville; & les Habitans\nseroient plus nombreux & l'Etat seroit bien riche, si chacun de ces\nPropri\u00e9taires occupoit \u00e0 quelque travail utile les Habitans que sa terre\nnourrit.\nMais lorsque les Seigneurs ont de grandes possessions de terres, ils\nentra\u00eenent n\u00e9cessairement le luxe & l'oisivet\u00e9. Qu'un Abb\u00e9, \u00e0 la t\u00eate de\ncinquante Moines, vive du produit de plusieurs belles Terres, ou qu'un\nSeigneur, qui a cinquante Domestiques, & des Chevaux, qu'il n'entretient\nque pour le servir, vive de ces terres, cela seroit indiff\u00e9rent \u00e0\nl'Etat, s'il pouvoit demeurer dans une paix constante.\nMais un Seigneur avec sa suite & ses Chevaux est utile \u00e0 l'Etat en tems\nde guerre; il peut toujours \u00eatre utile dans la Magistrature & pour\nmaintenir l'ordre dans l'Etat en tems de paix; & en toute situation il y\nest d'un grand ornement: au lieu que les Moines ne sont, comme on dit,\nd'aucune utilit\u00e9 ni d'aucun ornement en paix ni en guerre, en de\u00e7\u00e0 du\nParadis.\nLes Couvens des Mandians sont bien plus pernicieux \u00e0 un Etat, que ceux\ndes Moines rent\u00e9s. Les derniers ne font d'autre tort ordinairement, que\nd'occuper des terres, qui serviroient \u00e0 fournir \u00e0 l'Etat des Officiers &\ndes Magistrats; au lieu que les Mandians, qui sont eux-m\u00eames sans aucun\ntravail utile, interrompent souvent & emp\u00eachent le travail des autres\nHabitans. Ils tirent des pauvres gens en charit\u00e9s la subsistance qui\ndoit les fortifier dans leur travail. Ils leur font perdre beaucoup de\ntems en conversations inutiles; sans parler de ceux qui s'intriguent\ndans les Familles, & de ceux qui sont vicieux. L'exp\u00e9rience fait voir\nque les Etats qui ont embrass\u00e9 le Protestantisme, & qui n'ont ni Moines\nni Mandians, en sont devenus visiblement plus puissants. Ils jouissent\naussi de l'avantage d'avoir supprim\u00e9 un grand nombre de F\u00eates qu'on\nchomme dans les pa\u00efs Catholiques romains, & qui diminuent le travail des\nHabitans, de pr\u00e8s d'une-huitieme partie de l'ann\u00e9e.\nSi l'on vouloit tirer parti de tout dans un Etat, on pourroit, ce me\nsemble, y diminuer le nombre des Mandians en les incorporant dans la\nMoinerie, \u00e0 mesure qu'il y arriveroit des vacances ou des morts; sans\ninterdire ces retraites \u00e0 ceux qui ne pourroient pas donner des\n\u00e9chantillons de leur habilet\u00e9 dans les Sciences sp\u00e9culatives, qui sont\ncapables d'avancer les Arts en pratique, c'est-\u00e0-dire, dans quelque\npartie des Math\u00e9matiques. Le c\u00e9libat des Gens d'\u00e9glise n'est pas si\nd\u00e9savantageux qu'on le croit vulgairement, suivant ce qu'on a \u00e9tabli\ndans le Chapitre pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent; mais leur fain\u00e9antise est tr\u00e8s nuisible.\nCHAPITRE XVII.\n_Des M\u00e9taux & des Monnoies, & particulierement de l'or & de l'argent._\nComme la terre produit plus ou moins de bl\u00e9, suivant sa fertilit\u00e9 & le\ntravail qu'on y met; de m\u00eame les Mines de fer, de plomb, d'\u00e9taim, d'or,\nd'argent, &c., produisent plus ou moins de ces M\u00e9taux, suivant la\nrichesse de ces Mines & la quantit\u00e9 & la qualit\u00e9 du travail qu'on y met,\nsoit pour creuser la terre, soit pour faire \u00e9couler les eaux, pour\nfondre & affiner, &c. Le travail des Mines d'argent est cher par rapport\n\u00e0 la mortalit\u00e9 des Hommes qu'il cause, attendu qu'on ne passe guere cinq\nou six ans dans ce travail.\nLa valeur r\u00e9elle ou intrinseque des M\u00e9taux, comme de toutes choses, est\nproportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la terre & au travail n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 leur production. La\nd\u00e9pense de la terre, pour cette production n'est consid\u00e9rable qu'autant\nque le Propri\u00e9taire de la Mine pourroit obtenir un profit par le travail\ndes Mineurs, lorsque les veines s'en trouvent plus riches qu'\u00e0\nl'ordinaire. La terre n\u00e9cessaire pour l'entretien des Mineurs & des\nTravailleurs, c'est-\u00e0-dire, le travail de la Mine fait souvent l'article\nprincipal, & souvent la ruine, de l'Entrepreneur.\nLa valeur des m\u00e9taux au March\u00e9, de m\u00eame que de toutes les marchandises\nou denr\u00e9es, est tant\u00f4t au-dessus, tant\u00f4t au-dessous, de la valeur\nintrinseque, & varie \u00e0 proportion de leur abondance ou de leur raret\u00e9,\nsuivant la consommation qui s'en fait.\nSi les Propri\u00e9taires de terres, & les autres Ordres subalternes d'un\nEtat qui les imitent, rejettoient l'usage de l'\u00e9taim & du cuivre, dans\nla supposition, quoique fausse, que ces M\u00e9taux sont nuisibles \u00e0 la\nsant\u00e9, & s'ils se servoient universellement de vaisselle & de batterie\nde terre, ces M\u00e9taux seroient \u00e0 vil prix, dans les March\u00e9s & on\ndiscontinueroit le travail qu'on conduisoit pour les tirer de la Mine.\nMais comme ces M\u00e9taux sont trouv\u00e9s utiles, & qu'on s'en sert dans les\nusages de la vie, ils auront toujours au March\u00e9, une valeur qui\ncorrespondra \u00e0 leur abondance ou raret\u00e9, & \u00e0 la consommation qui s'en\nfera; & on en tirera toujours de la Mine, pour remplacer la quantit\u00e9 qui\nen p\u00e9rit dans l'usage journalier.\nLe Fer est non-seulement utile pour les usages de la vie commune, mais\non pourroit dire qu'il est en quelque fa\u00e7on n\u00e9cessaire; & si les\nAm\u00e9riquains, qui ne s'en servoient pas avant la d\u00e9couverte de leur\nContinent, en avoient d\u00e9couvert des Mines & en eussent connu les usages,\nil n'est pas douteux qu'ils n'eussent travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 la production de ce\nm\u00e9tal, quelques frais qu'il leur en e\u00fbt cout\u00e9.\nL'or & l'argent peuvent non-seulement servir aux m\u00eames usages que\nl'\u00e9taim & le cuivre, mais encore \u00e0 la pl\u00fbpart des usages qu'on fait du\nplomb & du fer. Ils ont encore cet avantage par-dessus les autres\nm\u00e9taux, que le feu ne les consume pas, & ils sont si durables qu'on peut\nles regarder comme des corps permanens: il n'est donc pas \u00e9tonnant que\nles Hommes, qui ont trouv\u00e9 les autres m\u00e9taux utiles, aient estim\u00e9 l'or &\nl'argent, avant m\u00eame qu'on s'en serv\u00eet dans le troc. Les Romains les\n\u00e9stimoient d\u00e8s la fondation de Rome, & n\u00e9anmoins ils ne s'en sont servis\npour monnoie, que cinq cens ans apr\u00e8s. Peut-\u00eatre que toutes les autres\nNations en faisoient de m\u00eame, & qu'elles n'adopterent ces m\u00e9taux pour\nmonnoie que long-tems apr\u00e8s qu'on s'en \u00e9toit servi pour les autres\nusages ordinaires. Cependant nous trouvons par les plus anciens\nHistoriens que de tems imm\u00e9morial on se servoit d'or & d'argent pour\nmonnoie dans l'Egypte & dans l'Asie; & nous apprenons dans la Genese\nqu'on fabriquoit des monnoies d'argent du tems d'Abraham.\nSupposons maintenant que le premier argent fut trouv\u00e9 dans une Mine du\nMont Niphates dans la M\u00e9sopotamie. Il est naturel de croire qu'un ou\nplusieurs Propri\u00e9taires de terres, trouvant ce m\u00e9tal beau & utile, en\nont d'abord fait usage, & qu'ils ont encourag\u00e9 volontiers le Mineur ou\nl'Entrepreneur, d'en tirer d'avantage de la Mine, en lui donnant, en\n\u00e9change de son travail & de celui de ses Assistans, autant de produit de\nterre qu'il en falloit pour leur entretien. Ce M\u00e9tal devenant de plus en\nplus estim\u00e9 dans la M\u00e9sopotamie, si les gros Propri\u00e9taires achetoient\ndes aiguieres d'argent, les ordres subalternes, selon leurs mo\u00efens ou\n\u00e9pargnes, pouvoient acheter des gobelets d'argent; & l'Entrepreneur de\nla Mine, vo\u00efant un d\u00e9bit constant de sa marchandise, lui donna sans\ndoute une valeur proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 sa qualit\u00e9 ou \u00e0 son poids contre les\nautres denr\u00e9es ou marchandises qu'il recevoit en \u00e9change. Tandis que\ntous les Habitans regardoient ce m\u00e9tal comme une chose pr\u00e9cieuse &\ndurable, & s'effor\u00e7oient d'en posseder quelques pieces, l'Entrepreneur,\nqui seul en pouvoit distribuer, \u00e9toit en quelque fa\u00e7on ma\u00eetre d'exiger\nen \u00e9change une quantit\u00e9 arbitraire des autres denr\u00e9es & marchandises.\nSupposons encore qu'on d\u00e9couvrit au-del\u00e0 de la Riviere du Tigris, & par\ncons\u00e9quent hors de la M\u00e9sopotamie, une nouvelle Mine d'argent, dont les\nveines se trouverent incomparablement plus riches & plus abondantes que\ncelles du Mont Niphates, & que le travail de cette nouvelle Mine, d'o\u00f9\nles eaux s'\u00e9couloient facilement, \u00e9toit bien moindre que celui de la\npremiere.\nIl est bien naturel de croire que l'Entrepreneur de cette nouvelle Mine\n\u00e9toit en \u00e9tat de fournir de l'argent \u00e0 bien plus bas prix, que celui du\nMont Niphates; & que les Habitans de la M\u00e9sopotamie, qui d\u00e9siroient de\nposseder des pieces & des ouvrages d'argent, trouvoient mieux leur\ncompte de transporter leurs marchandises hors du Pa\u00efs, & de les donner \u00e0\nl'Entrepreneur de la nouvelle Mine en \u00e9change de ce m\u00e9tal, que d'en\nprendre de l'Entrepreneur ancien. Celui-ci, se trouvant moins de d\u00e9bit,\ndiminuoit n\u00e9cessairement son prix; mais le nouvel Entrepreneur baissant\n\u00e0 proportion le sien, l'ancien Entrepreneur devoit n\u00e9cessairement cesser\nson travail, & alors le prix de l'argent, contre les autres marchandises\n& denr\u00e9es, se regloit n\u00e9cessairement sur celui qu'on y mettoit \u00e0 la\nnouvelle Mine. L'argent coutoit donc moins alors aux Habitans au-del\u00e0 du\nTigris, qu'\u00e0 ceux de la M\u00e9sopotamie, puisque ceux-ci \u00e9toient oblig\u00e9s de\nfaire les frais d'un long transport de leurs denr\u00e9es & de leurs\nmarchandises pour acquerir de l'argent.\nOn peut ais\u00e9ment concevoir que lorsqu'on eut trouv\u00e9 plusieurs Mines\nd'argent, & que les Propri\u00e9taires de terres eurent pris go\u00fbt \u00e0 ce m\u00e9tal,\nils furent imit\u00e9s par les autres Ordres; & que les pieces & morceaux\nd'argent, lors m\u00eame qu'ils n'\u00e9toient pas mis en oeuvre, furent\nrecherch\u00e9s avec empressement, parceque rien n'\u00e9toit plus facile que d'en\nfaire tels ouvrages qu'on vouloit, \u00e0 proportion de la quantit\u00e9 & du\npoids qu'on en avoit. Comme ce m\u00e9tal \u00e9toit estim\u00e9 au moins suivant la\nvaleur qu'il coutoit pour sa production, quelques gens qui en\npossedoient, se trouvant dans quelques n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s, pouvoient le mettre\nen gage pour emprunter les choses dont ils avoient besoin, & m\u00eame le\nvendre ensuite tout-\u00e0-fait: de-l\u00e0 est venue l'habitude d'en regler la\nvaleur \u00e0 proportion de sa quantit\u00e9, c'est-\u00e0-dire de son poids, contre\ntoutes les denr\u00e9es & marchandises. Mais comme on peut allier avec\nl'argent, le fer, le plomb, l'\u00e9taim, le cuivre, &c., qui sont des m\u00e9taux\nmoins rares, & qu'on tire des Mines avec moins de frais, le troc de\nl'argent \u00e9toit sujet \u00e0 beaucoup de tromperie, & cela fit que plusieurs\nRo\u00efaumes ont \u00e9tabli des H\u00f4tels-de-Monnoie pour certifier, par une\nfabrication publique, la veritable quantit\u00e9 d'argent que contient chaque\npiece, & pour rendre aux Particuliers qui y portent des barres ou\nlingots d'argent, la m\u00eame quantit\u00e9 en pieces portant une empreinte ou\ncertificat de la quantit\u00e9 v\u00e9ritable d'argent qu'elles contiennent.\nLes frais de ces certificats ou fabrications sont pa\u00ef\u00e9s quelquefois par\nle Public ou par le Prince, c'est la m\u00e9thode qu'on suivoit anciennement\n\u00e0 Rome, & aujourd'hui en Angleterre; quelquefois les Porteurs des\nmatieres d'argent supportent les frais de la fabrication, comme c'est\nl'usage en France.\nOn ne trouve presque jamais l'argent pur dans les Mines. Les Anciens ne\nsavoient pas m\u00eame l'art de l'affiner dans la derniere perfection. Ils\nfabriquoient toujours leurs Monnoies d'argent sur le fin; & cependant\ncelles qui nous restent des Grecs, des Romains, des Juifs & des\nAsiatiques, ne se trouvent jamais de la derniere finesse. Aujourd'hui on\nest plus habile: on a le secret de rendre l'argent pur. Les diff\u00e9rentes\nmanieres de l'affiner ne sont point de mon sujet: plusieurs Auteurs en\nont trait\u00e9, & entr'autres, M. Boizard. Je remarquerai seulement qu'il y\na beaucoup de frais \u00e0 faire pour affiner l'argent, & que c'est la raison\npour laquelle on pr\u00e9fere une once d'argent pur, par exemple, \u00e0 deux\nonces d'argent qui contiennent une moiti\u00e9 de cuivre ou d'autre alloi. Il\nen coute pour d\u00e9tacher cet alloi & pour tirer l'once d'argent r\u00e9el qui\nest dans ces deux onces, au lieu que par une simple fonte on peut allier\ntout autre m\u00e9tal avec l'argent, en telle proportion qu'on veut. Si on\nallie quelquefois le cuivre avec l'argent pur, ce n'est que pour le\nrendre plus mall\u00e9able, & plus propre pour les ouvrages qu'on en fait.\nMais dans l'estimation de tout argent, le cuivre ou l'alliage n'est\ncompt\u00e9 pour rien, & on ne considere que la quantit\u00e9 d'argent r\u00e9el &\nv\u00e9ritable. C'est pour cela qu'on fait toujours un essai pour conno\u00eetre\ncette quantit\u00e9 d'argent v\u00e9ritable.\nFaire l'essai, n'est autre chose qu'affiner un petit morceau de la barre\nd'argent, par exemple, qu'on veut essa\u00efer, pour savoir combien elle\ncontient de v\u00e9ritable argent, & pour juger de toute la barre par ce\npetit morceau. On coupe donc un petit morceau de la barre, de douze\ngrains par exemple, & on le pese exactement dans des balances qui sont\nsi justes qu'il ne faut quelquefois que la millieme partie d'un grain\npour les faire tr\u00e9bucher. Ensuite on l'affine par l'eau-forte, ou par le\nfeu, c'est-\u00e0-dire, on en d\u00e9tache le cuivre ou l'alliage. Lorsque\nl'argent est pur on le repese dans la m\u00eame balance, & si le poids se\ntrouve alors de onze grains, au lieu de douze qu'il y avoit, l'Essa\u00efeur\ndit que la barre est de onze _deniers de fin_, c'est-\u00e0-dire, qu'elle\ncontient onze parties d'argent v\u00e9ritable, & une douzieme partie de\ncuivre ou d'alloi. Ce qui se comprendra encore plus facilement par ceux\nqui auront la curiosit\u00e9 de voir ces affinages. Il n'y a point d'autre\nmystere. L'essai de l'or se fait de m\u00eame, avec cette seule diff\u00e9rence,\nque les d\u00e9gr\u00e9s de finesse de l'or se divisent en vingt-quatre parties,\nqu'on appelle _Karats_, \u00e0 cause que l'or est plus pr\u00e9cieux; & ces Karats\nsont divis\u00e9s en trente-deuxiemes, au lieu qu'on ne divise les d\u00e9gr\u00e9s de\nfinesse de l'argent qu'en douze parties qu'on appelle deniers, & ces\ndeniers en vingt-quatre grains chacun.\nL'usage a consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 l'or & \u00e0 l'argent le terme de valeur intrinseque,\npour d\u00e9signer & pour signifier la quantit\u00e9 d'or ou d'argent v\u00e9ritable\nque la barre de matiere contient: cependant dans cet essai je me suis\ntoujours servi du terme de valeur intrinseque, pour fixer la quantit\u00e9 de\nterre & du travail qui entre dans la production des choses, n'a\u00efant pas\ntrouv\u00e9 de terme plus propre pour exprimer ma pens\u00e9e. Au reste je ne\ndonne cet avertissement, qu'afin qu'on ne s'y trompe pas; & lorsqu'il ne\nsera pas question d'or & d'argent, le terme sera toujours bon, sans\naucune \u00e9quivoque.\nNous avons vu que les m\u00e9taux, tels que l'or, l'argent, le fer, &c.\nservent \u00e0 plusieurs usages, & qu'ils ont une valeur r\u00e9elle,\nproportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la terre & au travail qui entrent dans leur production.\nNous verrons dans la seconde partie de cet essai, que les Hommes ont \u00e9t\u00e9\noblig\u00e9s par n\u00e9cessit\u00e9, de se servir d'une mesure commune, pour trouver\ndans le troc la proportion & la valeur des denr\u00e9es & des marchandises\ndont ils vouloient faire \u00e9change. Il n'est question que de voir quelle\ndoit \u00eatre la denr\u00e9e ou la marchandise qui est la plus propre pour cette\nmesure commune; & si ce n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9, & non le go\u00fbt, qui a\nfait donner cette pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence, \u00e0 l'or, \u00e0 l'argent & au cuivre, dont on se\nsert g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement aujourd'hui pour cet usage.\nLes denr\u00e9es ordinaires, telles que les grains, les vins, la viande, &c.,\nont bien une valeur r\u00e9elle, & servent aux usages de la vie; mais elles\nsont toutes p\u00e9rissables, & m\u00eame incommodes pour le transport, & par\ncons\u00e9quent peu propres pour servir de mesure commune.\nLes marchandises, c'est-\u00e0-dire, les draps, les linges, les cuirs, &c.\nsont p\u00e9rissables aussi, & ne peuvent se subdiviser sans changer en\nquelque chose leur valeur pour les usages des Hommes; elles\noccasionnent, comme les denr\u00e9es, beaucoup de frais pour le transport;\nelles demandent m\u00eame de la d\u00e9pense pour les garder: par cons\u00e9quent elles\nsont peu propres pour servir de mesure commune.\nLes diamans, & les autres pierres pr\u00e9cieuses, quand elles n'auroient pas\nune valeur intrinseque, & qu'elles seroient estim\u00e9es seulement par go\u00fbt,\nseroient propres pour servir de mesure commune, si elles n'\u00e9toient pas\nreconnoissables, & si elles pouvoient se subdiviser sans d\u00e9chet. Mais\navec ces d\u00e9fauts & celui qu'elles ont de n'\u00eatre pas propres pour\nl'utilit\u00e9, elles ne peuvent servir de mesure commune.\nLe fer, qui est toujours utile & assez durable, ne serviroit pas mal, si\non n'en avoit pas d'autres plus propres. Il se consume par le feu; & par\nsa quantit\u00e9 il se trouve de trop grand volume. On s'en servoit depuis\nLycurgue jusqu'\u00e0 la Guerre du Pelopponese: mais comme sa valeur \u00e9toit\nn\u00e9cessairement regl\u00e9e sur l'intrinseque ou \u00e0 proportion de la terre & du\ntravail qui entroit dans sa production, il en falloit une grande\nquantit\u00e9 pour une petite valeur. Ce qu'il y avoit de bisare, c'est qu'on\nen g\u00e2toit la qualit\u00e9, par le vinaigre, pour le rendre incapable de\nservir aux usages de l'homme, & pour le conserver seulement pour le\ntroc: ainsi il ne pouvoit servir qu'au seul Peuple austere de Sparte, &\nn'a p\u00fb m\u00eame continuer chez eux, d\u00e8s qu'ils ont \u00e9tendu leur communication\navec les autres Pa\u00efs. Pour ruiner les Lac\u00e9d\u00e9moniens, il ne falloit que\ntrouver de riches Mines de fer, en faire de la monnoie semblable \u00e0 la\nleur, & tirer en \u00e9change leurs denr\u00e9es & leurs marchandises, tandis\nqu'ils ne pouvoient rien \u00e9changer avec l'Etranger, contre leur fer g\u00e2t\u00e9.\nAussi ne s'attachoient-ils alors \u00e0 aucun commerce avec l'Etranger,\ns'occupant uniquement \u00e0 la Guerre.\nLe plomb & l'\u00e9taim ont le m\u00eame d\u00e9savantage de volume, que le fer, & ils\nsont p\u00e9rissables par le feu: mais dans un cas de n\u00e9cessit\u00e9, ils ne\nserviroient pas mal pour le troc, si le cuivre n'y \u00e9toit pas plus propre\n& plus durable.\nLe cuivre seul servoit de monnoie aux Romains, jusqu'\u00e0 l'an 484 de la\nFondation de Rome; & en Suede, on s'en sert encore aujourd'hui m\u00eame,\ndans les gros paiemens: cependant il est de trop gros volume pour les\npaiemens consid\u00e9rables, & les Su\u00e9dois m\u00eames aiment mieux \u00eatre pa\u00ef\u00e9s en\nor & en argent, qu'en cuivre.\nDans les Colonies d'Am\u00e9rique, on s'est servi de Tabac, de Sucre & de\nCacao pour monnoie; mais ces marchandises, sont de trop grand volume,\np\u00e9rissables & in\u00e9gales dans leur bont\u00e9; par cons\u00e9quent elles sont peu\npropres pour servir de monnoie ou de mesure commune des valeurs.\nL'or & l'argent seuls sont de petit volume, d'\u00e9gale bont\u00e9, faciles \u00e0\ntransporter, \u00e0 subdiviser sans d\u00e9chet, commodes \u00e0 garder, beaux &\nbrillans dans les ouvrages qu'on en fait, & durables presque jusqu'\u00e0\nl'\u00e9ternit\u00e9. Tous ceux, qui se sont servis d'autre chose pour monnoie, en\nreviennent n\u00e9cessairement \u00e0 celle-ci, d\u00e8s qu'ils en peuvent acquerir\nassez pour le troc. Il n'y a que dans le plus bas troc, que l'or &\nl'argent sont incommodes: pour la valeur d'un liard ou d'un denier, les\npieces d'or & m\u00eame d'argent, seroient trop petites pour \u00eatre maniables.\nOn dit que les Chinois dans les petits \u00e9changes coupoient avec des\nciseaux, \u00e0 de minces lames d'argent, de petites pieces qu'ils pesoient.\nMais depuis leur commerce avec l'Europe, ils commencent \u00e0 se servir de\ncuivre dans ces occasions.\nIl n'est donc pas \u00e9tonnant que toutes les Nations soient parvenues \u00e0 se\nservir d'or & d'argent pour monnoie ou pour la mesure commune des\nvaleurs, & de cuivre pour les petits \u00e9changes. L'utilit\u00e9 & le besoin les\ny ont d\u00e9termin\u00e9es, & non le go\u00fbt ni le consentement. L'argent demande un\ngrand travail, & un travail bien cher, pour sa production. Ce qui cause\nla chert\u00e9 des Mineurs d'argent, c'est qu'ils ne vivent guere plus de\ncinq \u00e0 six ans dans ce travail qui cause une grand mortalit\u00e9; de maniere\nqu'une petite piece d'argent correspond \u00e0 autant de terre & de travail,\nqu'une grosse piece de cuivre.\nIl faut que la monnoie ou la mesure commune des valeurs corresponde,\nr\u00e9ellement & intrinsequement, en prix de terre & de travail, aux choses\nqu'on en donne en troc. Sans cela elle n'auroit qu'une valeur\nimaginaire. Par exemple, si un Prince ou une R\u00e9publique donnoient cours\ndans l'Etat \u00e0 quelque chose qui n'e\u00fbt point une telle valeur r\u00e9elle &\nintrinseque, non-seulement les autres Etats ne la recevroient pas sur ce\npi\u00e9 l\u00e0, mais les Habitans m\u00eames la rejetteroient, lorsqu'ils\ns'appercevroient du peu de valeur r\u00e9elle. Lorsque les Romains vers la\nfin de la premiere Guerre Punique, voulurent donner \u00e0 des _as_ de cuivre\ndu poids de deux onces la m\u00eame valeur qu'avoient auparavant les _as_ du\npoids d'une livre ou de douze onces; cela ne put pas se soutenir\nlong-tems dans le troc. Et l'on voit dans l'Histoire de tous les tems,\nque lorsque les Princes ont affoibli leurs monnoies en conservant la\nm\u00eame valeur num\u00e9raire, toutes les marchandises & les denr\u00e9es ont encheri\ndans la proportion de l'affoiblissement des monnoies.\nM. Locke dit que le consentement des Hommes a donn\u00e9 une valeur \u00e0 l'or &\n\u00e0 l'argent. On n'en peut pas douter, puisque la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 absolue n'y a\npoint eu de part. C'est le m\u00eame consentement qui a donn\u00e9, & qui donne\ntous les jours, une valeur \u00e0 la dentelle, au linge, aux draps fins, au\ncuivre, & autres m\u00e9taux. Les Hommes, \u00e0 parler absolument, pourroient\nsubsister sans tout cela. Mais il n'en faut pas conclure que toutes ces\nchoses n'aient qu'une valeur imaginaire. Elles en ont une, \u00e0 proportion\nde la terre & du travail qui entrent dans leur production. L'or &\nl'argent, comme les autres marchandises & comme les denr\u00e9es, ne peuvent\n\u00eatre tir\u00e9s qu'avec des frais proportionn\u00e9s \u00e0 la valeur qu'on leur donne\n\u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s; & quelque chose que les Hommes produisent par leur travail,\nil faut que ce travail fournisse leur entretien. C'est le grand principe\nqu'on entend tous les jours de la bouche m\u00eame des petites Gens qui\nn'entrent point dans nos sp\u00e9culations, & qui vivent de leur travail ou\nde leurs entreprises. _Il faut que tout le monde vive._\n_Fin de la premiere Partie._\nESSAI\nSUR LA NATURE\nDU\nCOMMERCE\nEN G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL.\n_SECONDE PARTIE._\nCHAPITRE PREMIER.\n_Du Troc._\nOn a essa\u00ef\u00e9 de prouver, dans la Partie pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente, que la valeur r\u00e9elle\nde toutes les choses \u00e0 l'usage des Hommes, est leur proportion \u00e0 la\nquantit\u00e9 de terre emplo\u00ef\u00e9e pour leur production & pour l'entretien de\nceux qui leur ont donn\u00e9 la forme. Dans cette seconde Partie, apr\u00e8s avoir\nfait une recapitulation des diff\u00e9rens d\u00e9gr\u00e9s de bont\u00e9 de la terre dans\nplusieurs Contr\u00e9es, & des diverses especes de denr\u00e9es qu'elle peut\nproduire avec plus d'abondance selon sa qualit\u00e9 intrinseque, & apr\u00e8s\navoir suppos\u00e9 l'\u00e9tablissement des Bourgs & de leurs March\u00e9s pour la\nfacilit\u00e9 de la vente de ces denr\u00e9es, on d\u00e9montrera, par la comparaison\ndes \u00e9changes qui se pourroient faire, en vin contre du drap, en bl\u00e9\ncontre des souliers, des chapeaux, &c., & par la difficult\u00e9 que\ncauseroit le transport de ces diff\u00e9rentes denr\u00e9es ou marchandises,\nl'impossibilit\u00e9 qu'il y avoit \u00e0 statuer leur valeur intrinseque\nrespective, & la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 absolue o\u00f9 les Hommes se sont trouv\u00e9s de\nchercher un \u00eatre de facile transport, non corruptible, & qui p\u00fbt avoir\ndans son poids une proportion, ou une valeur, \u00e9gale aux diff\u00e9rentes\ndenr\u00e9es & aux marchandises, tant n\u00e9cessaires que commodes. De-l\u00e0 est\nvenu le choix de l'Or & de l'Argent pour le gros commerce, & du cuivre\npour le bas trafic.\nCes m\u00e9taux sont non-seulement durables, de facile transport, mais encore\ncorrespondent \u00e0 un grand emploi de superficie de terre pour leur\nproduction, ce qui leur donne la valeur r\u00e9elle qu'on cherchoit, pour\navoir un \u00e9quivalent.\nM. Locke, qui ne s'est attach\u00e9 qu'aux prix des March\u00e9s, comme tous les\nautres Ecrivains Anglois qui ont travaill\u00e9 sur cette matiere, \u00e9tablit\nque la valeur de toutes choses est proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 leur abondance ou \u00e0\nleur raret\u00e9, & \u00e0 l'abondance ou \u00e0 la raret\u00e9 de l'argent contre lequel on\nles \u00e9change. On sait en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral que le prix des denr\u00e9es & des\nMarchandises a \u00e9t\u00e9 augment\u00e9 en Europe, depuis qu'on y a apport\u00e9 des\nIndes occidentales, une si grande quantit\u00e9 d'argent.\nMais j'estime qu'il ne faut pas croire en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral que le prix des choses\nau March\u00e9 doive \u00eatre proportionn\u00e9 \u00e0 leur quantit\u00e9 & \u00e0 celle de l'argent\nqui circule actuellement dans le lieu, parceque les denr\u00e9es & les\nmarchandises, qu'on transporte pour \u00eatre vendues ailleurs, n'influent\npas sur le prix de celles qui restent. Par exemple, si dans un Bourg o\u00f9\nil y a deux fois plus de bl\u00e9 qu'on n'y en consume, on comparoit cette\nquantit\u00e9 entiere \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 d'argent, le bl\u00e9 seroit plus abondant \u00e0\nproportion, que l'argent qu'on destine \u00e0 l'acheter; cependant le prix du\nmarch\u00e9 se soutiendra, tout de m\u00eame que s'il n'y avoit que la moiti\u00e9 de\ncette quantit\u00e9 de bl\u00e9, parceque l'autre moiti\u00e9 peut, & m\u00eame doit, \u00eatre\nenvo\u00ef\u00e9e dans la Ville, & que les frais de voiture se trouveront dans le\nprix de la Ville, qui est toujours plus haut \u00e0 proportion que celui du\nBourg. Mais, hors le cas de l'esperance de vendre \u00e0 un autre March\u00e9,\nj'estime que l'id\u00e9e de M. Locke est juste dans le sens du Chapitre\nsuivant & non autrement.\nCHAPITRE II.\n_Des prix des March\u00e9s._\nSupposons les Bouchers d'un c\u00f4t\u00e9 & les Acheteurs de l'autre. Le prix de\nla viande se d\u00e9terminera apr\u00e8s quelques altercations; & une livre de\nBoeuf sera \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s en valeur \u00e0 une piece d'argent, comme tout le\nBoeuf, qu'on expose en vente au March\u00e9, est \u00e0 tout l'argent qu'on y\napporte pour acheter du Boeuf.\nCette proportion se regle par l'altercation. Le Boucher soutient son\nprix sur le nombre d'acheteurs qu'il voit; les Acheteurs, de leur c\u00f4t\u00e9,\noffrent moins selon qu'ils croient que le Boucher aura moins de d\u00e9bit:\nle prix regl\u00e9 par quelques-uns est ordinairement suivi par les autres.\nLes uns sont plus habiles \u00e0 faire valoir leur marchandise, les autres\nplus adroits \u00e0 la d\u00e9cr\u00e9diter. Quoique cette m\u00e9thode de fixer les prix\ndes choses au March\u00e9 n'ait aucun fondement juste ou g\u00e9om\u00e9trique,\npuisqu'elle d\u00e9pend souvent de l'empressement ou de la facilit\u00e9 d'un\npetit nombre d'Acheteurs, ou de Vendeurs; cependant il n'y a pas\nd'apparence qu'on puisse y parvenir par aucune autre voie plus\nconvenable. Il est constant que la quantit\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es ou des\nmarchandises mises en vente, proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la demande ou \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9\ndes Acheteurs, est la base sur laquelle on fixe, ou sur laquelle on\ncroit toujours fixer, les prix actuels des March\u00e9s; & qu'en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, ces\nprix ne s'\u00e9cartent pas beaucoup de la valeur intrinseque.\nAutre supposition. Plusieurs Ma\u00eetres d'h\u00f4tels ont re\u00e7u l'ordre, dans la\npremiere saison, d'acheter des Pois verds. Un Ma\u00eetre a ordonn\u00e9 l'achat\nde dix litrons pour 60 liv. un autre de dix litrons pour 50 liv. un\ntroisieme en demande dix pour 40 l. & un quatrieme dix pour 30 l. Afin\nque ces ordres puissent \u00eatre ex\u00e9cut\u00e9s, il faudroit qu'il y e\u00fbt au March\u00e9\nquarante litrons de pois verds. Supposons qu'il ne s'y en trouve que\nvingt: les Vendeurs vo\u00efant beaucoup d'Acheteurs soutiendront leur prix,\n& les Acheteurs monteront jusqu'\u00e0 celui qui leur est prescrit; de sorte\nque ceux qui offrent 60 liv. pour dix litrons seront les premiers\nservis. Les Vendeurs, vo\u00efant ensuite que personne ne veut monter\nau-dessus de 50 liv. l\u00e2cheront les dix autres litrons \u00e0 ce prix, mais\nceux qui avoient ordre de ne pas exc\u00e9der 40 & 30 livres s'en\nretourneront sans rien emporter.\nSi au lieu de quarante litrons, il s'en trouve quatre cens,\nnon-seulement les Ma\u00eetres d'h\u00f4tels auront les pois verds beaucoup\nau-dessous des sommes qui leur \u00e9toient prescrites, mais les Vendeurs,\npour \u00eatre pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9s les uns aux autres par le petit nombre d'Acheteurs,\nbaisseront leurs pois verds, \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s \u00e0 leur valeur intrinseque, &\ndans ce cas plusieurs Ma\u00eetres d'h\u00f4tels qui n'avoient point d'ordre en\nacheteront.\nIl arrive souvent que les Vendeurs, en voulant trop soutenir leur prix\nau March\u00e9, manquent l'occasion de vendre avantageusement leurs denr\u00e9es,\nou leurs marchandises, & qu'ils y perdent. Il arrive aussi qu'en\nsoutenant ces prix ils pourront souvent vendre plus avantageusement un\nautre jour.\nLes March\u00e9s \u00e9loign\u00e9s peuvent toujours influer sur les prix du March\u00e9 o\u00f9\nl'on est: si le bl\u00e9 est extr\u00eamement cher en France, il haussera en\nAngleterre & dans les autres Pa\u00efs voisins.\nCHAPITRE III.\n_De la circulation de l'Argent._\nC'est une id\u00e9e commune en Angleterre qu'un Fermier doit faire trois\nrentes. 1\u00ba. la rente principale & veritable qu'il paie au Propri\u00e9taire,\n& qu'on suppose \u00e9gale en valeur au produit du tiers de sa Ferme; une\nseconde rente pour son entretien & celui des Hommes & des Chevaux dont\nil se sert pour cultiver sa Ferme, & enfin une troisieme rente qui doit\nlui demeurer, pour faire profiter son entreprise.\nOn a g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement la m\u00eame id\u00e9e dans les autres Etats de l'Europe;\nquoique dans quelques Etats, comme dans le Milanez, le Fermier donne au\nPropri\u00e9taire la moiti\u00e9 du produit de sa terre au lieu du tiers; & que\nplusieurs Propri\u00e9taires dans tous les Etats, t\u00e2chent d'affermer leurs\nterres le plus haut qu'ils peuvent: mais lorsque cela se fait au-dessus\ndu tiers du produit, les Fermiers sont ordinairement bien pauvres. Je ne\ndoute pas que le Propri\u00e9taire Chinois ne retire de son Fermier plus des\ntrois quarts du produit de sa terre.\nCependant lorsqu'un Fermier a des fonds pour conduire l'entreprise de sa\nFerme, le Propri\u00e9taire, qui lui donne sa Ferme pour le tiers du produit,\nsera s\u00fbr de son paiement, & se trouvera mieux d'un tel march\u00e9, que s'il\ndonnoit sa Ferme \u00e0 un plus haut prix \u00e0 un Fermier gueux, au hasard de\nperdre toute sa rente. Plus la Ferme sera grande & plus le Fermier sera\n\u00e0 son aise. C'est ce qui se voit en Angleterre, o\u00f9 les Fermiers sont\nordinairement plus ais\u00e9s que dans les autres Pa\u00efs o\u00f9 les Fermes sont\npetites.\nLa supposition donc que je suivrai dans cette recherche de la\ncirculation de l'argent sera que les Fermiers font trois rentes, & m\u00eame\nqu'ils d\u00e9pensent la troisieme rente pour vivre plus commodement, au lieu\nde l'\u00e9pargner. C'est en effet le cas du plus grand nombre des Fermiers\nde tous les Etats.\nToutes les denr\u00e9es de l'Etat, sortent, directement ou indirectement, des\nmains des Fermiers, aussi-bien que tous les mat\u00e9riaux dont on fait de la\nmarchandise. C'est la terre qui produit toutes choses except\u00e9 le\nPoisson; encore faut-il que les P\u00eacheurs qui prennent le Poisson soient\nentretenus du produit de la terre.\nIl faut donc considerer les trois rentes du Fermier, comme les\nprincipales sources, ou pour ainsi dire le premier mobile de la\ncirculation dans l'Etat. La premiere rente doit \u00eatre pa\u00ef\u00e9e au\nPropri\u00e9taire, en argent comptant; pour la seconde & la troisieme rente\nil faut de l'argent comptant pour le fer, l'\u00e9taim, le cuivre, le sel, le\nsucre, les draps, & g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement pour toutes les marchandises de la\nVille qui sont consum\u00e9es \u00e0 la Campagne; mais tout cela n'excede guere la\nsixieme partie du total, ou des trois Rentes. Pour ce qui est de la\nnourriture & de la boisson des Habitans de la Campagne, il ne faut pas\nn\u00e9cessairement de l'argent comptant pour se la procurer.\nLe Fermier peut brasser sa biere, ou faire son vin sans d\u00e9penser\nd'argent comptant, il peut faire son pain, tuer les Boeufs, les Moutons,\nles Cochons, &c. qu'on mange \u00e0 la Campagne; il peut pa\u00efer en bl\u00e9s, en\nviande & en boisson, la pl\u00fbpart de ses Assistans, non-seulement\nManoeuvriers, mais encore Artisans de la Campagne, en \u00e9valuant ses\ndenr\u00e9es au prix du March\u00e9 le plus proche, & le travail au prix ordinaire\ndu lieu.\nLes choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie sont la nourriture, le v\u00eatement & le\nlogement. On n'a pas besoin d'argent comptant pour se procurer la\nnourriture \u00e0 la Campagne, comme on vient de l'expliquer. Si on y fait du\ngros linge & de gros draps, si on y b\u00e2tit des Maisons, comme cela se\npratique souvent, le travail de tout cela peut se pa\u00efer en troc par\nevaluation, sans que l'argent comptant y soit n\u00e9cessaire.\nLe seul argent comptant qui est n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 la Campagne, sera donc\ncelui qu'il faut pour pa\u00efer la rente principale du Propri\u00e9taire & les\nmarchandises que la Campagne tire n\u00e9cessairement de la Ville, telles que\nles couteaux, les cizeaux, les \u00e9pingles, les aiguilles, les draps pour\nquelques Fermiers ou autres gens ais\u00e9s, la batterie de cuisine, la\nvaisselle & g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement tout ce qu'on tire de la Ville.\nJ'ai d\u00e9ja remarqu\u00e9 qu'on estime que la moiti\u00e9 des Habitans d'un Etat\ndemeure dans les Villes, & par cons\u00e9quent que ceux des Villes d\u00e9pensent\nplus que la moiti\u00e9 du produit des terres. Il faut par cons\u00e9quent de\nl'argent comptant, non-seulement pour la rente du Propri\u00e9taire, qui\ncorrespond au tiers du produit, mais aussi pour les marchandises de\nVille, consomm\u00e9es \u00e0 la Campagne, qui peuvent correspondre \u00e0 quelque\nchose de plus qu'au sixieme du produit de la terre. Or un tiers & un\nsixieme font la moiti\u00e9 du produit: par cons\u00e9quent il faut que l'argent\ncomptant, qui circule \u00e0 la Campagne, soit \u00e9gal au moins \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du\nproduit de la terre, au mo\u00efen de quoi l'autre moiti\u00e9 quelque chose\nmoins, peut se consommer \u00e0 la Campagne, sans qu'il soit besoin d'argent\ncomptant.\nLa circulation de cet argent se fait en ce que les Propri\u00e9taires\nd\u00e9pensent en d\u00e9tail, dans la Ville, les rentes que les Fermiers leur ont\npa\u00ef\u00e9es en gros articles, & que les Entrepreneurs des Villes, comme les\nBouchers, les Boulangers, les Brasseurs, &c. ramassent peu-\u00e0-peu ce m\u00eame\nargent, pour acheter des Fermiers, en gros articles, les Boeufs, le bl\u00e9,\nl'orge, &c. Ainsi toutes les grosses sommes d'argent sont distribu\u00e9es\npar petites sommes, & toutes les petites sommes sont ensuite ramass\u00e9es\npour faire des paiemens de grosses sommes aux Fermiers, directement ou\nindirectement, & cet argent passe toujours en gage tant en gros qu'en\nd\u00e9tail.\nLorsque j'ai dit qu'il faut n\u00e9cessairement pour la circulation de la\nCampagne, une quantit\u00e9 d'argent, souvent \u00e9gale en valeur \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du\nproduit des terres, c'est la moindre quantit\u00e9; & pour que la circulation\nde la Campagne se fasse avec facilit\u00e9, je supposerai que l'argent\ncomptant qui doit conduire la circulation des trois rentes, est \u00e9gal en\nvaleur \u00e0 deux de ces rentes, ou \u00e9gal au produit des deux tiers de la\nterre. On verra par plusieurs circonstances dans la suite, que cette\nsupposition n'est pas bien loin de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9.\nSupposons maintenant que l'argent qui conduit toute la circulation d'un\npetit Etat, est \u00e9gal \u00e0 dix mille onces d'argent, & que tous les paiemens\nqu'on fait de cet argent, de la Campagne \u00e0 la Ville, & de la Ville \u00e0 la\nCampagne, se font une fois l'an; que ces dix mille onces d'argent sont\n\u00e9gales en valeur, \u00e0 deux rentes des Fermiers, ou aux deux tiers du\nproduit des terres. Les rentes des Propri\u00e9taires correspondront \u00e0 cinq\nmille onces, & toute la circulation d'argent, qui restera entre les gens\nde la Campagne & ceux de la Ville, & qui doit se faire par paiemens\nannuels, correspondra aussi \u00e0 cinq mille onces.\nMais si les Propri\u00e9taires de terres stipulent avec leurs Fermiers les\npaiemens par semestre au lieu de paiemens annuels, & si les D\u00e9biteurs\ndes deux dernieres rentes font aussi leurs paiemens tous les six mois,\nce changement dans les paiemens changera le train de la circulation: &\nau lieu qu'il falloit auparavant dix mille onces pour faire les paiemens\nune fois l'an, il ne faudra maintenant que cinq mille onces, parceque\ncinq mille onces pa\u00ef\u00e9es en deux fois auront le m\u00eame effet que dix mille\nonces pa\u00ef\u00e9es en une seule fois.\nDe plus si les Propri\u00e9taires stipulent avec leurs Fermiers les paiemens\npar quartier, ou s'ils se contentent de recevoir de leurs Fermiers les\nRentes \u00e0 mesure que les quatre Saisons de l'ann\u00e9e les mettent en \u00e9tat de\nvendre leurs denr\u00e9es, & si tous les autres paiemens se font par\nquartiers, il ne faudra que deux mille cinq cens onces pour la m\u00eame\ncirculation qui auroit \u00e9t\u00e9 conduite par dix mille onces en paiemens\nannuels. Par cons\u00e9quent, supposant que tous les paiemens se fassent par\nquartiers dans le petit \u00e9tat en question, la proportion de la valeur de\nl'argent n\u00e9cessaire pour la circulation est au produit annuel des\nterres, c'est-\u00e0-dire, aux trois rentes, comme 2500 liv. est \u00e0 15000 liv.\nou comme 1 \u00e0 6, de telle sorte que l'argent correspondroit \u00e0 la sixieme\npartie du produit annuel des terres.\nMais attendu que chaque branche de la circulation dans les Villes est\nconduite par des Entrepreneurs, que la consommation de la nourriture se\nfait par des paiemens journaliers, ou par semaines ou par mois, & que\ncelle du v\u00eatement, quoique faite dans les Familles tous les ans, tous\nles six mois, ne laisse pas de se faire dans des tems diff\u00e9rens par les\nuns & par les autres; que la circulation pour la boisson se fait\njournellement pour le plus grand nombre; que celle de la petite biere,\ndes charbons & de mille autres branches de consommation est fort\nprompte; il sembleroit que la proportion que nous avons \u00e9tablie dans les\npaiemens par quartiers seroit trop forte, & qu'on pourroit conduire la\ncirculation d'un produit de terre de quinze mille onces d'argent avec\nbeaucoup moins que deux mille cinq cens onces d'argent comptant.\nCependant puisque les Fermiers sont dans la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de faire de gros\npaiemens aux Propri\u00e9taires au moins tous les quartiers, & que les droits\nque le Prince ou l'Etat per\u00e7oivent sur la consommation sont accumul\u00e9s\npar les Receveurs pour faire de gros paiemens aux Receveurs g\u00e9n\u00e9raux; il\nfaut bien une quantit\u00e9 suffisante d'argent comptant dans la circulation\npour que ces gros paiemens puissent se faire avec facilit\u00e9, sans\nemp\u00eacher la circulation du courant pour ce qui regarde la nourriture &\nle v\u00eatement des habitans.\nOn sentira bien par ce que je viens de dire, que la proportion de la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent comptant n\u00e9cessaire pour la circulation d'un Etat\nn'est pas une chose incompr\u00e9hensible, & que cette quantit\u00e9 peut \u00eatre\nplus grande ou plus petite dans les Etats, suivant le train qu'on y suit\n& la v\u00eetesse des paiemens. Mais il est bien difficile de rien statuer de\npr\u00e9cis sur cette quantit\u00e9 en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, qui peut \u00eatre diff\u00e9rente \u00e0\nproportion dans diff\u00e9rens Pa\u00efs, & ce n'est que par forme de conjecture\nque je dis en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, que \u00abl'argent comptant, n\u00e9cessaire pour conduire\nla circulation & le troc dans un Etat, est \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s \u00e9gal en valeur au\ntiers des rentes annuelles des Propri\u00e9taires de terres.\u00bb\nQue l'argent soit rare, ou abondant, dans un Etat, cette proportion ne\nvariera pas beaucoup, parceque dans les Etats o\u00f9 l'argent est abondant\non afferme les terres plus haut, & plus bas dans ceux o\u00f9 l'argent est\nplus rare: c'est une regle qui se trouvera toujours v\u00e9ritable dans tous\nles tems. Mais il arrive ordinairement, dans les Etats o\u00f9 l'argent est\nplus rare, qu'il y a plus de troc par \u00e9valuation, que dans ceux o\u00f9\nl'argent est plus abondant, & par cons\u00e9quent la circulation est cens\u00e9e\nplus prompte & moins retard\u00e9e que dans les Etats o\u00f9 l'argent est moins\nrare. Ainsi pour juger de la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent qui circule, il faut\ntoujours considerer la v\u00eetesse de sa circulation.\nDans la supposition que l'argent qui circule est \u00e9gal au tiers de toutes\nles rentes des propri\u00e9taires des terres, & que ces rentes sont \u00e9gales au\ntiers du produit annuel des m\u00eames terres, il s'ensuit que \u00abl'argent qui\ncircule dans un Etat est \u00e9gal en valeur \u00e0 la neuvieme partie de tout le\nproduit annuel des terres.\u00bb\nLe Chevalier Guillaume Petty, dans un Manuscrit de l'ann\u00e9e 1685, suppose\nsouvent l'argent qui circule, \u00e9gal en valeur au dixieme du produit des\nterres, sans dire pourquoi. Je crois que c'est un jugement qu'il forma\nsur l'exp\u00e9rience & sur la pratique qu'il avoit, tant de l'argent qui\ncirculoit alors en Irlande, dont il avoit arpent\u00e9 la plus grande partie\ndes terres, que des denr\u00e9es dont il faisoit une estimation \u00e0 vue d'oeil.\nJe ne me suis pas beaucoup \u00e9loign\u00e9 de son id\u00e9e; mais j'ai mieux aim\u00e9\ncomparer la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qui circule, aux rentes des propri\u00e9taires,\nqui se paient ordinairement en argent, & dont on peut ais\u00e9ment savoir la\nvaleur par une taxe \u00e9gale sur les terres, que de comparer la quantit\u00e9 de\nl'argent aux denr\u00e9es ou au produit des terres, dont le prix varie\njournellement aux March\u00e9s, & dont m\u00eame une grande partie se consomme\nsans passer par ces March\u00e9s. Je donnerai, dans le Chapitre suivant,\nplusieurs raisons confirm\u00e9es par des exemples, pour fortifier ma\nsupposition. Cependant je la crois utile quand m\u00eame elle ne se\ntrouveroit pas physiquement vraie dans aucun Etat. Elle suffit si elle\napproche de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9, & si elle emp\u00eache les Conducteurs des Etats de se\nformer des id\u00e9es extravagantes de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qui y circule:\ncar il n'est point de connoissance o\u00f9 l'on soit si sujet \u00e0 s'abuser, que\ndans celle des calculs, lorsqu'on les laisse \u00e0 la conduite de\nl'imagination; au lieu qu'il n'y a point de connoissance plus\nd\u00e9monstrative, lorsqu'on les conduit par un d\u00e9tail de faits.\nIl y a des Villes & des Etats qui n'ont aucune terre qui leur\nappartienne, & qui subsistent, en \u00e9changeant leur travail ou Manufacture\ncontre le produit des terres d'autrui: telles sont Hambourg, Dantzick,\nplusieurs autres Villes imp\u00e9riales, & m\u00eame une partie de la Hollande.\nDans ces Etats il paro\u00eet plus difficile de former un jugement de la\ncirculation. Mais si on pouvoit faire un jugement des terres Etrangeres\nqui fournissent leur subsistance, le calcul ne diff\u00e9reroit pas\nprobablement de celui que je fais pour les autres Etats qui subsistent\nprincipalement de leurs propres fonds, & qui sont l'objet de cet Essai.\nA l'\u00e9gard de l'argent comptant n\u00e9cessaire pour conduire un commerce avec\nl'Etranger, il semble qu'il n'en faut pas d'autre que celui qui circule\ndans l'Etat, lorsque la balance du commerce avec l'Etranger est \u00e9gale,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, lorsque les denr\u00e9es & les marchandises qu'on y envoie sont\n\u00e9gales en valeur \u00e0 celles qu'on en re\u00e7oit.\nSi la France envoie des draps en Hollande, & si elle en re\u00e7oit des\n\u00e9piceries, pour la m\u00eame valeur, le propri\u00e9taire qui consomme ces\n\u00e9piceries en paie la valeur \u00e0 l'Epicier, & l'Epicier paie cette m\u00eame\nvaleur au Manufacturier de draps, \u00e0 qui la m\u00eame valeur est due en\nHollande pour le drap qu'il y a envo\u00ef\u00e9. Cela se fait par Lettres de\nchange dont j'expliquerai la nature dans la suite. Ces deux paiemens en\nargent se font en France hors la rente du propri\u00e9taire, & il ne sort pas\npour cela aucun argent de France. Tous les autres ordres qui consomment\nles Epiceries d'Hollande les paient de m\u00eame \u00e0 l'Epicier; savoir, ceux\nqui subsistent de la premiere rente, c'est-\u00e0-dire, de celle du\npropri\u00e9taire, les paient de l'argent de la premiere rente, & ceux qui\nsubsistent par les deux dernieres rentes, soit \u00e0 la Campagne, soit \u00e0 la\nVille, paient l'Epicier directement ou indirectement de l'argent qui\nconduit la circulation des deux dernieres rentes. L'Epicier paie encore\ncet argent au Manufacturier pour ses Lettres de change sur Hollande; &\nil ne faut pas d'augmentation d'argent dans un Etat pour la circulation,\npar rapport au commerce avec l'Etranger, lorsque la balance de ce\ncommerce est \u00e9gale. Mais si cette balance n'est pas \u00e9gale, c'est-\u00e0-dire,\nsi on vend en Hollande plus de marchandise qu'on n'en tire, ou si l'on\nen tire plus qu'on n'y en envoie, il faut de l'argent pour l'exc\u00e9dent, &\nque la Hollande en envoie en France, ou que la France en envoie en\nHollande: ce qui augmentera, ou diminuera, la quantit\u00e9 d'argent sonnant\nqui circule en France.\nIl peut m\u00eame arriver que lorsque la balance, est \u00e9gale avec l'Etranger,\nle commerce avec ce m\u00eame Etranger retarde la circulation de l'argent\ncomptant, & par cons\u00e9quent demande une plus grande quantit\u00e9 d'argent par\nrapport \u00e0 ce commerce.\nPar exemple, si les Dames fran\u00e7oises, qui portent des \u00e9toffes de France,\nveulent porter des velours de Hollande, qui sont compens\u00e9s par les draps\nqu'on y envoie, elles paieront ces velours aux Marchands qui les ont\ntir\u00e9s de Hollande, & ces Marchands les paieront aux Manufacturiers. Cela\nfait que l'argent passe par plus de mains, que si ces Dames portoient\nleur argent aux Manufacturiers, & se contentoient d'\u00e9toffes de France.\nLorsque le m\u00eame argent passe par les mains de plusieurs Entrepreneurs,\nla v\u00eetesse de la circulation en est ralentie. Mais il est difficile de\nfaire une estimation juste de ces sortes de retardemens, qui d\u00e9pendent\nde plusieurs circonstances: car dans l'exemple pr\u00e9sent, si les Dames ont\npa\u00ef\u00e9 aujourd'hui le velours au Marchand, & si demain le Marchand le paie\nau Manufacturier pour sa Lettre de change sur Hollande; si le\nManufacturier le paie le lendemain au Marchand de laine, & celui-ci le\njour d'apr\u00e8s au Fermier, il se peut faire que le Fermier le gardera en\ncaisse plus de deux mois pour achever le paiement du quartier de rente\nqu'il doit faire au propri\u00e9taire; & par cons\u00e9quent cet argent auroit p\u00fb\ncirculer deux mois entre les mains de cent Entrepreneurs, sans retarder\ndans le fond la circulation n\u00e9cessaire de l'Etat.\nApr\u00e8s tout, on doit considerer la rente principale du propri\u00e9taire,\ncomme la branche la plus n\u00e9cessaire & la plus considerable de l'argent\npar rapport \u00e0 la circulation. Si le propri\u00e9taire demeure dans la Ville,\n& que le Fermier vende dans la m\u00eame Ville toutes ses denr\u00e9es, & y achete\ntoutes les marchandises n\u00e9cessaires pour la consommation de la Campagne,\nl'argent comptant peut toujours rester dans la Ville. Le Fermier y\nvendra les denr\u00e9es qui exc\u00e9deront la moiti\u00e9 du produit de sa ferme; il\npaiera dans la m\u00eame Ville l'argent du tiers de ce produit \u00e0 son\npropri\u00e9taire, & il paiera le surplus aux Marchands ou Entrepreneurs,\npour les marchandises qui doivent \u00eatre consomm\u00e9es \u00e0 la Campagne.\nCependant dans ce cas m\u00eame, comme le Fermier vend ses denr\u00e9es par gros\narticles, & que ces grosses sommes doivent \u00eatre ensuite distribu\u00e9es dans\nle d\u00e9tail, & \u00eatre de nouveau ramass\u00e9es pour servir aux gros paiemens des\nFermiers, la circulation rend toujours le m\u00eame effet (\u00e0 la v\u00eetesse pr\u00e8s)\nque si le Fermier emportoit l'argent de ses denr\u00e9es \u00e0 la Campagne, pour\nle renvo\u00efer ensuite \u00e0 la Ville.\nLa circulation consiste toujours en ce que les grosses sommes que le\nFermier tire de la vente de ses denr\u00e9es sont distribu\u00e9es dans le d\u00e9tail,\n& ensuite ramass\u00e9es pour faire de gros paiemens. Soit que cet argent\nsorte en partie de la Ville ou qu'il y reste en entier, on peut le\nconsiderer comme faisant la circulation de la Ville & de la Campagne.\nToute la circulation se fait entre les habitans de l'Etat, & tous ces\nhabitans sont nourris & entretenus de toute fa\u00e7on du produit des terres\n& du cr\u00fb de la campagne.\nIl est vrai que la laine, par exemple, qu'on tire de la Campagne,\nlorsqu'on en fait du drap dans la Ville, vaut quatre fois plus qu'elle\nne valoit. Mais cette augmentation de valeur, qui est le prix du travail\ndes Ouvriers, & des Manufacturiers de la Ville, se change encore contre\nles denr\u00e9es de la Campagne qui servent \u00e0 entretenir ces Ouvriers.\nCHAPITRE IV.\n_Autre r\u00e9flexion sur la v\u00eetesse ou la lenteur de la circulation de\nl'argent, dans le troc._\nSupposons que le Fermier paie 1300 onces d'argent par quartier au\npropri\u00e9taire, que celui-ci en distribue en d\u00e9tail toutes les semaines\n100 onces au Boulanger, au Boucher, &c., & que ces Entrepreneurs fassent\nretourner ces 100 onces toutes les semaines au Fermier, de maniere que\nle Fermier ramasse par semaine autant d'argent que le propri\u00e9taire en\nd\u00e9pense. Dans cette supposition il n'y aura que 100 onces d'argent en\ncirculation perp\u00e9tuelle, & les autres 1200 onces demeureront en caisse,\npartie entre les mains du propri\u00e9taire, & partie entre les mains du\nFermier.\nMais il arrive rarement que les propri\u00e9taires r\u00e9pandent leurs rentes\ndans une proportion constante & regl\u00e9e. A Londres, sit\u00f4t qu'un\npropri\u00e9taire re\u00e7oit sa rente, il en met la plus grande partie entre les\nmains d'un Orf\u00e9vre, ou d'un Banquier, qui la pr\u00eatent \u00e0 int\u00e9r\u00eat, par\ncons\u00e9quent cette partie circule; ou bien ce propri\u00e9taire en emploie une\nbonne partie dans l'achat de plusieurs choses n\u00e9cessaires au m\u00e9nage; &\navant qu'il puisse recevoir un second quartier, il empruntera peut-\u00eatre\nde l'argent. Ainsi l'argent de ce premier quartier circulera en mille\nmanieres avant qu'il puisse \u00eatre ramass\u00e9 & remis entre les mains du\nFermier, pour servir \u00e0 faire le paiement du second quartier.\nLorsque le tems du paiement de ce second quartier sera venu, le Fermier\nvendra ses denr\u00e9es par gros articles; & ceux qui achetent les boeufs,\nles bl\u00e9s, les foins, &c., en auront auparavant ramass\u00e9 le prix, dans le\nd\u00e9tail: ainsi l'argent du premier quartier aura circul\u00e9 dans les canaux\ndu d\u00e9tail pendant pr\u00e8s de trois mois, avant que d'\u00eatre ramass\u00e9 par les\nEntrepreneurs du d\u00e9tail, & ceux-ci le donneront au Fermier, qui en fera\nle paiement du second quartier. Il sembleroit par-l\u00e0 qu'une moindre\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent comptant, que celle que nous avons suppos\u00e9e, pourroit\nsuffire \u00e0 la circulation d'un Etat.\nTous les trocs qui se font par \u00e9valuation ne demandent guere d'argent\ncomptant. Si un Brasseur fournit \u00e0 un Drapier la bierre qu'il consomme\ndans sa Famille; & si le Drapier fournit r\u00e9ciproquement au Brasseur les\ndraps dont il a besoin, le tout au prix courant du March\u00e9 regl\u00e9 le jour\nde la livraison, il ne faut d'autre argent comptant, entre ces deux\nCommer\u00e7ans, que la somme qui paiera la diff\u00e9rence de ce que l'un a\nfourni de plus.\nSi un Marchand, dans un Bourg, envoie \u00e0 un correspondant dans la Ville\ndes denr\u00e9es de la Campagne pour vendre, & si celui-ci renvoie au premier\nles marchandises de la Ville dont on fait la consommation \u00e0 la Campagne,\nla correspondance durant toute l'ann\u00e9e entre ces deux Entrepreneurs, &\nla confiance mutuelle leur faisant porter en compte leurs denr\u00e9es &\nleurs marchandises au prix des March\u00e9s respectifs, il ne faudra d'autre\nargent r\u00e9el pour conduire ce commerce, que la balance que l'un devra \u00e0\nl'autre \u00e0 la fin de l'ann\u00e9e; encore pourra-t-on porter cette balance \u00e0\ncompte nouveau pour l'ann\u00e9e suivante, sans d\u00e9bourser aucun argent\neffectif. Tous les Entrepreneurs d'une Ville, qui ont continuellement\naffaire les uns aux autres peuvent pratiquer cette m\u00e9thode; & ces trocs\npar \u00e9valuations semblent \u00e9pargner beaucoup d'argent comptant dans la\ncirculation, ou du moins en acc\u00e9lerer le mouvement, en le rendant\ninutile dans plusieurs mains o\u00f9 il devroit n\u00e9cessairement passer sans\ncette confiance & cette maniere de troquer par \u00e9valuation. Aussi ce\nn'est pas sans raison, qu'on dit commun\u00e9ment, la confiance dans le\ncommerce rend l'argent moins rare.\nLes Orf\u00e9vres & les Banquiers publics, dont les billets passent\ncouramment en paiement, comme l'argent comptant, contribuent aussi \u00e0 la\nv\u00eetesse de la circulation, qui seroit retard\u00e9e s'il falloit de l'argent\neffectif dans tous les paiemens o\u00f9 l'on se contente de ces billets; &\nbien que ces Orf\u00e9vres & Banquiers gardent toujours en caisse une bonne\npartie de l'argent effectif qu'ils ont re\u00e7u en faisant leurs billets,\nils ne laissent pas de r\u00e9pandre aussi dans la circulation une quantit\u00e9\nconsiderable de cet argent effectif, comme je l'expliquerai ci-apr\u00e8s, en\ntraitant des Banques publiques.\nToutes ces r\u00e9flexions semblent prouver qu'on pourroit conduire la\ncirculation d'un Etat, avec bien moins d'argent effectif, que celui que\nj'ai suppos\u00e9 n\u00e9cessaire pour cela; mais les inductions suivantes\nparoissent les contrebalancer, & contribuer au retardement de cette m\u00eame\ncirculation.\nJe remarquerai d'abord que toutes les denr\u00e9es sont produites \u00e0 la\nCampagne par un travail qui peut se conduire, absolument parlant, avec\npeu ou point d'argent effectif, comme je l'ai d\u00e9ja souvent insinu\u00e9: mais\ntoutes les marchandises se font dans les Villes ou dans les Bourgs par\nun travail d'Ouvriers qu'il faut pa\u00efer en argent effectif. Si une Maison\na cout\u00e9 cent mille onces d'argent \u00e0 b\u00e2tir, toute cette somme, ou au\nmoins la plus grande partie, doit avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 pa\u00ef\u00e9e toutes les semaines\ndans le menu troc au Faiseur de briques, aux Ma\u00e7ons, aux Menuisiers, &c.\ndirectement ou indirectement. La d\u00e9pense des petites Familles, qui dans\nune Ville sont toujours le plus grand nombre, ne se fait n\u00e9cessairement\nqu'avec de l'argent effectif; & dans ce bas troc le cr\u00e9dit,\nl'\u00e9valuation, & les billets ne peuvent avoir lieu. Les Marchands ou\nEntrepreneurs de d\u00e9tail demandent de l'argent comptant pour prix des\nchoses qu'ils fournissent; ou s'ils se fient \u00e0 quelque Famille pour\nquelques jours ou quelques mois, ils ont besoin d'un bon paiement en\nargent. Un Sellier qui vend un carosse quatre cens onces d'argent en\nbillets, sera dans la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de convertir ces billets en argent\neffectif, pour pa\u00efer tous les mat\u00e9riaux & tous les Ouvriers qui ont\ntravaill\u00e9 \u00e0 son carosse s'il en a eu le travail \u00e0 cr\u00e9dit, ou, s'il en a\nfait les avances, pour en faire un nouveau. La vente du carosse lui\nlaissera le profit de son entreprise, & il d\u00e9pensera ce profit \u00e0\nl'entretien de sa famille. Il ne pourroit se contenter de billets, qu'en\ncas qu'il p\u00fbt mettre quelques choses de c\u00f4t\u00e9 ou \u00e0 int\u00e9r\u00eats.\nLa consommation des habitans d'un Etat n'est, dans un sens, uniquement\nque pour leur nourriture. Le logement, le v\u00eatement, les meubles, &c.\ncorrespondent \u00e0 la nourriture des Ouvriers qui y ont travaill\u00e9; & dans\nles Villes tout le boire & le manger ne se paie n\u00e9cessairement qu'avec\nde l'argent effectif. Dans les familles des propri\u00e9taires, en Ville, le\nmanger se paie tous les jours ou toutes les semaines; le vin dans leurs\nfamilles se paie toutes les semaines ou tous les mois; les chapeaux, les\nbas, les souliers, &c. se paient ordinairement avec de l'argent\neffectif, au moins ils correspondent \u00e0 de l'argent comptant par rapport\naux Ouvriers qui y ont travaill\u00e9. Toutes les sommes qui servent \u00e0 faire\nde gros paiemens sont divis\u00e9es, distribu\u00e9es & r\u00e9pandues n\u00e9cessairement\nen petits paiemens, pour correspondre \u00e0 la subsistance des Ouvriers, des\nValets, &c., & toutes ces petites sommes sont aussi n\u00e9cessairement\nramass\u00e9es & r\u00e9unies par les bas Entrepreneurs & par les D\u00e9tailleurs qui\nsont emplo\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0 la subsistance des habitans, pour faire de gros paiemens\nlorsqu'ils achetent les denr\u00e9es des Fermiers. Un Cabaretier \u00e0 bierre\nramasse par sols & par livres, les sommes qu'il paie au Brasseur, &\ncelui-ci s'en sert pour pa\u00efer tous les grains & les mat\u00e9riaux qu'il tire\nde la Campagne. On ne sauroit rien imaginer de ce qu'on achete \u00e0 prix\nd'argent dans un Etat, comme meubles, marchandises, &c. dont la valeur\nne corresponde \u00e0 la subsistance de ceux qui y ont travaill\u00e9.\nLa circulation dans les Villes est conduite par des Entrepreneurs, &\ncorrespond toujours, directement ou indirectement, \u00e0 la subsistance des\nValets, des Ouvriers, &c. Il n'est pas concevable qu'elle puisse se\nfaire dans le bas d\u00e9tail sans argent effectif. Les billets peuvent\nservir de jettons dans les gros paiemens pour quelque intervalle de\ntems; mais lorsqu'il faut distribuer & r\u00e9pandre les grosses sommes dans\nle troc du menu, comme il en faut toujours plut\u00f4t ou pl\u00fbtard dans le\ncourant de la circulation d'une Ville, les billets n'y peuvent pas\nservir, & il faut de l'argent effectif.\nTout cela pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9: tous les ordres d'un Etat, qui ont de l'oeconomie,\n\u00e9pargnent, & tiennent hors de la circulation, de petites sommes d'argent\ncomptant, jusqu'\u00e0 ce qu'ils en aient suffisamment pour les mettre \u00e0\nint\u00e9r\u00eats ou \u00e0 profit.\nPlusieurs gens avares & craintifs enterrent & reserrent toujours de\nl'argent effectif pendant des intervalles de tems assez consid\u00e9rables.\nPlusieurs Propri\u00e9taires, Entrepreneurs, & autres, gardent toujours\nquelqu'argent comptant dans leurs poches ou dans leurs caisses, contre\nles cas impr\u00e9vus, & pour n'\u00eatre point \u00e0 sec. Si un Seigneur a remarqu\u00e9\nque pendant l'espace d'un an, il ne s'est jamais vu moins de vingt louis\ndans sa poche, on peut dire que cette poche a tenu vingt louis hors de\nla circulation pendant l'ann\u00e9e. On n'aime pas \u00e0 d\u00e9penser jusqu'au\ndernier sou, on est bien aise de n'\u00eatre pas d\u00e9garni tout-\u00e0-fait, & de\nrecevoir un nouveau renfort avant que de pa\u00efer, m\u00eame une dette, de\nl'argent que l'on a.\nLe Bien des Mineurs & des Plaideurs est souvent d\u00e9pos\u00e9 en argent\ncomptant, & retenu hors de la circulation.\nOutre les gros paiemens qui passent par les mains des Fermiers dans les\nquatre termes de l'ann\u00e9e, il s'en fait plusieurs autres, d'Entrepreneurs\n\u00e0 Entrepreneurs dans les m\u00eames termes, aussi bien que dans des tems\ndiff\u00e9rens, & des Emprunteurs aux Pr\u00eateurs d'argent. Toutes ces sommes\nsont ramass\u00e9es du troc du menu, y sont r\u00e9pandues de nouveau, &\nreviennent t\u00f4t ou tard au Fermier; mais elles semblent demander un\nargent effectif plus consid\u00e9rable pour la circulation, que si ces gros\npaiemens se faisoient dans des tems diff\u00e9rens de ceux auxquels les\nFermiers sont pa\u00ef\u00e9s de leurs denr\u00e9es.\nAu reste il y a une si grande vari\u00e9t\u00e9 dans les diff\u00e9rens Ordres des\nhabitans de l'Etat, & dans la circulation d'argent effectif qui y\ncorrespond, qu'il semble impossible de rien statuer de pr\u00e9cis ou d'exact\ndans la proportion de l'argent qui suffit pour la circulation; & je n'ai\nproduit tant d'exemples & d'inductions que pour faire comprendre que je\nne me suis pas bien \u00e9loign\u00e9 de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans ma supposition, \u00abque\nl'argent effectif n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 la circulation de l'Etat correspond\n\u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s \u00e0 la valeur du tiers de toutes les rentes annuelles des\npropri\u00e9taires de terres.\u00bb Lorsque les Propri\u00e9taires ont une rente qui\nfait la moiti\u00e9 du produit, ou plus que le tiers, il faut d'avantage\nd'argent effectif pour la circulation, tout autres choses \u00e9tant\nd'ailleurs \u00e9gales. Lorsqu'il y a une grande confiance des Banques, & des\ntrocs par \u00e9valuation, une moindre quantit\u00e9 d'argent pourroit suffire, de\nm\u00eame que quand le train de la circulation peut \u00eatre acc\u00e9ler\u00e9 en\nquelqu'autre maniere. Mais je ferai voir dans la suite que les Banques\npubliques n'apportent pas tant d'avantages qu'on le croit commun\u00e9ment.\nCHAPITRE V.\n_De l'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la circulation de l'argent effectif, dans un Etat._\nLa Ville fournit toujours \u00e0 la Campagne plusieurs marchandises, & les\npropri\u00e9taires de terres qui r\u00e9sident dans la Ville, y doivent toujours\nrecevoir environ le tiers du produit de leurs terres: ainsi la Campagne\ndoit \u00e0 la Ville plus de la moiti\u00e9 du produit des terres. Cette dette\npasseroit toujours la moiti\u00e9, si tous les propri\u00e9taires r\u00e9sidoient dans\nla Ville; mais comme plusieurs des moins consid\u00e9rables demeurent \u00e0 la\nCampagne, je suppose que la balance, ou la dette, qui revient\ncontinuellement de la Campagne \u00e0 la Ville, est \u00e9gale \u00e0 la moiti\u00e9 du\nproduit des terres, & que cette balance se paie dans la Ville par la\nmoiti\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es de la Campagne, qu'on y transporte, & dont le prix de\nla vente est emplo\u00ef\u00e9 \u00e0 pa\u00efer cette dette.\nMais toutes les Campagnes d'un Etat ou d'un Ro\u00efaume doivent une balance\nconstante \u00e0 la Capitale, tant pour les rentes des propri\u00e9taires les plus\nconsid\u00e9rables qui y font leur r\u00e9sidence, que pour les taxes de l'Etat\nm\u00eame, ou de la Couronne, dont la plus grande partie se consomment dans\nla Capitale. Toutes les Villes provinciales doivent aussi \u00e0 la Capitale\nune balance constante, soit pour l'Etat, sur les Maisons ou sur la\nconsommation, soit pour les marchandises diff\u00e9rentes qu'elles tirent de\nla Capitale. Il arrive aussi que plusieurs particuliers & propri\u00e9taires,\nqui r\u00e9sident dans les Villes provinciales, vont passer quelques tems\ndans la Capitale, soit pour leur plaisir, ou pour le jugement de leur\nProc\u00e8s en dernier ressort, soit qu'ils y envoient leurs enfans pour leur\ndonner une \u00e9ducation \u00e0 la mode. Par cons\u00e9quent toutes ces d\u00e9penses, qui\nse font dans la Capitale, se tirent des Villes provinciales.\nOn peut donc dire que toutes les Campagnes & toutes les Villes d'un Etat\ndoivent constamment & annuellement une balance, ou dette, \u00e0 la Capitale.\nOr comme tout cela se paie en argent, il est certain que les Provinces\ndoivent toujours des sommes consid\u00e9rables \u00e0 la Capitale; car les denr\u00e9es\n& marchandises que les Provinces envoient \u00e0 la Capitale s'y vendent pour\nde l'argent, & de cet argent on paie la dette ou balance en question.\nSupposons maintenant que la circulation de l'argent est \u00e9gale dans les\nProvinces & dans la Capitale, tant par rapport \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 de\nl'argent, que par rapport \u00e0 la v\u00eetesse de sa circulation. La balance\nsera d'abord envo\u00ef\u00e9e \u00e0 la Capitale en espece, & cela diminuera la\nquantit\u00e9 de l'argent dans les Provinces & l'augmentera dans la Capitale,\n& par cons\u00e9quent les denr\u00e9es & marchandises seront plus cheres dans la\nCapitale que dans les Provinces, par rapport \u00e0 la plus grande abondance\nde l'argent dans la Capitale. La diff\u00e9rence des prix dans la Capitale &\ndans les Provinces doit pa\u00efer les frais & les risques des voitures,\nautrement on continuera de transporter les especes \u00e0 la Capitale pour le\npaiement de la balance, & cela durera jusqu'\u00e0 ce que la diff\u00e9rence des\nprix dans la Capitale & dans les Provinces vienne \u00e0 niveau des frais &\ndes risques des voitures. Alors les Marchands ou Entrepreneurs des\nBourgs acheteront \u00e0 bas prix les denr\u00e9es des Villages, & les feront\nvoiturer \u00e0 la Capitale pour les y vendre \u00e0 un plus haut prix; & cette\ndiff\u00e9rence des prix paiera n\u00e9cessairement l'entretien des chevaux & les\nValets, & le profit de l'Entrepreneur, sans quoi il cesseroit ses\nentreprises.\nIl r\u00e9sultera de-l\u00e0 que le prix des denr\u00e9es d'\u00e9gale bont\u00e9 sera toujours\nplus haut dans les Campagnes qui sont plus pr\u00e8s de la Capitale, que dans\ncelles qui en sont loin, \u00e0 proportion des frais & risques des voitures;\n& que les Campagnes adja\u00e7entes aux Mers & Rivieres qui communiquent avec\nla Capitale, tireront un meilleur prix de leurs denr\u00e9es, \u00e0 proportion,\nque celles qui en sont \u00e9loign\u00e9es (tout autres choses restant \u00e9gales),\nparceque les frais des voitures d'eau sont moins consid\u00e9rables que ceux\ndes voitures par terre. D'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9 les denr\u00e9es & les petites\nmarchandises qu'on ne peut pas consommer dans la Capitale, soit qu'elles\nn'y soient pas propres, soit qu'on ne les y puisse transporter \u00e0 cause\nde leur volume, ou parcequ'elles se g\u00e2teroient en chemin, seront\ninfiniment \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9 dans les Campagnes & les Provinces\n\u00e9loign\u00e9es, que dans la Capitale, par rapport \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qui\ncircule pour cela, qui est consid\u00e9rablement plus petite dans les\nProvinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es.\nC'est ainsi que les oeufs frais, que le gibier, le beurre frais, le bois\n\u00e0 br\u00fbler, &c. seront ordinairement beaucoup \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9 dans les\nProvinces de Poitou, qu'\u00e0 Paris; au lieu que les bl\u00e9s, les boeufs & les\nchevaux ne seront plus chers \u00e0 Paris, que de la diff\u00e9rence des frais &\ndes risques de l'envoi & des entr\u00e9es de la Ville.\nIl seroit ais\u00e9 de faire une infinit\u00e9 d'inductions de m\u00eame nature, pour\njustifier par l'exp\u00e9rience la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d'une in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la\ncirculation d'argent dans les diff\u00e9rentes Provinces d'un grand Etat ou\nRo\u00efaume, & d\u00e9montrer que cette in\u00e9galit\u00e9 est toujours relative \u00e0 la\nbalance ou dette qui appartient \u00e0 la Capitale.\nSi nous supposons que la balance due \u00e0 la Capitale aille au quart du\nproduit des terres de toutes les Provinces de l'Etat, la meilleure\ndisposition qu'on puisse faire des terres, ce seroit d'emplo\u00efer les\nCampagnes voisines de la Capitale dans les especes de denr\u00e9es qu'on ne\nsauroit tirer des Provinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es sans beaucoup de frais ou de\nd\u00e9chet. C'est en effet ce qui se pratique toujours. Le prix des March\u00e9s\nde la Capitale servant de regle aux Fermiers pour l'emploi des terres \u00e0\ntel ou tel usage, ils emploient les plus proches, lorsqu'elles s'y\ntrouvent propres, en potagers, en prairies, &c.\nMais on devroit \u00e9riger dans les Provinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es, autant qu'il seroit\npossible, les Manufactures de drap, de linge, de dentelles, &c.; & dans\nle voisinage des Mines de Charbon, ou des For\u00eats, qui sont inutiles par\nleur \u00e9loignement, celles des outils de fer, d'\u00e9taim, de cuivre, &c. Par\nce mo\u00efen, on pourroit envo\u00efer les marchandises toutes faites \u00e0 la\nCapitale avec bien moins de frais de transport, que si l'on envo\u00efoit &\nles mat\u00e9riaux pour les faire travailler dans la Capitale m\u00eame, & la\nsubsistance des ouvriers qui les y travailleroient. On \u00e9pargneroit une\ninfinit\u00e9 de chevaux & valets de voiture, qui seroient mieux emplo\u00ef\u00e9s\npour le bien de l'Etat: les terres serviroient \u00e0 maintenir sur les lieux\ndes ouvriers & des artisans utiles; & on retrancheroit une multitude de\nchevaux qui ne servent qu'\u00e0 des voitures, sans n\u00e9cessit\u00e9. Ainsi les\nterres \u00e9loign\u00e9es en rapporteroient des rentes plus consid\u00e9rables aux\npropri\u00e9taires, & l'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la circulation des Provinces & de la\nCapitale seroit mieux proportionn\u00e9e & moins consid\u00e9rable.\nCependant, pour \u00e9riger ainsi des Manufactures, il faut non-seulement\nbeaucoup d'encouragement & de fond, mais encore le mo\u00efen de s'assurer\nd'une consommation r\u00e9guliere & constante, soit dans la Capitale m\u00eame,\nsoit dans quelques Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, dont les retours puissent servir \u00e0 la\nCapitale, pour faire les paiemens des marchandises qu'elle tire de ces\nPa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, ou pour les retours d'argent en nature.\nLorsqu'on \u00e9rige ces Manufactures, on n'arrive pas d'abord \u00e0 la\nperfection. Si quelque autre Province en a, qui soient plus belles, \u00e0\nmeilleur march\u00e9, ou dont le voisinage de la Capitale, ou la commodit\u00e9\nd'une Mer ou d'une Riviere qui y communiquent, en facilite\nconsid\u00e9rablement le transport, les Manufactures en question n'auront pas\nde r\u00e9ussite. Il faut examiner toutes ces circonstances dans l'\u00e9rection\ndes Manufactures. Je ne me suis pas propos\u00e9 d'en traiter dans cet Essai,\nmais seulement d'insinuer qu'on devroit, autant qu'il se peut, \u00e9riger\ndes Manufactures dans les Provinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es de la Capitale, pour les\nrendre plus consid\u00e9rables & pour y produire une circulation d'argent\nmoins in\u00e9gale \u00e0 proportion de celle de la Capitale.\nCar lorsqu'une Province \u00e9loign\u00e9e n'a point de Manufacture, & ne produit\nque des denr\u00e9es ordinaires sans avoir communication par eau avec la\nCapitale ou avec la Mer, il est \u00e9tonnant combien l'argent y est rare, \u00e0\nproportion de celui qui circule dans la Capitale, & combien peu de\nrevenus les plus belles terres produisent au Prince, & aux Propri\u00e9taires\nqui r\u00e9sident dans la Capitale.\nLes vins de Province & de Languedoc, envo\u00ef\u00e9s au tour du D\u00e9troit de\nGibraltar dans le Nord, par une navigation longue & p\u00e9nible, & apr\u00e8s\navoir pass\u00e9 par les mains de plusieurs Entrepreneurs, rendent bien peu\naux Propri\u00e9taires de Paris.\nCependant il faut n\u00e9cessairement que ces Provinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es envoient\nleurs denr\u00e9es, malgr\u00e9 tous les d\u00e9savantages des voitures & de\nl'\u00e9loignement, ou \u00e0 la Capitale, ou ailleurs, soit dans l'Etat, soit\ndans les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, afin que les retours fassent le paiement de la\nbalance due \u00e0 la Capitale. Au lieu que ces denr\u00e9es seroient en grande\npartie consomm\u00e9es sur les lieux, si on avoit des ouvrages ou\nManufactures pour pa\u00efer cette balance, & en ce cas le nombre des\nhabitans seroit bien plus consid\u00e9rable.\nLorsque la Province ne paie la balance que de ses denr\u00e9es, qui\nproduisent si peu dans la Capitale par rapport aux frais de\nl'\u00e9loignement, il est visible que le Propri\u00e9taire, qui r\u00e9side dans la\nCapitale, donne le produit de beaucoup de terre dans sa Province, pour\nrecevoir peu dans la Capitale. Cela provient de l'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de l'argent;\n& cette in\u00e9galit\u00e9 vient de la balance constante que la Province doit \u00e0\nla Capitale.\nPr\u00e9sentement, si un Etat ou un Ro\u00efaume, qui fournit d'ouvrages de ses\nManufactures tous les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, fait tellement ce commerce, qu'il\ntire tous les ans une balance constante d'argent de l'Etranger, la\ncirculation y deviendra plus consid\u00e9rable que dans les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers,\nl'argent y sera plus abondant & par cons\u00e9quent la terre & le travail y\ndeviendront insensiblement \u00e0 plus haut prix. Cela fera que dans toutes\nles branches du commerce l'Etat en question \u00e9changera une plus petite\nquantit\u00e9 de terre & de travail avec l'Etranger, pour une plus grande,\ntant que ces circonstances dureront.\nQue si quelque Etranger r\u00e9side dans l'Etat en question, il sera\n\u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s dans la m\u00eame situation & la m\u00eame circonstance o\u00f9 est \u00e0 Paris\nle Propri\u00e9taire qui a ses terres dans les Provinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es.\nLa France, depuis l'\u00e9rection en 1646 des Manufactures de draps, & des\nautres ouvrages qu'on y a faits ensuite, paroissoit faire le commerce\ndont je viens de parler, au moins en partie. Depuis la d\u00e9cadence de la\nFrance, l'Angleterre s'en est mise en possession; & tous les Etats ne\nparoissent fleurissans que par la part plus ou moins qu'ils y ont.\nL'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la circulation d'argent dans les diff\u00e9rens Etats en\nconstitue l'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de puissance comparativement, toutes choses \u00e9tant\n\u00e9gales; & cette in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de circulation est toujours respective \u00e0 la\nbalance du commerce qui revient de l'Etranger.\nIl est ais\u00e9 de juger par ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 dit dans ce Chapitre, que\nl'estimation par les Taxes de la Dixme ro\u00efale, comme M. de Vauban l'a\nfaite, ne sauroit \u00eatre avantageuse ni pratiquable. Si on faisoit la taxe\nsur les terres en argent, \u00e0 proportion des rentes des Propri\u00e9taires,\ncela seroit plus juste. Mais je ne dois pas m'\u00e9carter de mon sujet, pour\nfaire voir les inconveniens & l'impossibilit\u00e9 du plan de M. de Vauban.\nCHAPITRE VI.\n_De l'augmentation & de la diminution de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif\ndans un Etat._\nSi l'on d\u00e9couvre des Mines d'or ou d'argent dans un Etat, & si l'on en\ntire des quantit\u00e9s consid\u00e9rables de matieres, le Propri\u00e9taire de ces\nMines, les Entrepreneurs, & tous ceux qui y travaillent, ne manqueront\npas d'augmenter leurs d\u00e9penses \u00e0 proportion des richesses & des profits\nqu'ils feront: ils pr\u00eateront aussi \u00e0 int\u00e9r\u00eat les sommes d'argent qu'ils\nont au-del\u00e0 de ce qu'il faut pour leur d\u00e9pense.\nTout cet argent, tant pr\u00eat\u00e9 que d\u00e9pens\u00e9, entrera dans la circulation, &\nne manquera pas de rehausser le prix des denr\u00e9es & des marchandises dans\ntous les canaux de circulation o\u00f9 il entrera. L'augmentation de l'argent\nentra\u00eenera une augmentation de d\u00e9pense, & cette augmentation de d\u00e9pense\nentra\u00eenera une augmentation des prix du March\u00e9 dans les plus hautes\nann\u00e9es du troc, & par degr\u00e9 dans les plus basses.\nTout le monde est d'accord que l'abondance de l'argent ou son\naugmentation dans le troc, ench\u00e9rit le prix de toutes choses. La\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent qu'on a apport\u00e9e de l'Am\u00e9rique en Europe depuis deux\nsiecles, justifie par experience cette v\u00e9rit\u00e9.\nM. Locke pose comme une Maxime fondamentale que la quantit\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es\n& des marchandises, proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent, sert de\nregle au prix du March\u00e9. J'ai t\u00e2ch\u00e9 d'\u00e9claircir son id\u00e9e dans les\nChapitres pr\u00e9c\u00e9dens: il a bien senti que l'abondance de l'argent\nench\u00e9rit toute chose, mais il n'a pas recherch\u00e9 comment cela se fait. La\ngrande difficult\u00e9 de cette recherche consiste \u00e0 savoir par quelle voie &\ndans quelle proportion l'augmentation de l'argent hausse le prix des\nchoses.\nJ'ai d\u00e9ja remarqu\u00e9 qu'une acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration, ou une plus grande v\u00eetesse, dans\nla circulation de l'argent du troc, vaut autant qu'une augmentation\nd'argent effectif, jusqu'\u00e0 un certain degr\u00e9. J'ai aussi remarqu\u00e9 que\nl'augmentation ou la diminution des prix d'un March\u00e9 \u00e9loign\u00e9, soit dans\nl'Etat, soit chez l'Etranger, influe sur les prix actuels du March\u00e9.\nD'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9 l'argent circule dans le d\u00e9tail, par un si grand nombre\nde canaux, qu'il semble impossible de ne pas le perdre de vue, attendu\nqu'a\u00efant \u00e9t\u00e9 amass\u00e9 pour faire de grosses sommes, il est distribu\u00e9 dans\nles petits ruisseaux du troc, & qu'ensuite il se retrouve accumul\u00e9\npeu-\u00e0-peu pour faire de gros paiemens. Pour ces op\u00e9rations il faut\nconstamment \u00e9changer les monnoies d'or, d'argent & de cuivre, suivant la\ndiligence de ce troc. Il arrive aussi d'ordinaire qu'on ne s'apper\u00e7oit\npas de l'augmentation ou de la diminution de l'argent effectif dans un\nEtat, parcequ'il s'\u00e9coule chez l'Etranger, ou qu'il est introduit dans\nl'Etat, par des voies & des proportions si insensibles, qu'il est\nimpossible de savoir au juste la quantit\u00e9 qui entre dans l'Etat, ni\ncelle qui en sort.\nCependant toutes ces op\u00e9rations se passent sous nos yeux, & tout le\nmonde y a part directement. Ainsi je crois pouvoir hasarder quelques\nr\u00e9flexions sur cette matiere, encore que je ne puisse pas en rendre\ncompte, d'une maniere exacte & pr\u00e9cise.\nJ'estime en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral qu'une augmentation d'argent effectif cause dans un\nEtat une augmentation proportionn\u00e9e de consommation, qui produit par\ndegr\u00e9s l'augmentation des prix.\nSi l'augmentation de l'argent effectif vient des Mines d'or ou d'argent\nqui se trouvent dans un Etat, le Propri\u00e9taire de ces Mines, les\nEntrepreneurs, les Fondeurs, les Affineurs, & g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement tous ceux qui\ny travaillent, ne manqueront pas d'augmenter leurs d\u00e9penses \u00e0 proportion\nde leurs gains. Ils consommeront dans leurs m\u00e9nages plus de viande &\nplus de vin ou de bierre, qu'ils ne faisoient, ils s'accoutumeront \u00e0\nporter de meilleurs habits, de plus beau linge, \u00e0 avoir des Maisons plus\norn\u00e9es, & d'autres commodit\u00e9s plus recherch\u00e9es. Par cons\u00e9quent ils\ndonneront de l'emploi \u00e0 plusieurs Artisans qui n'avoient pas auparavant\ntant d'ouvrages, & qui par la m\u00eame raison augmenteront aussi leur\nd\u00e9pense; toute cette augmentation de d\u00e9pense en viande, en vin, en\nlaine, &c. diminue n\u00e9cessairement la part des autres habitans de l'Etat\nqui ne participent pas d'abord aux richesses des Mines en question. Les\naltercations du March\u00e9, ou la demande pour la viande, le vin, la laine,\n&c. \u00e9tant plus forte qu'\u00e0 l'ordinaire, ne manquera pas d'en hausser le\nprix. Ces hauts prix d\u00e9termineront les Fermiers \u00e0 emplo\u00efer d'avantage de\nterre pour les produire en une autre ann\u00e9e: ces m\u00eames Fermiers\nprofiteront de cette augmentation de prix, & augmenteront la d\u00e9pense de\nleur Famille, comme les autres. Ceux donc, qui souffriront de cette\nchert\u00e9, & de l'augmentation de consommation, seront d'abord les\nPropri\u00e9taires des terres, pendant le terme de leurs Baux, puis leurs\ndomestiques, & tous les ouvriers ou gens \u00e0 gages fixes qui en\nentretiennent leur famille. Il faut que tous ceux-l\u00e0 diminuent leur\nd\u00e9pense \u00e0 proportion de la nouvelle consommation; ce qui en obligera un\ngrand nombre \u00e0 sortir de l'\u00c9tat pour chercher fortune ailleurs. Les\nPropri\u00e9taires en cong\u00e9dieront plusieurs, & il arrivera que les autres\ndemanderont une augmentation de gages pour pouvoir subsister \u00e0 leur\nordinaire. Voil\u00e0 \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s comment une augmentation consid\u00e9rable\nd'argent par des Mines augmente la consommation; & en diminuant le\nnombre des habitans, entra\u00eene une plus grande d\u00e9pense parmi ceux qui\nrestent.\nSi l'on continue de tirer l'argent des Mines, les prix de toutes choses\npar cette abondance d'argent augmenteront \u00e0 tel point, que non-seulement\nles Propri\u00e9taires des terres, \u00e0 l'expiration de leurs Baux, augmenteront\nconsid\u00e9rablement leurs Rentes, & se remettront dans leur ancien train de\nvivre, en augmentant \u00e0 proportion les gages de ceux qui les servent;\nmais que les Artisans & les Ouvriers tiendront si haut leurs ouvrages\nqu'il y aura un profit consid\u00e9rable \u00e0 les tirer de l'Etranger, qui les\nfait \u00e0 bien meilleur march\u00e9. Cela d\u00e9terminera naturellement plusieurs \u00e0\nfaire venir dans l'Etat quantit\u00e9 de Manufactures d'ouvrages travaill\u00e9s\ndans les Pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, o\u00f9 on les trouvera \u00e0 grand march\u00e9: ce qui\nruinera insensiblement les Artisans & Manufacturiers de l'Etat qui ne\nsauroient y subsister en travaillant \u00e0 si bas prix, attendu la chert\u00e9.\nLorsque la trop grande abondance de l'argent des Mines aura diminu\u00e9 les\nhabitans d'un Etat, accoutum\u00e9 ceux qui restent \u00e0 une trop grande\nd\u00e9pense, port\u00e9 le produit de la terre & le travail des Ouvriers \u00e0 des\nprix excessifs, ruin\u00e9 les Manufactures de l'Etat, par l'usage que font\nde celles des pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers les Propri\u00e9taires de terre & ceux qui\ntravaillent aux Mines, l'argent du produit des Mines passera\nn\u00e9cessairement chez l'Etranger pour pa\u00efer ce qu'on en tire: ce qui\nappauvrira insensiblement cet Etat, & le rendra en quelque fa\u00e7on\nd\u00e9pendant de l'\u00c9tranger auquel on est oblig\u00e9 d'envo\u00efer annuellement\nl'argent, \u00e0 mesure qu'on le tire des Mines. La grande circulation\nd'argent, qui au commencement \u00e9toit g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, cesse; la pauvret\u00e9 & la\nmisere suivent, & le travail des Mines paro\u00eet n'\u00eatre que pour le seul\navantage de ceux qui y sont emplo\u00ef\u00e9s, & pour les Etrangers qui en\nprofitent.\nVoil\u00e0 \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s ce qui est arriv\u00e9 \u00e0 l'Espagne depuis la d\u00e9couverte des\nIndes. Pour ce qui est des Portugais, depuis la d\u00e9couverte des Mines\nd'or du Bresil, ils se sont presque toujours servis des ouvrages & des\nManufactures des \u00c9trangers; & il semble qu'ils ne travaillent aux Mines,\nque pour le compte & l'avantage de ces m\u00eames Etrangers. Tout l'or &\nl'argent que ces deux \u00c9tats tirent des Mines, ne leur en fournit pas\nplus dans la circulation, qu'aux autres. L'Angleterre & la France en ont\nm\u00eame ordinairement davantage.\nMaintenant si l'augmentation d'argent dans l'\u00c9tat provient d'une balance\nde commerce avec les \u00c9trangers, (c'est-\u00e0-dire, en envo\u00efant chez eux des\nouvrages & des Manufactures en plus grande valeur & quantit\u00e9 que ce\nqu'on en tire, & par cons\u00e9quent en recevant le surplus en argent) cette\naugmentation annuelle d'argent enrichira un grand nombre de Marchands &\nd'Entrepreneurs dans l'\u00c9tat, & donnera de l'emploi \u00e0 quantit\u00e9 d'Artisans\n& d'Ouvriers qui fournissent les ouvrages qu'on envoie chez l'\u00c9tranger\nd'o\u00f9 l'on tire cet argent. Cela augmentera par degr\u00e9s la consommation de\nces habitans industrieux, & ench\u00e9rira les prix de la terre & du travail.\nMais les Gens industrieux qui sont attentifs \u00e0 amasser du bien\nn'augmenteront pas d'abord leur d\u00e9pense; ils attendront jusqu'\u00e0 ce\nqu'ils aient amass\u00e9 une bonne somme, dont ils puissent tirer un int\u00e9r\u00eat\ncertain, ind\u00e9pendamment de leur commerce. Lorsqu'un grand nombre\nd'habitans auront acquis des fortunes consid\u00e9rables, de cet argent qui\nentre constamment & annuellement dans l'\u00c9tat, ils ne manqueront pas\nd'augmenter leurs consommations & d'encherir toutes choses. Quoique\ncette chert\u00e9 les entra\u00eene dans une plus grande d\u00e9pense qu'ils ne\ns'\u00e9toient d'abord propos\u00e9 de faire, ils ne laisseront pas pour la\npl\u00fbpart de continuer tant qu'il leur restera de capital; attendu que\nrien n'est plus ais\u00e9 ni plus agr\u00e9able que d'augmenter la d\u00e9pense des\nfamilles, mais rien de plus difficile ni de plus d\u00e9sagr\u00e9able que de la\nretrancher.\nSi une balance annuelle & constante a caus\u00e9 dans un \u00c9tat une\naugmentation consid\u00e9rable d'argent, elle ne manquera pas d'augmenter la\nconsommation, d'encherir le prix de toutes choses, & m\u00eame de diminuer le\nnombre des habitans, \u00e0 moins qu'on ne tire de l'Etranger une addition de\ndenr\u00e9es \u00e0 proportion de l'augmentation de consommation. D'ailleurs il\nest ordinaire dans les \u00c9tats qui ont acquis une abondance consid\u00e9rable\nd'argent, de tirer beaucoup de choses des pa\u00efs voisins o\u00f9 l'argent est\nrare, & o\u00f9 tout est par cons\u00e9quent \u00e0 grand march\u00e9: mais comme il faut\nenvo\u00efer de l'argent pour cela, la balance du commerce deviendra plus\npetite. Le bon march\u00e9 de la terre & du travail dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers\no\u00f9 l'argent est rare, y fera naturellement \u00e9riger des Manufactures & des\nouvrages pareils \u00e0 ceux de l'\u00c9tat, mais qui ne seront pas d'abord si\nparfaits ni si estim\u00e9s.\nDans cette situation, l'\u00c9tat peut subsister dans l'abondance d'argent,\nconsommer tout son produit & m\u00eame beaucoup du produit des pa\u00efs\n\u00e9trangers, & encore par-dessus tout cela, conserver une petite balance\nde commerce contre l'\u00c9tranger, ou au moins garder bien des ann\u00e9es cette\nbalance au pair; c'est-\u00e0-dire, tirer, en \u00e9change de ses ouvrages & de\nses Manufactures, autant d'argent de ces pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, qu'il est\noblig\u00e9 d'y en envo\u00efer en \u00e9change des denr\u00e9es ou des produits de terre\nqu'il en tire. Si cet \u00c9tat est \u00c9tat maritime, la facilit\u00e9 & le bon\nmarch\u00e9 de sa navigation pour le transport de ses ouvrages & de ses\nManufactures dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, pourront compenser en quelque\nfa\u00e7on la chert\u00e9 du travail que la trop grande abondance d'argent y\ncause; de sorte que les ouvrages & les Manufactures de cet \u00c9tat, toutes\ncheres qu'elles y sont, ne laisseront pas de se vendre dans les pa\u00efs\n\u00e9trangers \u00e9loign\u00e9s, \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9 quelquefois que les Manufactures\nd'un autre \u00c9tat o\u00f9 le travail est \u00e0 plus bas prix.\nLes frais de voiture augmentent beaucoup le prix des choses qu'on\ntransporte dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9loign\u00e9s; mais ces frais sont assez modiques\ndans les \u00c9tats maritimes, o\u00f9 il y a une navigation regl\u00e9e pour tous les\nPorts \u00e9trangers, au mo\u00efen de quoi on y trouve presque toujours des\nB\u00e2timens pr\u00eats \u00e0 faire voile, qui se chargent de toutes les marchandises\nqu'on leur confie, pour un fret tr\u00e8s raisonnable.\nIl n'en est pas de m\u00eame dans les \u00c9tats o\u00f9 la navigation n'est pas\nflorissante; on est oblig\u00e9 d'y construire des navires expr\u00e8s pour le\ntransport des marchandises, ce qui emporte quelquefois tout le profit; &\non y navigue toujours \u00e0 grands frais, ce qui d\u00e9courage entierement le\ncommerce.\nL'Angleterre consomme aujourd'hui non-seulement la plus grande partie de\nson peu de produit, mais encore beaucoup du produit des autres pa\u00efs;\ncomme soieries, vins, fruits, du linge en quantit\u00e9, &c., au lieu qu'elle\nn'envoie chez l'Etranger que le produit de ses Mines, ses Ouvrages & ses\nManufactures pour la pl\u00fbpart, & quelque cher qu'y soit le travail, par\nl'abondance de l'argent, elle ne laisse pas de vendre ses ouvrages dans\nles pa\u00efs \u00e9loign\u00e9s, par l'avantage de sa navigation, \u00e0 des prix aussi\nraisonnables qu'en France, o\u00f9 ces m\u00eames ouvrages sont bien moins chers.\nL'augmentation de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans un \u00c9tat peut encore\n\u00eatre occasionn\u00e9e, sans balance de commerce, par des subsides pa\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0 cet\n\u00c9tat par des Puissances \u00e9trangeres; par les d\u00e9penses de plusieurs\nAmbassadeurs, ou de Vo\u00efageurs, que des raisons de politique, ou la\ncuriosit\u00e9, ou les divertissemens, peuvent engager \u00e0 y faire quelque\ns\u00e9jour; par le transport des biens & des fortunes de quelques Familles\nqui, par des motifs de libert\u00e9 de religion, ou par d'autres causes,\nquittent leur patrie pour s'\u00e9tablir dans cet \u00c9tat. Dans tous ces cas,\nles sommes qui entrent dans l'\u00c9tat y causent toujours une augmentation\nde d\u00e9penses & de consommation, & par cons\u00e9quent encherissent toutes\nchoses dans les canaux du troc o\u00f9 l'argent entre.\nSupposons qu'un quart des habitans de l'\u00c9tat consomment journellement de\nla viande, du vin, de la bierre, &c. & se donnent fort fr\u00e9quemment des\nhabits, du linge, &c., avant l'introduction de l'augmentation de\nl'argent; mais qu'apr\u00e8s cette introduction, un tiers ou une moiti\u00e9 des\nhabitans consomment ces m\u00eames choses, les prix de ces denr\u00e9es & de ces\nmarchandises ne manqueront pas de hausser, & la chert\u00e9 de la viande\nd\u00e9terminera plusieurs des habitans qui faisoient le quart de l'\u00c9tat, \u00e0\nen consommer moins qu'\u00e0 l'ordinaire. Un Homme qui mange trois livres de\nviande par jour ne laissera pas de subsister avec deux livres, mais il\nsent ce retranchement; au lieu que l'autre moiti\u00e9 des habitans qui n'en\nmangeoit presque point, ne s'en sentira pas. Le pain encherira \u00e0 la\nv\u00e9rit\u00e9 par degr\u00e9, \u00e0 cause de cette augmentation de consommation, comme\nje l'ai souvent insinu\u00e9, mais il sera moins cher \u00e0 proportion que la\nviande. L'augmentation du prix de la viande cause une diminution de la\npart d'une petite partie des habitans, ce qui la rend sensible; mais\nl'augmentation du prix du pain diminue la part de tous les habitans, ce\nqui la rend moins sensible. Si cent mille personnes d'extraordinaire\nviennent demeurer dans un \u00c9tat qui contient dix millions d'habitans,\nleur consommation extraordinaire de pain ne montera qu'\u00e0 une livre en\ncent livres, qu'il faudra retrancher aux anciens habitans; mais\nlorsqu'un homme au lieu de cent livres de pain en consomme quatre-vingt\ndix-neuf livres pour sa subsistance, il sent \u00e0 peine ce retranchement.\nLorsque la consommation de la viande augmente, les Fermiers augmentent\nleurs prairies pour avoir plus de viande, ce qui diminue la quantit\u00e9 des\nterres labourables, par cons\u00e9quent la quantit\u00e9 du bl\u00e9. Mais ce qui fait\nordinairement que la viande encherit plus \u00e0 proportion que le pain,\nc'est qu'on permet ordinairement dans l'\u00c9tat l'entr\u00e9e du bl\u00e9 des pa\u00efs\n\u00e9trangers librement, au lieu qu'on d\u00e9fend, absolument l'entr\u00e9e des\nboeufs comme en Angleterre, ou qu'on en fait pa\u00efer des droits d'entr\u00e9e\nconsid\u00e9rables, comme on fait dans d'autres \u00c9tats. C'est la raison\npourquoi les rentes des prairies & des p\u00e2turages en Angleterre haussent,\ndans l'abondance d'argent au triple plus que les rentes des terres\nlabourables.\nIl n'est pas douteux que les Ambassadeurs, les Vo\u00efageurs, & les Familles\nqui viennent s'\u00e9tablir dans l'\u00c9tat n'y augmentent la consommation, & que\nle prix des choses n'y ench\u00e9risse dans tous les canaux du troc o\u00f9\nl'argent est introduit.\nPour ce qui est des subsides que l'\u00c9tat a re\u00e7us des Puissances\n\u00e9trangeres, ou on les resserre pour les besoins de l'\u00c9tat, ou on les\nr\u00e9pand dans la circulation. Si on les suppose resserr\u00e9s, ils ne seront\npas de mon sujet, car je ne considere que l'argent qui circule. L'argent\nresserr\u00e9, la vaisselle, l'argent des Eglises, &c. sont des richesses\ndont l'\u00c9tat trouve \u00e0 se servir dans les grandes extr\u00eamit\u00e9s, mais elles\nne sont d'aucune utilit\u00e9 actuelle. Si l'\u00c9tat r\u00e9pand les subsides en\nquestion dans la circulation, ce ne peut \u00eatre que par la d\u00e9pense, & cela\naugmentera tr\u00e8s s\u00fbrement la consommation & ench\u00e9rira le prix des choses.\nQuiconque recevra cet argent, le mettra en mouvement dans l'affaire\nprincipale de la vie, qui est la nourriture, ou de soi-m\u00eame ou de\nquelqu'autre, puisque toutes choses y correspondent directement ou\nindirectement.\nCHAPITRE VII.\n_Continuation du m\u00eame sujet de l'augmentation & de la diminution de la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans un Etat._\nComme l'or, l'argent & le cuivre ont une valeur intrinseque,\nproportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la terre & au travail qui entrent dans leurs\nproductions, sur les lieux o\u00f9 l'on les tire des Mines, & encore aux\nfrais de leur importation ou introduction dans les \u00c9tats qui n'ont pas\nde Mines, la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent, comme celle de toutes les autres\nmarchandises, d\u00e9termine sa valeur dans les altercations des March\u00e9s\ncontre tout autres choses.\nSi l'Angleterre commence pour la premiere fois \u00e0 se servir d'or,\nd'argent & de cuivre dans les trocs absolus, l'argent sera\nestim\u00e9, suivant la quantit\u00e9 qu'il y en a dans la circulation,\nproportionnellement \u00e0 sa valeur contre toutes les autres marchandises &\ndenr\u00e9es, & on parviendra \u00e0 cette estimation grossierement par les\naltercations des March\u00e9s. Sur le pi\u00e9 de ces estimations, les\nPropri\u00e9taires de terres & les Entrepreneurs fixeront les gages des\nDomestiques & des Ouvriers qu'ils emploient, \u00e0 tant par jour ou par\nann\u00e9e, de telle fa\u00e7on qu'ils puissent eux & leur famille s'entretenir\ndes gages qu'on leur donne.\nSupposons maintenant que par la r\u00e9sidence des Ambassadeurs & Vo\u00efageurs\n\u00e9trangers en Angleterre, on y ait introduit autant d'argent dans la\ncirculation qu'il y en avoit au commencement; cet argent passera d'abord\nentre les mains de plusieurs Artisans, Domestiques, Entrepreneurs, &\nautres qui auront eu part au travail des \u00e9quipages, des divertissemens,\n&c., de ces \u00c9trangers: les Manufacturiers, les Fermiers & les autres\nEntrepreneurs se sentiront de cette augmentation d'argent qui mettra un\ngrand nombre de personnes dans l'habitude d'une plus grande d\u00e9pense que\npar le pass\u00e9, ce qui cons\u00e9quemment encherira les prix des March\u00e9s. Les\nEnfans m\u00eame de ces Entrepreneurs & de ces Artisans entreront dans une\nnouvelle d\u00e9pense: leurs Peres leur donneront dans cette abondance\nquelque argent pour leur menus plaisirs, dont ils acheteront des\n\u00e9chaud\u00e9s, des petits pat\u00e9s, &c. & cette nouvelle quantit\u00e9 d'argent se\ndistribuera de fa\u00e7on que plusieurs personnes qui subsistoient sans\nmanier aucun argent, ne laisseront pas d'en avoir dans le cas pr\u00e9sent.\nBeaucoup de trocs qui se faisoient auparavant par \u00e9valuation, se feront\nmaintenant l'argent \u00e0 la main, & par cons\u00e9quent il y aura plus de\nv\u00eetesse dans la circulation de l'argent, qu'il n'y en avoit au\ncommencement en Angleterre.\nJe conclus de tout cela que par l'introduction d'une double quantit\u00e9\nd'argent dans un \u00c9tat, on ne double pas toujours les prix des denr\u00e9es &\ndes marchandises. Une Riviere qui coule & serpente dans son lit, ne\ncoulera pas avec le double de rapidit\u00e9, en doublant la quantit\u00e9 de ses\neaux.\nLa proportion de la chert\u00e9, que l'augmentation & la quantit\u00e9 d'argent\nintroduisent dans l'\u00c9tat, d\u00e9pendra du tour que cet argent donnera \u00e0 la\nconsommation & \u00e0 la circulation. Par quelques mains que l'argent qui est\nintroduit passe, il augmentera naturellement la consommation; mais cette\nconsommation sera plus ou moins grande suivant les cas; elle tombera\nplus ou moins sur certaines especes de denr\u00e9es ou de marchandises,\nsuivant le g\u00e9nie de ceux qui acquerent l'argent. Les prix des March\u00e9s\nench\u00e9riront plus pour certaines especes que pour d'autres, quelque\nabondant que soit l'argent. En Angleterre, le prix de la viande pourroit\nencherir du triple, sans que le prix du bl\u00e9 ench\u00e9r\u00eet de plus d'un quart.\nIl est toujours permis en Angleterre d'introduire des bl\u00e9s des pa\u00efs\n\u00e9trangers, mais il n'est pas permis d'y introduire des boeufs. Cela fait\nque quelque consid\u00e9rable que puisse devenir l'augmentation de l'argent\neffectif en Angleterre, le prix du bl\u00e9 n'y peut \u00eatre port\u00e9 plus haut que\ndans les autres pa\u00efs o\u00f9 l'argent est rare, que de la valeur des frais &\ndes risques qu'il y a \u00e0 y introduire le bl\u00e9 de ces m\u00eames pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers.\nIl n'en est pas de m\u00eame du prix des boeufs, qui sera n\u00e9cessairement\nproportionn\u00e9 \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qu'on offre pour la viande,\nproportionnellement \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 de cette viande & au nombre des boeufs\nqu'on y nourrit.\nUn boeuf pesant huit cens livres se vend aujourd'hui en Pologne & en\nHongrie deux ou trois onces d'argent, au lieu qu'on le vend commun\u00e9ment\nau March\u00e9 de Londres plus de quarante onces d'argent. Cependant le\nseptier de froment ne se vend pas \u00e0 Londres au double de ce qu'il se\nvend en Pologne & en Hongrie.\nL'augmentation de l'argent n'augmente le prix des denr\u00e9es & des\nmarchandises, que de la diff\u00e9rence des frais du transport, lorsque ce\ntransport est permis. Mais dans beaucoup de cas ce transport couteroit\nplus que la valeur de la chose, ce qui fait que les bois sont inutiles\ndans beaucoup d'endroits. Ce m\u00eame transport est cause que le lait, le\nbeurre frais, la salade, le gibier, &c. sont pour rien dans les\nProvinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es de la Capitale.\nJe conclus qu'une augmentation d'argent effectif dans un \u00c9tat y\nintroduit toujours une augmentation de consommation & l'habitude d'une\nplus grande d\u00e9pense. Mais la chert\u00e9 que cet argent cause, ne se r\u00e9pand\npas \u00e9galement sur toutes les especes de denr\u00e9es & de marchandises,\nproportionn\u00e9ment \u00e0 la quantit\u00e9 de cet argent; \u00e0 moins que celui qui est\nintroduit ne soit continu\u00e9 dans les m\u00eames canaux de circulation que\nl'argent primitif; c'est-\u00e0-dire, \u00e0 moins que ceux qui offroient aux\nMarch\u00e9s une once d'argent, ne soient les m\u00eames & les seuls qui y offrent\nmaintenant deux onces, depuis que l'argent est augment\u00e9 du double de\npoids dans la circulation, ce qui n'arrive guere. Je con\u00e7ois que\nlorsqu'on introduit dans un \u00c9tat une bonne quantit\u00e9 d'argent de surplus,\nle nouvel argent donne un tour nouveau \u00e0 la consommation, & m\u00eame une\nv\u00eetesse \u00e0 la circulation; mais il n'est pas possible d'en marquer le\ndegr\u00e9 v\u00e9ritable.\nCHAPITRE VIII.\n_Autre Reflexion sur l'augmentation & sur la diminution de la quantit\u00e9\nd'argent effectif dans un Etat._\nNous avons v\u00fb qu'on pouvoit augmenter la quantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans\nun \u00c9tat, par le travail des Mines qui s'y trouvent, par les subsides des\nPuissances \u00e9trangeres, par le transport des Familles \u00e9trangeres, par la\nr\u00e9sidence d'Ambassadeurs & de Vo\u00efageurs, mais principalement par une\nbalance constante & annuelle de commerce, en fournissant des ouvrages \u00e0\nl'Etranger, pour en tirer au moins une partie du prix en especes d'or &\nd'argent. C'est par cette derniere voie qu'un Etat s'agrandit le plus\nsolidement, surtout lorsque le commerce est accompagn\u00e9 & soutenu par une\ngrande navigation, & par un produit consid\u00e9rable dans l'int\u00e9rieur de\nl'Etat, qui puisse fournir les materiaux n\u00e9cessaires pour les ouvrages &\nles Manufactures qu'on envoie au-dehors.\nCependant, comme la continuation de ce commerce introduit par degr\u00e9 une\ngrande abondance d'argent, & augmente peu-\u00e0-peu la consommation, & comme\npour y suppl\u00e9er, il faut tirer beaucoup de denr\u00e9es de l'Etranger, il\nsort une partie de la balance annuelle pour les acheter. D'un autre\nc\u00f4t\u00e9, l'habitude de la d\u00e9pense ench\u00e9rissant le travail des Ouvriers, les\nprix des ouvrages des Manufactures haussent toujours; & il ne manque pas\nd'arriver que quelques-uns des pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers t\u00e2chent d'eriger chez eux\nles m\u00eames especes d'ouvrages & de Manufactures, au mo\u00efen de quoi ils\ncessent d'acheter ceux de l'Etat en question: & quoique ces nouveaux\n\u00e9tablissemens d'ouvrages & de Manufactures ne soient pas d'abord\nparfaits, ils retardent cependant & emp\u00eachent m\u00eame l'exportation de ceux\nde l'Etat voisin dans leur propre pa\u00efs, o\u00f9 l'on se fournit \u00e0 meilleur\nmarch\u00e9.\nC'est ainsi que l'Etat commence \u00e0 perdre quelques branches de son\ncommerce lucratif; & plusieurs de ses Ouvriers & Artisans qui voient le\ntravail rallenti, sortent de l'Etat pour trouver plus d'emploi dans les\npa\u00efs de la nouvelle Manufacture. Malgr\u00e9 cette diminution de la balance\ndu commerce de l'Etat, on ne laisse pas d'y continuer dans les usages o\u00f9\nl'on \u00e9toit de tirer plusieurs denr\u00e9es de l'Etranger. Les ouvrages & les\nManufactures de l'Etat a\u00efant une grande r\u00e9putation, & la facilit\u00e9 de la\nnavigation donnant les mo\u00efens de les envo\u00efer \u00e0 peu de frais dans les\npa\u00efs \u00e9loign\u00e9s, l'Etat l'emportera pendant bien des ann\u00e9es sur les\nnouvelles Manufactures dont nous avons parl\u00e9, & maintiendra encore une\npetite balance de commerce, ou du moins le maintiendra au pair.\nCependant si quelqu'autre Etat maritime t\u00e2che de perfectionner les m\u00eames\nouvrages & en m\u00eame-tems sa navigation, il enlevera par le bon march\u00e9 de\nses Manufactures plusieurs branches du commerce \u00e0 l'Etat en question.\nPar cons\u00e9quent cet Etat commencera \u00e0 perdre la balance, & sera oblig\u00e9\nd'envo\u00efer tous les ans une partie de son argent chez l'Etranger, pour le\npaiement des denr\u00e9es qu'il en tire.\nBien plus, quand m\u00eame l'Etat en question pourroit conserver une balance\nde commerce dans sa plus grande abondance d'argent, on peut\nraisonnablement supposer que cette abondance n'arrive pas sans qu'il n'y\nait beaucoup de Particuliers opulens qui se jettent dans le luxe. Ils\nacheteront des Tableaux, des Pierreries de l'Etranger, ils voudront\navoir de leurs soieries & plusieurs raret\u00e9s, mettront l'Etat dans une\ntelle habitude de luxe, que malgr\u00e9 les avantages de son commerce\nordinaire, son argent s'\u00e9coulera annuellement chez l'Etranger pour le\npaiement de ce m\u00eame luxe: cela ne manquera pas d'appauvrir l'Etat par\ndegr\u00e9, & de le faire passer d'une grande puissance dans une grande\nfoiblesse.\nLorsqu'un Etat est parvenu au plus haut point de richesse, je suppose\ntoujours que la richesse comparative des Etats consiste dans les\nquantit\u00e9s respectives d'argent qu'ils possedent principalement, il ne\nmanquera pas de retomber dans la pauvret\u00e9 par le cours ordinaire des\nchoses. La trop grande abondance d'argent, qui fait, tandis qu'elle\ndure, la puissance des Etats, les rejette insensiblement, mais\nnaturellement, dans l'indigence. Aussi il sembleroit que lorsqu'un Etat\ns'\u00e9tend par le commerce, & que l'abondance de l'argent ench\u00e9rit trop les\nprix de la terre & du travail, le Prince, ou la L\u00e9gislature devroit\nretirer de l'argent, le garder pour des cas imprevus, & t\u00e2cher de\nretarder sa circulation par toutes les voies, hors celles de la\ncontrainte & de la mauvaise foi, afin de pr\u00e9venir la trop grande chert\u00e9\nde ses ouvrages, & d'emp\u00eacher les inconveniens du luxe.\nMais comme il n'est pas facile de s'appercevoir du tems propre pour\ncela, ni de savoir quand l'argent est devenu plus abondant qu'il ne doit\nl'\u00eatre pour le bien & la conservation des avantages de l'Etat, les\nPrinces, & les Chefs des R\u00e9publiques, qui ne s'embarrassent guere de ces\nsortes de connoissances, ne s'attachent qu'\u00e0 se servir de la facilit\u00e9\nqu'ils trouvent, par l'abondance des revenus de l'Etat, \u00e0 \u00e9tendre leurs\npuissances, & \u00e0 insulter d'autres Etats sur les pr\u00e9textes les plus\nfrivols. Et toutes choses bien consider\u00e9es, ils ne font peut-\u00eatre pas si\nmal de travailler \u00e0 perp\u00e9tuer la gloire de leurs Regnes & de leur\nadministration, & de laisser des monumens de leur puissance & de leur\nopulence; car puisque, selon le cours naturel des choses humaines,\nl'Etat doit retomber de lui-m\u00eame, ils ne font qu'acc\u00e9lerer un peu sa\nch\u00fbte. Il semble n\u00e9anmoins qu'ils devroient t\u00e2cher de faire durer leurs\npuissances pendant tout le tems de leur propre administration.\nIl ne faut pas un grand nombre d'ann\u00e9es pour porter dans un Etat\nl'abondance au plus haut degr\u00e9, & il en faut encore moins pour le faire\nentrer dans l'indigence, faute de commerce & de Manufactures. Sans\nparler de la puissance & de la ch\u00fbte de la R\u00e9publique de Venise, des\nVilles ans\u00e9atiques, de la Flandre & du Brabant, de la R\u00e9publique de\nHollande, &c. qui se sont succed\u00e9es dans les branches lucratives du\ncommerce, on peut dire que la puissance de la France n'est all\u00e9e en\naugmentant que depuis 1646, qu'on y \u00e9rigea des Manufactures de draps, au\nlieu qu'auparavant on les tiroit de l'Etranger, jusqu'en 1684, qu'on en\nchassa nombre d'Entrepreneurs & d'Artisans Protestans, & que ce Ro\u00efaume\nn'a fait que baisser depuis cette derniere \u00e9poque.\nPour juger de l'abondance & de la raret\u00e9 de l'argent dans la\ncirculation, je ne connois pas de meilleure r\u00e9gle que celle des baux &\ndes rentes des Propri\u00e9taires de terres. Lorsqu'on afferme des terres \u00e0\nhaut prix c'est une marque que l'argent abonde dans l'Etat; mais\nlorsqu'on est oblig\u00e9 de les affermer bien plus bas, cela fait voir, tout\nautres choses \u00e9tant \u00e9gales, que l'argent est rare. J'ai lu dans un \u00e9tat\nde la France, que l'arpent de vigne qu'on avoit afferm\u00e9 en 1660, en\nargent fort, aupr\u00e8s de Mante, & par cons\u00e9quent pas bien loin de la\nCapitale de France, pour 200 liv. tournois, ne s'affermoit en 1700, en\nargent plus foible, qu'\u00e0 100 liv. tournois: quoique l'argent apport\u00e9 des\nIndes occidentales dans cet intervalle d\u00fbt naturellement rehausser le\nprix des terres, dans l'Europe.\nL'Auteur attribue cette diminution de la rente \u00e0 un d\u00e9faut de\nconsommation. Et il paro\u00eet qu'il avoit remarqu\u00e9 en effet que la\nconsommation de vin \u00e9toit diminu\u00e9e. Mais j'estime qu'il a pris l'effet\npour la cause. La cause \u00e9toit une plus grande raret\u00e9 d'argent en France,\ndont l'effet \u00e9toit naturellement une diminution de consommation. Tout au\ncontraire j'ai toujours insinu\u00e9 dans cet Essai, que l'abondance de\nl'argent augmente naturellement la consommation, & contribue sur toutes\nchoses \u00e0 mettre les terres en valeur. Lorsque l'abondance de l'argent\n\u00e9leve les denr\u00e9es \u00e0 un prix honn\u00eate, les habitans s'empressent de\ntravailler pour en acquerir; mais ils n'ont pas le m\u00eame empressement de\nposs\u00e9der aucunes denr\u00e9es ou marchandises au-del\u00e0 de ce qu'il faut pour\nleur entretien.\nIl est apparent que tout Etat, qui a plus d'argent en circulation que\nses voisins, a un avantage sur eux, tant qu'il conserve cette abondance\nd'argent.\nEn premier lieu, dans toutes les branches du commerce il donne moins de\nterre & de travail qu'il n'en retire: le prix de la terre & du travail\n\u00e9tant par tout estim\u00e9 en argent, ce prix est plus fort dans l'Etat o\u00f9\nl'argent abonde le plus. Ainsi l'Etat en question retire quelquefois le\nproduit de deux arpens de terre en \u00e9change de celui d'un arpent, & le\ntravail de deux hommes pour celui d'un seul. C'est par rapport \u00e0 cette\nabondance d'argent dans la circulation \u00e0 Londres, que le travail d'un\nseul Brodeur Anglois, coute plus que celui de dix Brodeurs Chinois;\nquoique les Chinois brodent bien mieux & fassent plus d'ouvrages dans la\njourn\u00e9e. On s'\u00e9tonne en Europe comment ces Indiens peuvent subsister en\ntravaillant \u00e0 si grand march\u00e9, & comment les \u00e9toffes admirables qu'ils\nnous envoient, coutent si peu.\nEn second lieu, les revenus de l'Etat o\u00f9 l'argent abonde, se levent avec\nbien plus de facilit\u00e9 & en plus grande somme comparativement; ce qui\ndonne les mo\u00efens \u00e0 l'Etat, en cas de guerre ou de contestation, de\ngagner toutes sortes d'avantages sur ses Adversaires chez qui l'argent\nest plus rare.\nSi de deux Princes qui se font la guerre pour la Souverainet\u00e9 ou la\nConqu\u00eate d'un Etat, l'un a beaucoup d'argent, & l'autre peu, mais\nplusieurs domaines qui puissent valoir deux fois plus que tout l'argent\nde son Ennemi; le premier sera plus en \u00e9tat de s'attacher des G\u00e9n\u00e9raux &\ndes Officiers par des largesses en argent, que le second ne le sera en\ndonnant aux siens le double de la valeur en terres & en domaines. Les\ncessions des terres sont sujettes \u00e0 des contestations & \u00e0 des\nrescisions, & on n'y compte pas si bien que sur l'argent qu'on re\u00e7oit.\nOn achete avec de l'argent les munitions de guerre & de bouche, m\u00eame des\nEnnemis de l'Etat. On peut donner de l'argent pour des services secrets\n& sans t\u00e9moins: les terres, les denr\u00e9es, & les marchandises ne sauroient\nservir dans ces occasions, ni m\u00eame les bijoux ni les diamans,\nparcequ'ils sont faciles \u00e0 reconno\u00eetre. Apr\u00e8s tout, il me semble que la\npuissance & la richesse comparatives des Etats consistent, tout autres\nchoses \u00e9tant \u00e9gales, dans la plus ou moins grande abondance d'argent qui\ny circule, _hic & nunc_.\nIl me reste encore \u00e0 parler de deux autres mo\u00efens d'augmenter la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans la circulation d'un Etat. Le premier est\nlorsque les Entrepreneurs & les Particuliers empruntent de l'argent de\nleurs Correspondans \u00e9trangers, pour leur en pa\u00efer l'int\u00e9r\u00eat, ou que les\nParticuliers \u00e9trangers envoient leur argent dans l'Etat, pour y acheter\ndes actions ou fonds publics. Cela fait souvent des sommes tr\u00e8s\nconsid\u00e9rables dont l'Etat doit pa\u00efer annuellement \u00e0 ces Etrangers un\nint\u00e9r\u00eat, & ces fa\u00e7ons d'augmenter l'argent dans l'Etat y rendent\nr\u00e9ellement l'argent plus abondant, & diminuent le prix de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat. Par\nle mo\u00efen de cet argent, les Entrepreneurs de l'Etat trouvent mo\u00efen\nd'emprunter plus facilement, de faire faire des ouvrages & d'\u00e9tablir des\nManufactures, dans l'esperance d'y gagner; les Artisans, & tous ceux par\nles mains de qui cet argent passe, ne manquent pas de consommer plus\nqu'ils n'eussent fait, s'ils n'avoient \u00e9t\u00e9 emplo\u00ef\u00e9s au mo\u00efen de cet\nargent, qui hausse par cons\u00e9quent les prix de toutes choses, comme s'il\nappartenoit \u00e0 l'Etat; & au mo\u00efen de l'augmentation de d\u00e9pense ou de la\nconsommation qu'il cause, les revenus que le Public per\u00e7oit sur la\nconsommation en sont augment\u00e9s. Les sommes pr\u00eat\u00e9es \u00e0 l'Etat en cette\nmaniere y causent bien des avantages pr\u00e9sens, mais la suite en est\ntoujours on\u00e9reuse & d\u00e9savantageuse. Il faut que l'Etat en paie l'int\u00e9r\u00eat\naux Etrangers annuellement, & outre cette perte l'Etat se trouve \u00e0 la\nmerci des Etrangers, qui peuvent toujours le mettre dans l'indigence\nlorsqu'il leur prendra fantaisie de retirer leurs fonds; & il arrivera\ncertainement qu'ils voudront les retirer, dans l'instant que l'Etat en\naura le plus de besoin; comme lorsqu'on se pr\u00e9pare \u00e0 avoir une guerre &\nqu'on y craint quelque \u00e9chet. L'int\u00e9r\u00eat qu'on paie \u00e0 l'Etranger est\ntoujours bien plus considerable que l'augmentation du revenu public que\ncet argent cause. On voit souvent passer ces pr\u00eats d'argent d'un Pa\u00efs \u00e0\nun autre, suivant la confiance des Pr\u00eateurs pour les Etats o\u00f9 ils les\nenvoient. Mais \u00e0 dire le vrai, il arrive le plus souvent que les Etats\nqui sont charg\u00e9s de ces emprunts & qui en ont pa\u00ef\u00e9 plusieurs ann\u00e9es de\ngros int\u00e9r\u00eats, tombent \u00e0 la longue dans l'impuissance de pa\u00efer les\ncapitaux, par une banqueroute. Pour peu que la m\u00e9fiance s'en m\u00eale, les\nfonds ou actions publiques tombent, les Actionnaires \u00e9trangers n'aiment\npas \u00e0 les rappeller avec perte, & aiment mieux se contenter de leurs\nint\u00e9r\u00eats, en attendant que la confiance puisse revenir; mais elle ne\nrevient quelquefois plus. Dans les Etats qui tombent en d\u00e9cadence, le\nprincipal objet des Ministres est ordinairement de ranimer la confiance,\n& par ce mo\u00efen d'attirer l'argent des Etrangers par ces sortes de pr\u00eats:\ncar \u00e0 moins que le Ministere ne manque \u00e0 la bonne foi & \u00e0 ses\nengagemens, l'argent des Sujets circulera sans interruption. C'est celui\ndes Etrangers qui peut augmenter la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent effectif dans\nl'Etat.\nMais la voie de ces emprunts, qui donne un avantage pr\u00e9sent, conduit \u00e0\nune mauvaise fin, & c'est un feu de paille. Il faut pour relever un\nEtat, s'attacher \u00e0 y faire rentrer annuellement & constamment une\nbalance r\u00e9elle de commerce, faire fleurir par la Navigation les Ouvrages\n& les Manufactures qu'on est toujours en \u00e9tat d'envo\u00efer chez les\nEtrangers \u00e0 un meilleur march\u00e9, lorsqu'on est tomb\u00e9 en d\u00e9cadence & dans\nune raret\u00e9 d'especes. Les N\u00e9gocians commencent \u00e0 faire les premieres\nfortunes, les Gens de robbe pourront ensuite s'en approprier une partie,\nle Prince & les Traitans pourront en acquerir aux d\u00e9pens des uns & des\nautres, & distribuer les graces selon leurs volont\u00e9s. Lorsque l'argent\ndeviendra trop abondant dans l'Etat, le luxe s'y mettra, & il tombera en\nd\u00e9cadence.\nVoil\u00e0 \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s le cercle que pourra faire un Etat consid\u00e9rable qui a\ndu fond & des habitans industrieux. Un habile Ministre est toujours en\n\u00e9tat de lui faire recommencer ce cercle, il ne faut pas un grand nombre\nd'ann\u00e9es pour en voir l'experience & le succ\u00e8s, au moins des\ncommencemens qui en est la situation la plus int\u00e9ressante. On conno\u00eetra\nl'augmentation de la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent effectif, par plusieurs voies\nque mon sujet ne me permet pas d'examiner pr\u00e9sentement.\nPour ce qui est des Etats qui n'ont pas un bon fond, & qui ne peuvent\ns'agrandir que par des accidens & selon les circonstances des tems, il\nest difficile de trouver les mo\u00efens de les faire fleurir par les voies\ndu commerce. Il n'y a pas de Ministres qui puissent remettre les\nR\u00e9publiques de Venise & de Hollande dans la situation brillante dont\nelles sont tomb\u00e9es. Mais pour l'Italie, l'Espagne, la France, &\nl'Angleterre, en quelque \u00e9tat de d\u00e9cadence qu'elles puissent \u00eatre, elles\nsont capables d'\u00eatre toujours port\u00e9es, par une bonne administration, \u00e0\nun haut degr\u00e9 de puissance, par le seul fait du commerce; pourvu qu'on\nl'entreprenne s\u00e9parement: car si tous ces Etats \u00e9toient \u00e9galement bien\nadministr\u00e9s, ils ne seroient consid\u00e9rables que proportionnellement \u00e0\nleurs fonds respectifs & \u00e0 la plus ou moins grande industrie de leurs\nhabitans.\nLe dernier mo\u00efen que je puisse imaginer pour augmenter dans un Etat la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans la circulation, est la voie de la\nviolence & des armes, & elle se m\u00eale souvent avec les autres, attendu\nque dans tous les Trait\u00e9s de paix on pourvoit ordinairement \u00e0 se\nconserver les droits de commerce & les avantages qu'on a pu en tirer.\nLorsqu'un Etat se fait pa\u00efer des contributions, ou se rend plusieurs\nautres Etats tributaires, c'est un mo\u00efen bien certain d'attirer leur\nargent. Je n'entreprendrai pas de rechercher les mo\u00efens de mettre cette\nvoie en usage, je me contenterai de dire que toutes les Nations qui ont\nfleuri par cette voie, n'ont pas laiss\u00e9 de tomber dans la d\u00e9cadence,\ncomme les Etats qui ont fleuri par leur commerce. Les anciens Romains\nont \u00e9t\u00e9 plus puissans par cette voie que tous les autres Peuples dont\nnous avons connoissance; cependant ces m\u00eames Romains avant que de perdre\nun pouce du terrein de leurs vastes Etats, tomberent en d\u00e9cadence par le\nluxe, & s'appauvrirent par la diminution de l'argent effectif qui avoit\ncircul\u00e9 chez eux, & que leur luxe fit passer de leur grand Empire chez\nles Nations orientales.\nTandis que le luxe des Romains, qui ne commen\u00e7a qu'apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9faite\nd'Antiochus, Roi d'Asie, vers l'an de Rome 564, se contentoit du produit\n& du travail de tous les vastes Etats de leur domination, la circulation\nde l'argent ne faisoit qu'augmenter au lieu de diminuer. Le Public \u00e9toit\nen possession de toutes les Mines d'or, d'argent & de cuivre qui \u00e9toient\ndans l'Empire. Ils avoient les Mines d'or d'Asie, de Macedoine,\nd'Aquil\u00e9e, & les riches Mines, tant d'or que d'argent, d'Espagne & de\nplusieurs autres endroits. Ils avoient plusieurs Monnoies o\u00f9 ils\nfaisoient battre des especes d'or, d'argent & de cuivre. La consommation\nqu'ils faisoient \u00e0 Rome de tous les ouvrages & de toutes les\nmarchandises qu'ils tiroient de leurs vastes Provinces, ne diminuoit pas\nla circulation de l'argent effectif; non plus que les Tableaux, les\nStatues & les Bijoux qu'ils en tiroient. Quoique les Seigneurs y fissent\ndes d\u00e9penses excessives pour leurs tables, & pa\u00efassent des quinze mille\nonces d'argent pour un seul poisson, tout cela ne diminuoit pas la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent qui circuloit dans Rome, attendu que les tributs des\nProvinces l'y faisoient incessamment rentrer, sans parler de celui que\nles Pr\u00e9teurs & les Gouverneurs y apportoient par leurs extorsions. Les\nsommes qu'on tiroit annuellement des Mines, ne faisoient qu'augmenter \u00e0\nRome la circulation pendant tout le regne d'Auguste. Cependant, le luxe\n\u00e9toit d\u00e9ja fort grand, & on avoit beaucoup d'avidit\u00e9, non-seulement pour\ntout ce que l'Empire produisoit de curieux, mais encore pour les bijoux\ndes Indes, pour le poivre & les \u00e9piceries, & pour toutes les raret\u00e9s de\nl'Arabie; & les soieries qui n'\u00e9toient pas du cr\u00fb de l'Empire,\ncommen\u00e7oient \u00e0 y \u00eatre recherch\u00e9es. Mais l'argent qu'on tiroit des Mines\nsurpassoit encore les sommes qu'on envo\u00efoit hors de l'Empire pour\nacheter tout cela. On sentit n\u00e9anmoins sous Tibere une raret\u00e9 d'argent:\ncet Empereur avoit resserr\u00e9 dans son Fisc deux milliards & sept cent\nmillions de sesterces. Pour r\u00e9tablir l'abondance & la circulation, il\nn'eut besoin d'emprunter que trois cens millions sur les hypotheques des\nterres. Caligula d\u00e9pensa en moins d'un an tout ce tr\u00e9sor de Tibere apr\u00e8s\nsa mort, & ce fut alors que l'abondance d'argent dans la circulation fut\nau plus haut point \u00e0 Rome. La fureur du luxe augmenta toujours; & du\ntems de Pline l'Historien, il sortoit de l'Empire tous les ans au moins\ncent millions de sesterces, suivant son calcul. On n'en tiroit pas tant\ndes Mines. Sous Trajan le prix des terres \u00e9toit tomb\u00e9 d'un tiers &\nau-del\u00e0, au rapport de Pline le jeune; & l'argent diminua toujours\njusqu'au tems de l'Empereur Septime Severe. L'argent fut alors si rare \u00e0\nRome, que cet Empereur fit des magasins \u00e9tonnans de bl\u00e9, ne pouvant pas\nramasser des tr\u00e9sors assez consid\u00e9rables pour ses entreprises. Ainsi\nl'Empire Romain tomba en d\u00e9cadence par la perte de son argent, avant que\nd'avoir rien perdu de ses Etats. Voil\u00e0 ce que le luxe causa, & ce qu'il\ncausera toujours en pareil cas.\nCHAPITRE IX.\n_De l'inter\u00eat de l'argent, & de ses causes_.\nComme les prix des choses se fixent dans les altercations des march\u00e9s\npar les quantit\u00e9s des choses expos\u00e9es en vente proportionnellement \u00e0 la\nquantit\u00e9 d'argent qu'on en offre, ou ce qui est la m\u00eame chose, par la\nproportion num\u00e9rique des Vendeurs & des Acheteurs; de m\u00eame l'inter\u00eat de\nl'argent dans un Etat se fixe par la proportion num\u00e9rique des Pr\u00eateurs &\ndes Emprunteurs.\nQuoique l'argent passe pour gages dans le troc, cependant il ne se\nmultiplie point, & ne produit point un inter\u00eat dans la simple\ncirculation. Les n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s des Hommes semblent avoir introduit l'usage\nde l'inter\u00eat. Un Homme qui pr\u00eate son argent sur de bons gages ou sur\nl'hypotheque des terres, court au moins le hazard de l'inimiti\u00e9 de\nl'Emprunteur, ou celui des frais, des proc\u00e8s & des pertes; mais\nlorsqu'il pr\u00eate sans suret\u00e9, il court risque de tout perdre. Par rapport\n\u00e0 ces raisons, les Hommes n\u00e9cessiteux doivent avoir dans les\ncommencemens tent\u00e9 les Pr\u00eateurs par l'appas d'un profit; & ce profit\ndoit avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 proportionn\u00e9 aux n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s des Emprunteurs & \u00e0 la\ncrainte & \u00e0 l'avarice des Pr\u00eateurs. Voil\u00e0 ce me semble la premiere\nsource de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat. Mais son usage constant dans les Etats paro\u00eet fond\u00e9\nsur les profits que les Entrepreneurs en peuvent faire.\nLa terre produit naturellement, aid\u00e9e du travail de l'Homme, quatre,\ndix, vingt, cinquante, cent, cent-cinquante fois, la quantit\u00e9 de bl\u00e9\nqu'on y seme, suivant la bont\u00e9 du terroir & l'industrie des Habitans.\nElle multiplie les fruits & les bestiaux. Le Fermier qui en conduit le\ntravail a ordinairement les deux tiers du produit, dont un tiers paie\nses frais & son entretien, l'autre lui reste pour profit de son\nentreprise.\nSi le Fermier a assez de fond pour conduire son entreprise, s'il a tous\nles outils & les instrumens n\u00e9cessaires, les chevaux pour labourer, les\nbestiaux qu'il faut pour mettre la terre en valeur, &c., il prendra pour\nlui, tous frais faits, le tiers du produit de sa Ferme. Mais si un\nLaboureur entendu, qui vit de son travail \u00e0 gages au jour la journ\u00e9e, &\nqui n'a aucun fond, peut trouver quelqu'un qui veuille bien lui pr\u00eater\nun fond ou de l'argent pour en acheter, il sera en \u00e9tat de donner \u00e0 ce\nPr\u00eateur toute la troisieme rente, ou le tiers du produit d'une Ferme\ndont il deviendra le Fermier ou l'Entrepreneur. Cependant, il croira sa\ncondition meilleure qu'auparavant, attendu qu'il trouvera son entretien\ndans la seconde rente, & deviendra Ma\u00eetre, de Valet qu'il \u00e9toit: que si\npar sa grande oeconomie, & en se fraudant quelque chose du n\u00e9cessaire,\nil peut par degr\u00e9s amasser quelques petits fonds, il aura tous les ans\nmoins \u00e0 emprunter, & parviendra dans la suite \u00e0 s'approprier toute la\ntroisieme rente.\nSi cet Entrepreneur nouveau trouve \u00e0 acheter \u00e0 cr\u00e9dit du bl\u00e9 ou des\nbestiaux, pour les pa\u00efer \u00e0 long terme & lorsqu'il sera en \u00e9tat de faire\nde l'argent par la vente du produit de sa Ferme, il en donnera\nvolontiers un plus grand prix que celui du march\u00e9 contre argent\ncomptant: & cette fa\u00e7on sera la m\u00eame chose que s'il empruntoit de\nl'argent comptant pour acheter le bl\u00e9 au comptant, en donnant pour\nl'inter\u00eat la diff\u00e9rence du prix du comptant & de celui \u00e0 terme: mais de\nquelque fa\u00e7on qu'il emprunte soit au comptant, soit en marchandises, il\nfaut qu'il lui reste dequoi s'entretenir par son entreprise, sans quoi\nil fera banqueroute. Ce hazard fera qu'on exigera de lui vingt \u00e0 trente\npour cent de profit ou d'inter\u00eat sur la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent ou sur la\nvaleur des denr\u00e9es ou des marchandises qu'on lui pr\u00eatera.\nD'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, un ma\u00eetre Chapelier, qui a du fond pour conduire sa\nManufacture de chapeaux soit pour louer une maison, acheter des castors,\ndes laines, de la teinture, &c., soit pour pa\u00efer toutes les semaines, la\nsubsistance de ses Ouvriers, doit non-seulement trouver son entretien\ndans cette entreprise, mais encore un profit semblable \u00e0 celui du\nFermier, qui a la troisieme partie pour lui. Cet entretien, de m\u00eame que\nce profit, doit se trouver dans la vente des chapeaux, dont le prix doit\npa\u00efer non-seulement les mat\u00e9riaux, mais aussi l'entretien du Chapelier &\nde ses Ouvriers, & encore le profit en question.\nMais un Compagnon Chapelier entendu, mais sans fond, peut entreprendre\nla m\u00eame Manufacture, en empruntant de l'argent & des mat\u00e9riaux, & en\nabandonnant l'article du profit \u00e0 quiconque voudra lui pr\u00eater de\nl'argent, ou \u00e0 quiconque voudra lui confier du castor, de la laine, &c.,\nqu'il ne paiera qu'\u00e0 long terme & lorsqu'il aura vendu ses chapeaux. Si\n\u00e0 l'expiration du terme de ses billets le Pr\u00eateur d'argent redemande son\ncapital, ou si le Marchand de laine & les autres Pr\u00eateurs ne veulent\nplus s'y fier, il faut qu'il quitte son entreprise; auquel cas il aimera\npeut-\u00eatre mieux faire banqueroute. Mais s'il est sage & industrieux, il\npourra faire voir \u00e0 ses cr\u00e9anciers qu'il a en argent ou en chapeaux la\nvaleur du fond qu'il a emprunt\u00e9 \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s, & ils aimeront mieux\nprobablement continuer \u00e0 s'y fier & se contenter, pour le pr\u00e9sent, de\nleur inter\u00eat ou du profit. Au mo\u00efen dequoi il continuera, & peut-\u00eatre\namassera-t'il par degr\u00e9s quelque fond en se frustrant un peu de son\nn\u00e9cessaire. Avec ce secours il aura tous les ans moins \u00e0 emprunter, &\nlorsqu'il aura amass\u00e9 un fond suffisant pour conduire sa Manufacture qui\nsera toujours proportionn\u00e9e au d\u00e9bit qu'il en a, l'article du profit lui\ndemeurera en entier, & il s'enrichira s'il n'augmente pas sa d\u00e9pense.\nIl est bon de remarquer que l'entretien d'un tel Manufacturier est d'une\npetite valeur \u00e0 proportion de celle des sommes qu'il emprunte dans son\ncommerce, ou des mat\u00e9riaux qu'on lui confie; & par cons\u00e9quent les\nPr\u00eateurs ne courent pas un grand risque de perdre leur capital, s'il est\nhonn\u00eate homme & industrieux: mais comme il est tr\u00e8s possible qu'il ne le\nsoit pas, les Pr\u00eateurs exigeront toujours de lui un profit ou inter\u00eat de\nvingt \u00e0 trente pour cent de la valeur du pr\u00eat: encore n'y aura-t'il que\nceux qui en ont bonne opinion qui s'y fieront. On peut faire les m\u00eames\ninductions par rapport \u00e0 tous les Ma\u00eetres, Artisans, Manufacturiers &\nautres Entrepreneurs dans l'Etat, qui conduisent des entreprises dont le\nfond excede consid\u00e9rablement la valeur de leur entretien annuel.\nMais si un Porteur d'eau \u00e0 Paris s'\u00e9rige en Entrepreneur de son propre\ntravail, tout le fond dont il aura besoin sera le prix de deux seaux,\nqu'il pourra acheter pour une once d'argent, apr\u00e8s quoi tout ce qu'il\ngagne devient profit. S'il gagne par son travail cinquante onces\nd'argent par an, la somme de son fond, ou emprunt, sera \u00e0 celle de son\nprofit, comme un \u00e0 cinquante. C'est-\u00e0-dire, qu'il gagnera cinq mille\npour cent, au lieu que le Chapelier ne gagnera pas cinquante pour cent,\n& qu'il sera m\u00eame oblig\u00e9 d'en pa\u00efer vingt \u00e0 trente pour cent au Pr\u00eateur.\nCependant un Pr\u00eateur d'argent aimera mieux pr\u00eater mille onces d'argent \u00e0\nun Chapelier \u00e0 vingt pour cent d'inter\u00eat, que de pr\u00eater mille onces \u00e0\nmille Porteurs d'eau \u00e0 cinq cent pour cent d'inter\u00eat. Les Porteurs d'eau\nd\u00e9penseront bien v\u00eete \u00e0 leur entretien non-seulement l'argent qu'ils\ngagnent par leur travail journalier, mais tout celui qu'on leur a pr\u00eat\u00e9.\nCes capitaux qu'on leur pr\u00eate, sont petits \u00e0 proportion de la somme\nqu'il leur faut pour leur entretien: soit qu'ils soient beaucoup ou peu\nemplo\u00ef\u00e9s, ils peuvent facilement d\u00e9penser tout ce qu'ils gagnent. Ainsi\non ne peut guere d\u00e9terminer les gains de ces bas Entrepreneurs. On\ndiroit bien qu'un Porteur d'eau gagne cinq mille pour cent de la valeur\ndes seaux qui servent de fond \u00e0 son entreprise, & m\u00eame dix mille pour\ncent, si par un rude travail il gagnoit cent onces d'argent par an. Mais\ncomme il peut d\u00e9penser pour son entretien les cent onces aussi-bien que\nles cinquante, ce n'est que par la connoissance de ce qu'il met \u00e0 son\nentretien qu'on peut savoir combien il a de profit clair.\nIl faut toujours d\u00e9falquer la subsistance & l'entretien des\nEntrepreneurs avant que de statuer sur leur profit. C'est ce que nous\navons fait dans l'exemple du Fermier & dans celui du Chapelier: & c'est\nce qu'on ne peut guere d\u00e9terminer pour les bas Entrepreneurs; aussi\nfont-ils pour la pl\u00fbpart banqueroute, s'ils doivent.\nIl est ordinaire aux Brasseurs de Londres, de pr\u00eater quelques barils de\nbiere aux Entrepreneurs de Cabarets \u00e0 biere, & lorsque ceux-ci paient\nles premiers barils, on continue \u00e0 leur en pr\u00eater d'autres. Si la\nconsommation de ces Cabarets \u00e0 biere devient forte, ces Brasseurs font\nquelquefois un profit de cinq cent pour cent par an; & j'ai oui dire que\nles gros Brasseurs ne laissoient pas de s'enrichir lorsqu'il n'y a que\nla moiti\u00e9 des Cabarets \u00e0 biere qui leur font banqueroute dans le courant\nde l'ann\u00e9e.\nTous les Marchands dans l'Etat, sont dans une habitude constante de\npr\u00eater \u00e0 termes des marchandises ou des denr\u00e9es \u00e0 des D\u00e9tailleurs, &\nproportionnent la mesure de leur profit, ou leur inter\u00eat, \u00e0 celle de\nleur risque. Ce risque est toujours grand par la grande proportion de\nl'entretien de l'emprunteur \u00e0 la valeur pr\u00eat\u00e9e. Car si l'emprunteur ou\nd\u00e9tailleur n'a pas un prompt d\u00e9bit dans le bas troc, il se ruinera bien\nv\u00eete & d\u00e9pensera tout ce qu'il a emprunt\u00e9 pour sa subsistance, & par\ncons\u00e9quent sera oblig\u00e9 de faire banqueroute.\nLes Revendeuses de poisson, qui l'achetent \u00e0 Billingaste, \u00e0 Londres,\npour le revendre dans les autres quartiers de la Ville, paient\nordinairement par contrat pass\u00e9 par un Ecrivain expert, un schelling par\nguin\u00e9e, ou par vingt-un schellings, d'inter\u00eats par semaine; ce qui fait\ndeux cens soixante pour cent par ann\u00e9e. Les Revendeuses des Halles \u00e0\nParis dont les entreprises sont moins consid\u00e9rables paient cinq sols par\nsemaine d'inter\u00eats d'un \u00e9cu de trois livres, ce qui passe quatre cents\ntrente pour cent par an: cependant il y a peu de Pr\u00eateurs qui fassent\nfortune avec de si grands inter\u00eats.\nCes gros inter\u00eats sont non-seulement tol\u00e9r\u00e9s, mais encore en quelque\nfa\u00e7on utiles & n\u00e9cessaires dans un Etat. Ceux qui achetent le poisson\ndans les rues paient ces gros inter\u00eats par l'augmentation de prix qu'ils\nen donnent; cela leur est commode, & ils n'en ressentent pas la perte.\nDe m\u00eame un Artisan qui boit un pot de biere, & en paie un prix qui fait\ntrouver au Brasseur cinq cents pour cent de profit, se trouve bien de\ncette commodit\u00e9 & n'en sent point la perte dans un si bas d\u00e9tail.\nLes Casuistes, qui ne paroissent guere propres \u00e0 juger de la nature de\nl'inter\u00eat & des matieres de commerce, ont imagin\u00e9 un terme (_damnum\nemergens_) au mo\u00efen duquel ils veulent bien tolerer ces hauts prix\nd'inter\u00eat: & plut\u00f4t que de renverser l'usage & la convenance des\nSociet\u00e9s, ils ont consenti & permis \u00e0 ceux qui pr\u00eatent avec un grand\nrisque, de tirer proportionnellement un grand inter\u00eat; & cela sans\nbornes: car ils seroient bien embarass\u00e9s \u00e0 en trouver de certaines,\npuisque la chose d\u00e9pend r\u00e9ellement des craintes des Pr\u00eateurs & des\nn\u00e9cessit\u00e9s des emprunteurs.\nOn loue les N\u00e9gocians sur Mer, lorsqu'ils peuvent faire profiter leur\nfond dans leur entreprise, fusse \u00e0 dix mille pour cent; & quelque profit\nque les Marchands en gros fassent ou stipulent en vendant \u00e0 long terme\nles denr\u00e9es ou les marchandises \u00e0 des Marchands-d\u00e9tailleurs inf\u00e9rieurs,\nje n'ai pas oui dire que les Casuistes leur en fissent un crime. Ils\nsont ou paroissent un peu plus scrupuleux au sujet des pr\u00eats en argent\nsec, quoique ce soit dans le fond la m\u00eame chose. Cependant ils tolerent\nencore ces pr\u00eats au mo\u00efen d'une distinction (_lucrum cessans_) qu'ils\nont imagin\u00e9e; je crois que cela veut dire, qu'un Homme qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 dans\nl'habitude de faire valoir son argent \u00e0 cinq cens pour cent dans son\ncommerce, peut stipuler ce profit en le pr\u00e9tant \u00e0 un autre. Rien n'est\nplus divertissant que la multitude des Loix & des Canons qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9\nfaits dans tous les si\u00e9cles au sujet de l'inter\u00eat de l'argent, toujours\npar des Sages qui n'\u00e9toient guere au fait du commerce, & toujours\ninutilement.\nIl paro\u00eet par ces exemples & par ces inductions, qu'il y a dans un Etat\nplusieurs classes & all\u00e9es d'inter\u00eats ou de profit; que dans les plus\nbasses classes, l'inter\u00eat est toujours le plus fort \u00e0 proportion du plus\ngrand risque; & qu'il diminue de classe en classe jusqu'\u00e0 la plus haute\nqui est celle des N\u00e9gocians riches & r\u00e9put\u00e9s solvables. L'int\u00e9r\u00eat qu'on\nstipule dans cette classe, est celui qu'on appelle le prix courant de\nl'inter\u00eat dans l'Etat, & il ne differe guere de l'inter\u00eat qu'on stipule\nsur l'hypotheque des terres. On aime autant le billet d'un N\u00e9gociant\nsolvable & solide, au moins pour un court terme, qu'une action sur une\nterre; parceque la possibilit\u00e9 d'un proc\u00e8s ou d'une contestation au\nsujet de celle-ci, compense la possibilit\u00e9 de la banqueroute du\nN\u00e9gociant.\nSi dans un Etat il n'y avoit pas d'Entrepreneurs qui pussent faire du\nprofit sur l'argent ou sur les marchandises qu'ils empruntent, l'usage\nde l'int\u00e9r\u00eat ne seroit pas probablement si fr\u00e9quent qu'on le voit. Il\nn'y auroit que les Gens extravagans & prodigues qui feroient des\nemprunts. Mais dans l'habitude o\u00f9 tout le monde est de se servir\nd'Entrepreneurs, il y a une source constante pour les emprunts & par\ncons\u00e9quent pour l'inter\u00eat. Ce sont les Entrepreneurs qui cultivent les\nterres, les Entrepreneurs qui fournissent le pain, la viande, les\nhabillemens, &c. \u00e0 tous les Habitans d'une ville. Ceux qui travaillent\naux gages de ces Entrepreneurs, cherchent aussi \u00e0 s'\u00e9riger eux-m\u00eames en\nEntrepreneurs, \u00e0 l'envie les uns des autres. La multitude des\nEntrepreneurs est encore bien plus grande parmi les Chinois; & comme ils\nont tous l'esprit vif, le g\u00e9nie propre pour les entreprises, & une\ngrande constance \u00e0 les conduire, il y a parmi eux des Entrepreneurs qui\nparmi nous sont fournis par des gens gag\u00e9s: ils fournissent les repas\ndes Laboureurs, m\u00eame dans les champs. Et c'est peut-\u00eatre cette multitude\nde bas Entrepreneurs, & des autres, de classe en classe, qui, trouvant\nle mo\u00efen de gagner beaucoup par la consommation sans que cela soit\nsensible aux consommateurs, soutiennent le prix de l'inter\u00eat dans la\nplus haute classe \u00e0 trente pour cent; au lieu qu'il ne passe guere cinq\npour cent dans notre Europe. L'inter\u00eat a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 Ath\u00eanes, du tems de\nSolon, \u00e0 dix-huit pour cent. Dans la R\u00e9publique romaine il a \u00e9t\u00e9 le plus\nsouvent \u00e0 douze pour cent, on l'y a vu \u00e0 quarante huit pour cent, \u00e0\nvingt pour cent, \u00e0 huit pour cent, \u00e0 six pour cent, au plus bas \u00e0 quatre\npour cent: il n'a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 si bas librement que vers la fin de la\nR\u00e9publique & sous Auguste apr\u00e8s la conqu\u00eate de l'Egypte. L'Empereur\nAntonin & Alexandre Severe, ne r\u00e9duisirent l'inter\u00eat \u00e0 quatre pour cent,\nqu'en pr\u00eatant l'argent public sur l'hypotheque des terres.\nCHAPITRE DIXIEME\nET DERNIER.\n_Des causes de l'augmentation & de la diminution de l'inter\u00eat de\nl'argent, dans un Etat._\nC'est une id\u00e9e commune & re\u00e7\u00fbe de tous ceux qui ont \u00e9crit sur le\ncommerce, que l'augmentation de la quantit\u00e9 de l'argent effectif dans un\nEtat y diminue le prix de l'inter\u00eat, parceque lorsque l'argent abonde,\nil est plus facile d'en trouver \u00e0 emprunter. Cette id\u00e9e n'est pas\ntoujours vraie ni juste. Pour s'en convaincre, il ne faut que se\nsouvenir qu'en l'ann\u00e9e 1720, presque tout l'argent d'Angleterre fut\napport\u00e9 \u00e0 Londres, & que par-dessus cela, le nombre des billets qu'on\nmit sur la place acc\u00e9lera le mouvement de l'argent d'une maniere\nextraordinaire. Cependant cette abondance d'argent & de circulation au\nlieu de diminuer l'inter\u00eat courant qui \u00e9toit auparavant \u00e0 cinq pour\ncent, & au-dessous, ne servit qu'\u00e0 en augmenter le prix, qui fut port\u00e9 \u00e0\ncinquante & soixante pour cent. Il est facile de rendre raison de cette\naugmentation du prix de l'inter\u00eat, par les principes & les causes de\nl'inter\u00eat, que j'ai \u00e9tablies dans le chapitre pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent. La voici, tout\nle monde \u00e9toit devenu Entrepreneur dans le systeme de la Mer du Sud, &\ndemandoit \u00e0 emprunter de l'argent pour acheter des Actions, comptant de\nfaire un profit immense au mo\u00efen duquel il pourroit ais\u00e9ment pa\u00efer ce\nhaut prix d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\nSi l'abondance d'argent dans l'Etat vient par les mains de gens qui\npr\u00eatent, elle diminuera sans doute l'inter\u00eat courant en augmentant le\nnombre des pr\u00eateurs: mais si elle vient par l'entremise de personnes qui\nd\u00e9pensent, elle aura l'effet tout contraire, & elle haussera le prix de\nl'inter\u00eat en augmentant le nombre des Entrepreneurs qui auront \u00e0\ntravailler au mo\u00efen de cette augmentation de d\u00e9pense, & qui auront\nbesoin d'emprunter pour fournir \u00e0 leur entreprise, dans toutes les\nclasses d'inter\u00eats.\nL'abondance ou la disette d'argent dans un Etat, hausse toujours ou\nbaisse les prix de toutes choses dans les altercations du troc, sans\navoir aucune liaison n\u00e9cessaire avec le prix de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat, qui peut tr\u00e8s\nbien \u00eatre haut dans les Etats o\u00f9 il y a abondance d'argent, & bas dans\nceux o\u00f9 l'argent est plus rare: haut o\u00f9 tout est cher, & bas o\u00f9 tout est\n\u00e0 grand march\u00e9: haut \u00e0 Londres, & bas \u00e0 G\u00eanes.\nLe prix de l'inter\u00eat hausse & baisse tous les jours sur de simples\nbruits, qui tendent \u00e0 diminuer ou \u00e0 augmenter la suret\u00e9 des Pr\u00e9teurs,\nsans que le prix des choses dans le troc soit alter\u00e9 pour cela.\nLa source la plus constante d'un inter\u00eat haut dans un Etat, est la\ngrande d\u00e9pense des Seigneurs & des Propri\u00e9taires de terres, ou des\nautres Gens riches. Les Entrepreneurs & ma\u00eetres Artisans, sont dans\nl'habitude de fournir de grosses Maisons dans toutes les branches de\nleur d\u00e9pense. Ces Entrepreneurs ont presque toujours besoin d'emprunter\nde l'argent pour les fournir: & lorsque les Seigneurs consomment leurs\nrevenus par avance & empruntent de l'argent, ils contribuent doublement\n\u00e0 hausser le prix de l'inter\u00eat.\nAu contraire, lorsque les Seigneurs de l'Etat vivent d'oeconomie, &\nachetent de la premiere main autant qu'ils le peuvent, ils se font\nprocurer par leurs Valets beaucoup de choses sans qu'elles passent par\nles mains des Entrepreneurs, ils diminuent les profits & le nombre des\nEntrepreneurs dans l'Etat, & par cons\u00e9quent le nombre des Emprunteurs, &\nencore le prix de l'inter\u00eat, parceque ces sortes d'Entrepreneurs\ntravaillant sur leurs propres fonds n'empruntent que le moins qu'ils\npeuvent, & en se contentant d'un petit gain emp\u00eachent ceux qui n'ont\npoint de fonds de s'ing\u00e9rer dans les entreprises en empruntant. Voil\u00e0\naujourd'hui la situation des R\u00e9publiques de G\u00eanes & de Hollande, o\u00f9\nl'inter\u00eat est quelquefois \u00e0 deux pour cent, & au-dessous dans la plus\nhaute classe; au lieu qu'en Allemagne, en Pologne, en France, en\nEspagne, en Angleterre & en d'autres Etats, la facilit\u00e9 & la d\u00e9pense des\nSeigneurs & des Propri\u00e9taires de terres entretiennent toujours les\nEntrepreneurs & ma\u00eetres Artisans de l'Etat dans l'habitude de ces gros\ngains, au mo\u00efen desquels ils ont dequoi pa\u00efer un inter\u00eat haut, & encore\nplus lorsqu'ils tirent tout de l'Etranger avec risque pour les\nentreprises.\nLorsque le Prince ou l'Etat fait une grosse d\u00e9pense comme en faisant la\nguerre, cela hausse le prix de l'inter\u00eat par deux raisons: la premiere\nest que cela multiplie le nombre des Entrepreneurs par plusieurs\nnouvelles entreprises consid\u00e9rables de fournitures pour la guerre, & par\ncons\u00e9quent les emprunts. La seconde est par rapport au plus grand risque\nque la guerre entra\u00eene toujours.\nAu contraire, la guerre finie, les risques diminuent, le nombre des\nEntrepreneurs diminue, & les Entrepreneurs m\u00eame de la guerre cessant de\nl'\u00eatre, diminuent leurs d\u00e9penses, & deviennent pr\u00eateurs de l'argent\nqu'ils ont gagn\u00e9. Dans cette situation, si le Prince ou l'Etat offre de\nrembourser une partie de ses dettes, il diminuera consid\u00e9rablement le\nprix de l'inter\u00eat; & cela aura un effet plus certain, s'il est en \u00e9tat\nde pa\u00efer r\u00e9ellement une partie de la dette sans emprunter d'un autre\nc\u00f4t\u00e9, parceque les remboursemens augmentent le nombre des pr\u00eateurs dans\nla plus haute classe de l'inter\u00eat, & que cela pourra influer sur les\nautres classes.\nLorsque l'abondance d'argent dans l'Etat est introduite par une balance\nconstante de commerce, cet argent passe d'abord par les mains des\nEntrepreneurs; & encore qu'il augmente la consommation, il ne laisse pas\nde diminuer le prix de l'inter\u00eat, \u00e0 cause que la pl\u00fbpart des\nEntrepreneurs acquerent alors assez de fond pour conduire leur commerce\nsans argent, & m\u00eame deviennent pr\u00eateurs des sommes qu'ils ont gagn\u00e9es\nau-del\u00e0 de celles qu'il faut pour conduire leur commerce. S'il n'y a pas\ndans l'Etat un grand nombre de Seigneurs & de Gens riches qui fassent\nune grosse d\u00e9pense, dans ces circonstances l'abondance de l'argent ne\nmanquera pas de diminuer le prix de l'inter\u00eat, autant qu'elle augmentera\nle prix des denr\u00e9es & des marchandises dans le troc. Voil\u00e0 ce qui arrive\nd'ordinaire dans les R\u00e9publiques qui n'ont guere de fond ni de terres\nconsid\u00e9rables, & qui ne s'enrichissent que par le commerce \u00e9tranger.\nMais dans les Etats qui ont un grand fond & des Propri\u00e9taires de terres\nconsid\u00e9rables, l'argent qui s'introduit par le commerce avec l'Etranger\naugmente leur rente, & leur donne mo\u00efen de faire une grande d\u00e9pense qui\nentretient plusieurs Entrepreneurs & plusieurs Artisans, outre ceux qui\nmaintiennent le commerce avec l'Etranger: cela soutient toujours un haut\ninter\u00eat, malgr\u00e9 l'abondance de l'argent.\nLorsque les Seigneurs & les Propri\u00e9taires de terres se ruinent par leurs\nd\u00e9penses extravagantes, les pr\u00eateurs d'argent qui ont des hypotheques\nsur leurs terres, en attrapent souvent la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 absolue; & il peut\nbien arriver dans l'Etat que les pr\u00eateurs soient cr\u00e9anciers de beaucoup\nplus d'argent qu'il n'y en circule: auquel cas on peut les regarder\ncomme Propri\u00e9taires subalternes des terres & des denr\u00e9es qu'on\nhypotheque pour leur suret\u00e9. Que si cela n'a pas lieu, leurs capitaux se\nperdront par les banqueroutes.\nDe m\u00eame on peut consid\u00e9rer les Propri\u00e9taires des Actions & des fonds\npublics, comme Propri\u00e9taires subalternes des revenus de l'Etat qu'on\nemploie \u00e0 pa\u00efer leurs inter\u00eats. Mais si la l\u00e9gislature \u00e9toit oblig\u00e9e par\nles besoins de l'Etat d'emplo\u00efer ses revenus \u00e0 d'autres usages, les\nActionnaires ou Propri\u00e9taires de fonds publics perdroient tout, sans que\nl'argent qui circule dans l'Etat f\u00fbt diminu\u00e9 pour cela d'un seul liard.\nSi le Prince ou les Administrateurs de l'Etat veulent regler le prix de\nl'inter\u00eat courant par des loix, il faut en faire le r\u00e9glement sur le pi\u00e9\ndu prix courant du March\u00e9 dans la plus haute classe, ou approchant:\nautrement la loi sera inutile, parceque les Contractans, qui suivront la\nregle des altercations, ou le prix courant regl\u00e9 par la proportion des\nPr\u00eateurs aux Emprunteurs, feront des march\u00e9s clandestins; & cette\ncontrainte de la loi ne servira qu'\u00e0 g\u00e9ner le commerce & \u00e0 hausser le\nprix de l'inter\u00eat, au lieu de le fixer. Autrefois les Romains, apr\u00e8s\nplusieurs loix pour restraindre l'inter\u00eat, en firent une autre pour\nd\u00e9fendre absolument de pr\u00eater de l'argent. Cette loi n'eut pas plus de\nsucc\u00e8s que les pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes. La loi que fit Justinien pour restraindre\nles Gens de qualit\u00e9 \u00e0 ne prendre que quatre pour cent, ceux d'un ordre\ninf\u00e9rieur six pour cent, & les Gens de commerce huit pour cent, \u00e9toit\n\u00e9galement plaisante & injuste, tandis qu'il n'\u00e9toit pas d\u00e9fendu de faire\ncinquante & cent pour cent de profit par toutes sortes d'entreprises.\nS'il est permis & honn\u00eate \u00e0 un Propri\u00e9taire de terre de donner une Ferme\n\u00e0 haut prix \u00e0 un Fermier indigent, au hasard d'en perdre toute la rente\nd'une ann\u00e9e, il semble qu'il devroit \u00eatre permis au Pr\u00eateur de pr\u00eater\nson argent \u00e0 un Emprunteur n\u00e9cessiteux, au hasard de perdre\nnon-seulement son inter\u00eat ou profit, mais encore son capital, & stipuler\ntel inter\u00eat que l'autre consentira volontairement de lui accorder; il\nest vrai que les pr\u00eats de cette nature font plus de malheureux qui en\nemportant les capitaux aussi-bien que l'inter\u00eat, sont plus dans\nl'impuissance de se relever, que le Fermier qui n'emporte pas la terre:\nmais les loix pour les banqueroutes \u00e9tant assez favorables aux D\u00e9biteurs\npour les mettre en \u00e9tat de se relever, il semble qu'on devroit toujours\naccommoder les loix de l'inter\u00eat au prix du march\u00e9, comme on fait en\nHollande.\nLes prix courans de l'inter\u00eat dans un Etat, semblent servir de base & de\nregle pour les prix de l'achat des terres. Si l'inter\u00eat courant est \u00e0\ncinq pour cent, qui r\u00e9pond au denier vingt, le prix des terres devroit\n\u00eatre de m\u00eame: mais comme la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 des terres donne un rang & une\ncertaine Jurisdiction dans l'Etat, il arrive que lorsque l'inter\u00eat est\nau denier vingt, le prix des terres est au denier vingt-quatre ou\nvingt-cinq, quoique les hypotheques sur les m\u00eames terres ne passent\ngueres le prix courant de l'inter\u00eat.\nApr\u00e8s tout, le prix des terres, comme tous les autres prix, se regle\nnaturellement par la proportion des Vendeurs aux Acheteurs, &c.; & comme\nil se trouvera beaucoup plus d'Acquereurs \u00e0 Londres, par exemple, que\ndans les Provinces, & que ces Acquereurs qui r\u00e9sident dans la Capitale,\naimeront mieux acheter des terres dans leur voisinage que dans les\nProvinces \u00e9loign\u00e9es, il arrivera qu'ils aimeront mieux acheter des\nterres voisines au denier trente ou trente-cinq, que celles qui sont\n\u00e9loign\u00e9es au denier vingt-cinq ou vingt-deux. Il y a souvent d'autres\nraisons de convenances qui influent sur le prix des terres, & qu'il\nn'est pas n\u00e9cessaire de marquer ici, parcequ'elles ne d\u00e9truisent pas les\n\u00e9claircissemens que nous avons donn\u00e9s sur la nature de l'inter\u00eat.\n_Fin de la seconde Partie._\nESSAI\nSUR LA NATURE\nDU\nCOMMERCE\nEN G\u00c9N\u00c9RAL.\n_TROISIEME PARTIE._\nCHAPITRE PREMIER.\n_Du Commerce avec l'Etranger._\nLorsqu'un Etat \u00e9change un petit produit de terre contre un plus grand\ndans le commerce avec l'Etranger, il paro\u00eet avoir l'avantage dans ce\ncommerce: & si l'argent y circule en plus grande abondance que chez\nl'Etranger, il \u00e9changera toujours un plus petit produit de terre contre\nun plus grand.\nLorsque l'Etat \u00e9change son travail contre le produit de terre de\nl'Etranger, il paro\u00eet avoir l'avantage dans ce commerce; attendu que ses\nhabitans sont entretenus aux d\u00e9pens de l'Etranger.\nLorsqu'un Etat \u00e9change son produit conjointement avec son travail,\ncontre un plus grand produit de l'Etranger conjointement avec un travail\n\u00e9gal ou plus grand, il paro\u00eet encore avoir l'avantage dans ce commerce.\nSi les Dames de Paris consomment, ann\u00e9e commune, des dentelles de\nBruxelles pour la valeur de cent mille onces d'argent, le quart d'un\narpent de terre en Brabant, qui produira cent cinquante livres pesant de\nlin, qu'on travaillera en dentelles fines \u00e0 Bruxelles, correspondra \u00e0\ncette somme. Il faudra le travail d'environ deux mille personnes en\nBrabant pendant une ann\u00e9e pour toutes les parties de cette Manufacture,\ndepuis la semence du lin jusqu'\u00e0 la derniere perfection de la dentelle.\nLe Marchand de dentelle ou Entrepreneur \u00e0 Bruxelles en fera les avances;\nil paiera directement ou indirectement toutes les fileuses & faiseuses\nde dentelles, & la proportion du travail de ceux qui font leurs outils;\ntous ceux qui ont part au travail, acheteront leur entretien directement\nou indirectement du Fermier en Brabant, qui paie en partie la rente de\nson Propri\u00e9taire. Si on met le produit de terre qu'on attribue dans\ncette oeconomie \u00e0 ces deux mille personnes, \u00e0 trois arpens par t\u00eate,\ntant pour l'entretien de leurs personnes que pour celui de leurs\nfamilles qui en subsistent en partie, il y aura six mille arpens de\nterre en Brabant emplo\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0 l'entretien de ceux qui ont part au travail\nde la dentelle, & cela aux d\u00e9pens des Dames de Paris qui paieront &\nporteront cette dentelle.\nLes Dames de Paris y paieront les cent mille onces d'argent, chacune\nsuivant la quantit\u00e9 qu'elles en prennent; il faudra envo\u00efer tout cet\nargent en especes \u00e0 Bruxelles, en d\u00e9duisant les frais seulement de\nl'envoi, & il faut que l'Entrepreneur \u00e0 Bruxelles y trouve non-seulement\nle paiement de toutes ses avances, & l'inter\u00eat de l'argent qu'il aura\npeut-\u00eatre emprunt\u00e9, mais encore un profit de son entreprise pour\nl'entretien de sa famille. Si le prix que les Dames donnent de la\ndentelle ne remplit pas tous les frais & profits en g\u00e9neral, il n'y aura\npas d'encouragement pour cette Manufacture, & les Entrepreneurs\ncesseront de la conduire ou feront banqueroute; mais comme nous avons\nsuppos\u00e9 qu'on continue cette Manufacture, il est de n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 que tous\nles frais se trouvent dans les prix que les Dames de Paris en donnent, &\nqu'on envoie les cent mille onces d'argent \u00e0 Bruxelles, si les\nBraban\u00e7ons ne tirent rien de France pour en faire la compensation.\nMais si les habitans du Brabant aiment les vins de Champagne, & en\nconsomment, ann\u00e9e commune, la valeur de cent mille onces d'argent,\nl'article des vins pourra compenser celui de la dentelle, & la balance\ndu commerce, par rapport \u00e0 ces deux branches, sera \u00e9gale. La\ncompensation & la circulation se fera par l'entremise des Entrepreneurs\n& des Banquiers qui s'en m\u00ealeront de part & d'autre.\nLes Dames de Paris paieront cent mille onces d'argent \u00e0 celui qui leur\nvend & livre la dentelle; celui-ci les paiera au Banquier qui lui\ndonnera une ou plusieurs lettres de change sur son correspondant \u00e0\nBruxelles. Ce Banquier remettra l'argent aux Marchands de vin de\nChampagne qui ont 100000 onces d'argent \u00e0 Bruxelles, & qui lui donneront\nleurs lettres de change de m\u00eame valeur tir\u00e9es sur lui par son\nCorrespondant \u00e0 Bruxelles. Ainsi les 100000 onces pa\u00ef\u00e9es pour le vin de\nChampagne \u00e0 Bruxelles, compenseront les 100000 onces pa\u00ef\u00e9es pour la\ndentelle \u00e0 Paris; au mo\u00efen de quoi on \u00e9pargnera la peine de voiturer\nl'argent re\u00e7u \u00e0 Paris jusqu'\u00e0 Bruxelles, & la peine de voiturer l'argent\nre\u00e7u \u00e0 Bruxelles jusqu'\u00e0 Paris. Cette compensation se fait par lettres\nde change, dont je tacherai de faire conno\u00eetre la nature dans le\nchapitre suivant.\nCependant on voit dans cet exemple que les cent mille onces que les\nDames de Paris paient pour la dentelle, viennent entre les mains des\nMarchands qui envoient le vin de Champagne \u00e0 Bruxelles: & que les cent\nmille onces que les consommateurs du vin de Champagne paient pour ce vin\n\u00e0 Bruxelles, tombent entre les mains des Entrepreneurs ou Marchands de\ndentelles. Les Entrepreneurs de part & d'autre, distribuent cet argent \u00e0\nceux qu'ils font travailler, soit pour ce qui regarde les vins, soit\npour ce qui regarde les dentelles.\nIl est clair par cet exemple que les Dames de Paris soutiennent &\nentretiennent tous ceux qui travaillent \u00e0 la dentelle en Brabant, &\nqu'elles y causent une circulation d'argent. Il est \u00e9galement clair que\nles consommateurs du vin de Champagne \u00e0 Bruxelles soutiennent &\nentretiennent en Champagne, non-seulement tous les Vignerons & autres\nqui ont part \u00e0 la production du vin, tous les Charons, Mar\u00e9chaux,\nVoituriers, &c. qui ont part \u00e0 la voiture, aussi-bien que les chevaux\nqu'on y emploie, mais qu'ils paient aussi la valeur du produit de la\nterre pour le vin, & causent une circulation d'argent en Champagne.\nCependant cette circulation ou ce commerce en Champagne, qui fait tant\nde fracas, qui fait vivre le Vigneron, le Fermier, le Charon, le\nMar\u00e9chal, le Voiturier, & qui fait pa\u00efer exactement, tant la rente du\nPropri\u00e9taire de la vigne, que celle du Propri\u00e9taire des prairies qui\nservent \u00e0 entretenir les chevaux de voiture, est dans le cas pr\u00e9sent, un\ncommerce on\u00e9reux & d\u00e9savantageux \u00e0 la France, \u00e0 l'envisager par les\neffets qu'il produit.\nSi le Muid de vin se vend \u00e0 Bruxelles pour soixante onces d'argent, & si\non suppose qu'un arpent produise quatre muids de vin, il faut envo\u00efer \u00e0\nBruxelles le produit de quatre mille cent soixante-six arpens & demi de\nterre, pour correspondre \u00e0 cent mille onces d'argent, & il faut emplo\u00efer\nautour de deux mille arpens de prairies & de terres, pour avoir le foin\n& l'avoine que consomment les chevaux de transport, & ne les emplo\u00efer\ndurant toute l'ann\u00e9e \u00e0 aucun autre usage. Ainsi on \u00f4tera \u00e0 la\nsubsistance des Fran\u00e7ois environ six mille arpens de terres, & on\naugmentera celle des Braban\u00e7ons de plus de quatre mille arpens de\nproduit, puisque le vin de Champagne qu'ils boivent \u00e9pargne plus de\nquatre mille arpens qu'ils emploieroient vraisemblablement \u00e0 produire de\nla biere pour leur boisson, s'ils ne buvoient pas de vin. Cependant la\ndentelle avec laquelle on paie tout cela, ne coute aux Braban\u00e7ons que le\nquart d'un arpent de lin. Ainsi avec un arpent de produit, conjointement\n\u00e0 leur travail, les Braban\u00e7ons paient plus de seize mille arpens aux\nFran\u00e7ois conjointement \u00e0 un moindre travail. Ils retirent une\naugmentation de subsistance, & ne donnent qu'un instrument de luxe qui\nn'apporte aucun avantage r\u00e9el \u00e0 la France, parceque la dentelle s'y use\n& s'y d\u00e9truit, & qu'on ne peut l'\u00e9changer pour quelque chose d'utile\napr\u00e8s cela. Suivant la regle intrinseque des valeurs, la terre qu'on\nemploie en Champagne pour la production du vin, celle pour l'entretien\ndes Vignerons, des Tonneliers, des Charons, des Mar\u00e9chaux, des\nVoituriers, des chevaux pour le transport, &c. devroit \u00eatre \u00e9gale \u00e0 la\nterre qu'on emploie en Brabant \u00e0 la production du lin, & \u00e0 celle qu'il\nfaut pour l'entretien des fileuses, des faiseuses de dentelles & de tous\nceux qui ont quelque part \u00e0 la fabrication de cette Manufacture de\ndentelle.\nMais si l'argent est plus abondant dans la circulation en Brabant qu'en\nChampagne, la terre & le travail y seront \u00e0 plus haut prix, & par\ncons\u00e9quent dans l'\u00e9valuation qui se fait de part & d'autre en argent,\nles Fran\u00e7ois perdront encore consid\u00e9rablement.\nOn voit dans cet exemple une branche de commerce qui fortifie\nl'Etranger, qui diminue les habitans de l'Etat, & qui, sans en faire\nsortir aucun argent effectif, affoiblit ce m\u00eame Etat. J'ai choisi cet\nexemple pour mieux faire sentir comment un Etat peut \u00eatre la dupe d'un\nautre par le fait du commerce, & pour faire comprendre la maniere de\nconno\u00eetre les avantages & les desavantages du commerce avec l'Etranger.\nC'est en examinant les effets de chaque branche de commerce en\nparticulier, qu'on peut regler utilement le commerce avec les Etrangers:\non ne sauroit le conno\u00eetre distinctement par des raisonnemens g\u00e9n\u00e9raux.\nOn trouvera toujours par l'examen des particularit\u00e9s, que l'exportation\nde toute Manufacture est avantageuse \u00e0 l'Etat, parce qu'en ce cas\nl'Etranger paie & entretient toujours des Ouvriers utiles \u00e0 l'Etat; que\nles meilleurs retours ou paiemens qu'on retire sont les especes, & au\nd\u00e9faut des especes, le produit des terres de l'Etranger o\u00f9 il entre le\nmoins de travail. Par ces mo\u00efens de commercer on voit souvent des Etats\nqui n'ont presque point de produits de terre, entretenir des habitans en\ngrand nombre aux d\u00e9pens de l'Etranger: & de grands Etats maintenir leurs\nhabitans avec plus d'aisance & d'abondance.\nMais attendu que les grands Etats n'ont pas besoin d'augmenter le nombre\nde leurs habitans, il suffit d'y faire vivre ceux qui y sont, du cr\u00fb de\nl'Etat, avec plus d'agr\u00e9ment & d'aisance, & de rendre les forces de\nl'Etat plus grandes pour sa d\u00e9fense & sa suret\u00e9. Pour y parvenir par le\ncommerce avec l'Etranger, il faut encourager, tant qu'on peut,\nl'exportation des ouvrages & des Manufactures de l'Etat, pour en\nretirer, autant qu'il est possible, de l'or & de l'argent en nature.\nS'il arrivoit par des r\u00e9coltes abondantes qu'il y e\u00fbt en l'Etat beaucoup\nde produits au-del\u00e0 de la consommation ordinaire & annuelle, il seroit\navantageux d'en encourager l'exportation chez l'Etranger pour en faire\nentrer la valeur en or & en argent: ces m\u00e9taux ne p\u00e9rissent point & ne\nse dissipent pas comme les produits de la terre, & on peut toujours avec\nl'or & l'argent faire entrer dans l'Etat tout ce qui y manque.\nCependant il ne seroit pas avantageux de mettre l'Etat dans l'habitude\nannuelle d'envo\u00efer chez l'Etranger de grandes quantit\u00e9s du produit de\nson cr\u00fb, pour en tirer le paiement en Manufactures \u00e9trangeres. Ce seroit\naffoiblir & diminuer les habitans & les forces de l'Etat par les deux\nbouts.\nMais je n'ai point dessein d'entrer dans le d\u00e9tail des branches du\ncommerce qu'il faudroit encourager pour le bien de l'Etat. Il me suffit\nde remarquer qu'il faut toujours t\u00e2cher d'y faire entrer le plus\nd'argent qu'il se peut.\nL'augmentation de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qui circule dans un Etat, lui\ndonne de grands avantages dans le commerce avec l'Etranger, tant que\ncette abondance d'argent y continue. L'Etat \u00e9change toujours par l\u00e0 une\npetite quantit\u00e9 de produit & de travail, contre une plus grande. Il leve\nles taxes avec facilit\u00e9, & ne trouve pas de difficult\u00e9 \u00e0 faire de\nl'argent dans les cas de besoins publics.\nIl est vrai que la continuation de l'augmentation de l'argent causera\ndans la suite par son abondance une chert\u00e9 de terre & de travail dans\nl'Etat. Les ouvrages & les Manufactures couteront tant, \u00e0 la longue, que\nl'Etranger cessera peu-\u00e0-peu de les acheter, & s'accoutumera \u00e0 les\nprendre ailleurs \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9; ce qui ruinera insensiblement les\nouvrages & les Manufactures de l'Etat. La m\u00eame cause qui augmentera les\nrentes des Propri\u00e9taires des terres de l'Etat (qui est l'abondance de\nl'argent) les mettra dans l'habitude de tirer quantit\u00e9 d'ouvrages des\npa\u00efs \u00e9trangers o\u00f9 ils les auront \u00e0 grand march\u00e9: ce sont l\u00e0 des\ncons\u00e9quences naturelles. La richesse qu'un Etat acquert par le commerce,\nle travail & l'oeconomie le jettera insensiblement dans le luxe. Les\nEtats qui haussent par le commerce ne manquent pas de baisser ensuite:\nil y a des regles que l'on pourroit mettre en usage, ce qu'on ne fait\nguere pour emp\u00eacher ce d\u00e9clin. Toujours est-il vrai que tandis que\nl'Etat est en possession actuelle la balance du commerce, & de\nl'abondance de l'argent il paro\u00eet puissant, & il l'est en effet tant que\ncette abondance y subsiste.\nOn pourroit tirer des inductions \u00e0 l'infini pour justifier ces id\u00e9es du\ncommerce avec l'Etranger, & les avantages de l'abondance de l'argent. Il\nest \u00e9tonnant de voir la disproportion de la circulation de l'argent en\nAngleterre & \u00e0 la Chine. Les Manufactures des Indes, comme les Soieries,\nles Toiles peintes, les Mousselines, &c. nonobstant les frais d'une\nnavigation de dix-huit mois, reviennent \u00e0 un tr\u00e8s bas prix en\nAngleterre, qui les paieroit avec la trentieme partie de ses ouvrages &\nde ses Manufactures si les Indiens les vouloient acheter. Mais ils ne\nsont pas si foux de pa\u00efer des prix extravagans pour nos ouvrages,\npendant qu'on travaille mieux chez eux & infiniment \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9.\nAussi ne nous vendent-ils leurs Manufactures que contre argent comptant,\nque nous leur portons annuellement pour augmenter leurs richesses &\ndiminuer les n\u00f4tres. Les Manufactures des Indes qu'on consomme en Europe\nne font que diminuer notre argent & le travail de nos propres\nManufactures.\nUn Am\u00e9riquain, qui vend \u00e0 un Europ\u00e9en des peaux de Castor, est surpris\navec raison d'apprendre que les chapeaux qu'on fait de laine sont aussi\nbons pour l'usage, que ceux qu'on fait de poil de castor, & que toute la\ndiff\u00e9rence, qui cause une si longue navigation, ne consiste que dans la\nfantaisie de ceux qui trouvent les chapeaux de poil de castor plus\nlegers & plus agr\u00e9ables \u00e0 la v\u00fbe & au toucher. Cependant comme on paie\nordinairement les peaux de Castor \u00e0 ces Am\u00e9riquains en ouvrages de fer,\nd'acier, &c. & non en argent, c'est un commerce qui n'est pas nuisible \u00e0\nl'Europe, d'autant plus qu'il entretient des Ouvriers & particulierement\ndes Matelots, qui dans les besoins de l'Etat sont tr\u00e8s utiles, au lieu\nque le commerce des Manufactures des Indes orientales, emporte l'argent\n& diminue les Ouvriers de l'Europe.\nIl faut convenir que le commerce des Indes orientales est avantageux \u00e0\nla R\u00e9publique de Hollande, & qu'elle en fait tomber la perte sur le\nreste de l'Europe en vendant les \u00e9pices & Manufactures, en Allemagne, en\nItalie, en Espagne & dans le Nouveau Monde, qui lui rendent tout\nl'argent qu'elle envoie aux Indes & bien au-del\u00e0: il est m\u00eame utile \u00e0 la\nHollande d'habiller ses femmes & plusieurs autres habitans, des\nManufactures des Indes, plut\u00f4t que d'\u00e9toffe d'Angleterre & de France. Il\nvaut mieux pour les Hollandois enrichir les Indiens que leurs voisins,\nqui pourroient en profiter pour les opprimer: d'ailleurs ils vendent aux\nautres habitans de l'Europe les toiles & les petites Manufactures de\nleur cr\u00fb, beaucoup plus cher qu'ils ne vendent chez eux les Manufactures\ndes Indes, qui s'y consomment.\nL'Angleterre & la France auroient tort d'imiter en cela les Hollandois.\nCes Ro\u00efaumes ont chez eux les mo\u00efens d'habiller leurs femmes, de leur\ncr\u00fb; & quoique leurs \u00e9toffes reviennent \u00e0 un plus haut prix que celles\ndes Manufactures des Indes, ils doivent obliger leurs habitans de n'en\npoint porter d'\u00e9trangeres; ils ne doivent pas permettre la diminution de\nleurs ouvrages & de leurs Manufactures, ni se mettre dans la d\u00e9pendance\ndes Etrangers, ils doivent encore moins laisser enlever leur argent pour\ncela.\nMais puisque les Hollandois trouvent mo\u00efen de d\u00e9biter dans les autres\nEtats de l'Europe les marchandises des Indes, les Anglois & les Fran\u00e7ois\nen devroient faire autant, soit pour diminuer les forces navales de la\nHollande, soit pour augmenter les leurs, & sur-tout afin de se passer du\nsecours des Hollandois dans les branches de consommation, qu'une\nmauvaise habitude a rendues n\u00e9cessaires dans ces Ro\u00efaumes: c'est un\nd\u00e9savantage visible de permettre qu'on porte des Indiennes dans les\nRo\u00efaumes d'Europe qui ont de leur cr\u00fb dequoi habiller leurs habitans.\nDe m\u00eame qu'il est d\u00e9savantageux \u00e0 un Etat d'encourager des Manufactures\n\u00e9trangeres, il est aussi d\u00e9savantageux d'encourager la navigation des\n\u00e9trangers. Lorsqu'un Etat envoie chez l'Etranger ses ouvrages & ses\nManufactures, il en tire l'avantage en entier s'il les envoie par ses\npropres Vaisseaux: par-l\u00e0 il entretient un bon nombre de Matelots, qui\nsont aussi utiles \u00e0 l'Etat que les Ouvriers. Mais s'il en abandonne le\ntransport \u00e0 des B\u00e2timens \u00e9trangers, il fortifie la Marine \u00e9trangere &\ndiminue la sienne.\nC'est un point essentiel du commerce avec l'Etranger que celui de la\nnavigation. De toute l'Europe, les Hollandois sont ceux qui construisent\ndes Vaisseaux \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9. Outre les rivieres qui leur apportent\ndu bois flott\u00e9, le voisinage du Nord leur fournit \u00e0 moins de frais les\nm\u00e2ts, le bois, le goudron, les cordages, &c. Leurs Moulins \u00e0 scier le\nbois en facilitent le travail. De plus ils naviguent avec moins\nd'\u00e9quipage, & leurs Matelots vivent \u00e0 tr\u00e8s peu de frais. Un de leurs\nMoulins \u00e0 scier le bois \u00e9pargne journellement le travail de\nquatre-vingts hommes.\nPar ces avantages ils seroient dans l'Europe les seuls voituriers par\nMer, si l'on suivoit toujours le meilleur march\u00e9: & s'ils avoient de\nleur propre cr\u00fb dequoi faire un commerce \u00e9tendu, ils auroient sans doute\nla plus florissante Marine de l'Europe. Mais le grand nombre de leurs\nMatelots ne suffit pas, sans les forces int\u00e9rieures de l'Etat, pour la\nsuperiorit\u00e9 de leurs forces navales: ils n'armeroient jamais de\nVaisseaux de guerre, ni de Matelots si l'Etat avoit de grands revenus\npour les construire & les solder: ils profiteroient en tout du grand\nmarch\u00e9.\nL'Angleterre pour les emp\u00eacher d'augmenter \u00e0 ses d\u00e9pens leur avantage\nsur Mer par ce bon march\u00e9, a d\u00e9fendu \u00e0 toute Nation d'apporter chez elle\nd'autres marchandises que celles de leur cr\u00fb; au mo\u00efen dequoi les\nHollandois n'a\u00efant p\u00fb servir de voituriers pour l'Angleterre, les\nAnglois m\u00eame ont fortifi\u00e9 par-l\u00e0 leur Marine: & bien qu'ils naviguent \u00e0\nplus de frais que les Hollandois, les richesses de leurs charges au\ndehors rendent ces frais moins consid\u00e9rables.\nLa France & l'Espagne sont bien des Etats maritimes, qui ont un riche\nproduit qu'on envoie dans le Nord, d'o\u00f9 on leur porte chez eux les\ndenr\u00e9es & marchandises. Il n'est pas \u00e9tonnant que leur marine ne soit\npas consid\u00e9rable \u00e0 proportion de leur produit & de l'\u00e9tendue de leurs\nC\u00f4tes maritimes, puisqu'ils laissent \u00e0 des Vaisseaux \u00e9trangers le soin\nde leur apporter du Nord tout ce qu'ils en re\u00e7oivent, & de leur venir\nenlever les denr\u00e9es que les Etats du Nord tirent de chez eux.\nCes Etats, je dis la France & l'Espagne, ne font pas entrer dans les\nvues de leur politique la consid\u00e9ration du Commerce au point qu'elle y\nseroit avantageuse; la pl\u00fbpart des Commer\u00e7ans en France & en Espagne qui\nont relation avec l'Etranger, sont plut\u00f4t des Facteurs ou des Commis de\nN\u00e9gocians \u00e9trangers que des Entrepreneurs, pour conduire ce commerce de\nleur fond.\nIl est vrai que les Etats du Nord sont, par leur situation & par le\nvoisinage des pa\u00efs qui produisent tout ce qui est n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 la\nconstruction des Navires, en \u00e9tat de voiturer tout \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9,\nque ne seroit la France & l'Espagne: mais si ces deux Ro\u00efaumes prenoient\ndes mesures pour fortifier leur marine, cet obstacle ne les en\nemp\u00eacheroit pas. L'Angleterre leur en a montr\u00e9 il y a d\u00e9ja long-tems\nl'exemple en partie: ils ont chez eux & dans leurs Colonies tout ce\nqu'il faut pour la construction des B\u00e2timens, ou du moins il ne seroit\npas difficile de les y faire produire: & il y a une infinit\u00e9 de voies\nqu'on pourroit prendre pour faire r\u00e9ussir un tel dessein, si la\nlegislature ou le ministere y vouloit concourir. Mon sujet ne me permet\npas d'examiner dans cet Essai, le d\u00e9tail de ces voies: je me bornerai \u00e0\ndire, que dans les pa\u00efs o\u00f9 le commerce n'entretient pas constamment un\nnombre consid\u00e9rable de B\u00e2timens & de Matelots, il est presque impossible\nque le Prince puisse entretenir une Marine florissante, sans des frais\nqui seroient seuls capables de ruiner les tr\u00e9sors de son Etat.\nJe conclurai donc, en remarquant que le commerce qui est le plus\nessentiel \u00e0 un Etat pour l'augmentation ou la diminution de ses forces\nest le commerce avec l'Etranger, que celui de l'int\u00e9rieur d'un Etat\nn'est pas d'une si grande consid\u00e9ration dans la politique; qu'on ne\nsoutient qu'\u00e0 demi le commerce avec l'Etranger, lorsqu'on n'a pas l'oeil\n\u00e0 augmenter & maintenir de gros N\u00e9gocians naturels du pa\u00efs, des B\u00e2timens\n& des Matelots, des Ouvriers & des Manufactures, & surtout qu'il faut\ntoujours s'attacher \u00e0 maintenir la balance contre les Etrangers.\nCHAPITRE II.\n_Des Changes & de leur nature._\nDans la Ville m\u00eame de Paris, il coute ordinairement cinq sols par sac de\nmille livres, pour porter de l'argent d'une maison \u00e0 une autre; s'il\nfalloit toujours le porter du Fauxbourg Saint Antoine, aux Invalides, il\nen couteroit plus du double, & s'il n'y avoit pas commun\u00e9ment des\nporteurs d'argent de confiance, il en couteroit encore davantage: que\ns'il y avoit souvent des Voleurs en chemin, on l'enverroit par grosses\nsommes, escort\u00e9, & avec plus de frais; & si quelqu'un se chargeoit du\ntransport, \u00e0 ses frais & risques, il se feroit pa\u00efer de ce transport, \u00e0\nproportion des frais & des risques. C'est ainsi, que les frais du\ntransport, de Rouen \u00e0 Paris, & de Paris \u00e0 Rouen, coutent ordinairement\ncinquante sols par sac de mille livres, ce qu'on appelle dans le langage\ndes Banquiers, un quart pour cent; les Banquiers envoient l'argent\nordinairement en doubles barils, que les Voleurs ne peuvent gueres\nemporter, \u00e0 cause du fer & de la pesanteur, & comme il y a toujours des\nMessagers sur cette route, les frais sont peu consid\u00e9rables, sur les\ngrosses parties qu'on envoie de part & d'autre.\nSi la Ville de Ch\u00e2lons sur Marne paie tous les ans au Receveur des\nFermes du Roi, dix mille onces d'argent d'un c\u00f4t\u00e9, & si de l'autre c\u00f4t\u00e9\nles Marchands de vin de Ch\u00e2lons ou des environs vendent \u00e0 Paris, par\nl'entremise de leurs correspondans, des vins de Champagne pour la valeur\nde dix mille onces d'argent; si l'once d'argent en France passe dans le\ncommerce pour cinq livres, la somme des dix mille onces en question\ns'appellera cinquante mille livres, tant \u00e0 Paris qu'\u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons.\nLe Receveur des Fermes dans cet exemple a cinquante mille livres \u00e0\nenvo\u00efer \u00e0 Paris, & les correspondans des Marchands de vin de Ch\u00e2lons ont\ncinquante mille livres \u00e0 envo\u00efer \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons; on pourra \u00e9pargner ce double\nemploi ou transport par une compensation ou comme on dit par lettres de\nchange, si les parties s'abouchent & s'accommodent pour cela.\nQue les correspondans des Marchands de vin de Ch\u00e2lons portent (chacun sa\npart) les cinquante mille livres chez le Caissier du Bureau des Fermes \u00e0\nParis; qu'il leur donne une ou plusieurs rescriptions, ou lettres de\nchange sur le Receveur des Fermes \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, pa\u00efables \u00e0 leur ordre;\nqu'ils endossent ou passent leur ordre aux Marchands de vin de Ch\u00e2lons,\nceux-ci recevront du Receveur \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons les cinquante mille livres. De\ncette maniere, les cinquante mille livres \u00e0 Paris seront pa\u00ef\u00e9es au\nCaissier des Fermes \u00e0 Paris, & les cinquante mille livres \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons\nseront pa\u00ef\u00e9es aux Marchands de vin de cette Ville, & par cet \u00e9change ou\ncompensation, on \u00e9pargnera la peine de voiturer cet argent d'une ville \u00e0\nl'autre. Ou bien que les Marchands de vin \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, qui ont cinquante\nmille livres \u00e0 Paris, aillent offrir leurs lettres de change au Receveur\nqui les endossera au Caissier des Fermes \u00e0 Paris, lequel y touchera le\nmontant, & que le Receveur \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons leur paie contre leurs lettres de\nchange les cinquante mille livres qu'il a \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons: de quelque c\u00f4t\u00e9\nqu'on fasse cette compensation, soit qu'on tire les lettres de change de\nParis sur Ch\u00e2lons, soit de Ch\u00e2lons sur Paris, comme dans cet exemple on\npaie once pour once, & cinquante mille livres pour cinquante mille\nlivres, on dira que le change est au pair.\nLa m\u00eame methode se pourra pratiquer, entre ces Marchands de vin \u00e0\nCh\u00e2lons, & les Receveurs des Seigneurs de Paris qui ont des terres ou\ndes rentes aux environs de Ch\u00e2lons, & encore entre les Marchands de vin,\nou tout autres Marchands \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, qui ont envo\u00ef\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es ou des\nmarchandises \u00e0 Paris, & qui y ont de l'argent, & tous Marchands qui ont\ntir\u00e9 des marchandises de Paris & les ont vendues \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons. Que s'il y a\nun grand commerce entre ces deux Villes, il s'\u00e9rigera des Banquiers \u00e0\nParis & \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, qui s'aboucheront avec les interress\u00e9s de part &\nd'autre, & seront les agens ou entremeteurs des paiemens qu'on auroit \u00e0\nenvo\u00efer d'une de ces Villes \u00e0 l'autre. Maintenant si tous les vins, &\nautres denr\u00e9es & marchandises qu'on a envo\u00ef\u00e9es de Ch\u00e2lons \u00e0 Paris, &\nqu'on y a effectivement vendues pour argent comptant, excedent en valeur\nla somme de la recette des Fermes \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, celles des rentes que les\nSeigneurs de Paris ont aux environs de Ch\u00e2lons, & encore la valeur de\ntoutes les denr\u00e9es & de toutes les marchandises qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 envo\u00ef\u00e9es de\nParis \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons & qu'on y a vendues pour argent comptant, de la somme de\ncinq mille onces d'argent ou de vingt-cinq mille liv. il faudra\nn\u00e9cessairement que le Banquier \u00e0 Paris envoie cette somme en argent \u00e0\nCh\u00e2lons. Cette somme sera l'exc\u00e9dent ou la balance du commerce entre ces\ndeux Villes; on l'enverra dis-je n\u00e9cessairement en especes \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, &\ncette op\u00e9ration se trouvera conduite de la maniere suivante ou de\nquelqu'autre maniere approchante.\nLes Agens, ou Correspondans des Marchands de vin de Ch\u00e2lons & des autres\nqui ont envo\u00ef\u00e9 des denr\u00e9es ou des Marchandises de Ch\u00e2lons \u00e0 Paris, ont\nl'argent de ces ventes en caisse \u00e0 Paris: ils ont ordre de le remettre \u00e0\nCh\u00e2lons; ils ne sont pas dans l'habitude de le risquer par les voitures,\nils s'adresseront au Caissier des Fermes qui leur donnera des\nrescriptions ou lettres de change sur le Receveur des Fermes \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons,\njusqu'\u00e0 la concurrence des fonds qu'il a \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, & cela ordinairement\nau pair; mais comme ils ont besoin de remettre encore d'autres sommes \u00e0\nCh\u00e2lons, ils s'adresseront pour cela au Banquier qui aura \u00e0 sa\ndisposition les rentes des Seigneurs \u00e0 Paris qui ont des terres aux\nenvirons de Ch\u00e2lons. Ce Banquier leur fournira, de m\u00eame que le Caissier\ndes Fermes, des lettres de change sur son correspondant \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons\njusqu'\u00e0 la concurrence des fonds qu'il a \u00e0 sa disposition \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, &\nqu'il avoit ordre de faire revenir \u00e0 Paris: cette compensation se fera\naussi au pair, si ce n'est que le Banquier cherche \u00e0 y trouver quelque\npetit profit pour sa peine, tant de la part de ces Agens qui s'adressent\n\u00e0 lui pour remettre leur argent \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, que de celle des Seigneurs\nqui l'ont charg\u00e9 de faire revenir leur argent de Ch\u00e2lons, \u00e0 Paris. Si le\nBanquier a de m\u00eame \u00e0 sa disposition \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, la valeur des\nMarchandises qui y ont \u00e9t\u00e9 envo\u00ef\u00e9es de Paris, & qui y ont \u00e9t\u00e9 vendues\npour argent comptant; il fournira encore de m\u00eame des lettres de change\npour cette valeur.\nMais dans notre supposition les Agens des Marchands de Ch\u00e2lons, ont\nencore en caisse \u00e0 Paris vingt-cinq mille livres qu'ils ont ordre de\nremettre \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, au-del\u00e0 de toutes les sommes ci-dessus mentionn\u00e9es.\nS'ils offrent cet argent au Caissier des Fermes, il r\u00e9pondra qu'il n'a\nplus de fonds \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, & qu'il ne sauroit leur fournir de lettres de\nchange ou des rescriptions sur cette Ville. S'ils offrent l'argent au\nBanquier il leur r\u00e9pondra, qu'il n'a pas non plus de fonds \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, &\nqu'il n'a pas occasion de tirer, mais que si l'on veut lui pa\u00efer trois\npour cent de change, il fournira des lettres: ils offriront un ou deux\npour cent, & enfin deux & demi, ne pouvant faire mieux. A ce prix le\nBanquier se d\u00e9terminera \u00e0 leur donner des lettres, c'est-\u00e0-dire, qu'en\nlui pa\u00efant \u00e0 Paris deux livres dix sols, il fournira une lettre de\nchange de cent livres, sur son correspondant de Ch\u00e2lons, pa\u00efable \u00e0 dix\nou quinze jours, afin de mettre ce correspondant en \u00e9tat de faire ce\npaiement des vingt-cinq mille livres qu'il tire sur lui: \u00e0 ce prix de\nchange, il les lui enverra par le Messager ou Carrosse en espece d'or,\nou au d\u00e9faut de l'or, en argent. Il paiera dix livres pour chaque sac de\nmille livres, ou suivant le langage des Banquiers un pour cent; il\npaiera \u00e0 son Correspondant de Ch\u00e2lons pour commission cinq livres par\nsac de mille livres, ou demi pour cent, & il gardera pour son profit un\npour cent. Sur ce pied le change est \u00e0 Paris pour Ch\u00e2lons \u00e0 deux & demi\npour cent au-dessus du pair, parcequ'on paie deux livres dix sols sur\nchaque cent livres pour le prix du change.\nC'est ainsi \u00e0 peu-pr\u00e8s que la balance du commerce se transporte d'une\nville \u00e0 l'autre, par l'entremise des Banquiers, & en gros articles\nordinairement. Tous ceux qui portent le titre de Banquiers ne sont pas\ndans cette habitude; & il y en a plusieurs qui ne se m\u00ealent que de\ncommissions & de sp\u00e9culation de banque. Je ne mettrai au nombre des\nBanquiers que ceux qui font voiturer l'argent. C'est \u00e0 eux \u00e0 r\u00e9gler\ntoujours les changes, dont les prix suivent les frais & les risques du\ntransport des especes, dans les cas diff\u00e9rens.\nOn fixe rarement le prix du change entre Paris & Ch\u00e2lons \u00e0 plus de deux\n& demi ou trois pour cent, au dessus ou au dessous du pair. Mais de\nParis \u00e0 Amsterdam le prix du change montera \u00e0 cinq ou six pour cent\nlorsqu'il faudra voiturer les especes. Le chemin est plus long, le\nrisque est plus grand; il faut plus de Correspondans & de\nCommissionnaires. Des Indes en Angleterre, le prix du transport sera de\ndix \u00e0 douze pour cent. De Londres \u00e0 Amsterdam, le prix du change ne\npassera guere deux pour cent en tems de paix.\nDans notre exemple pr\u00e9sent, on dira que le change \u00e0 Paris pour Ch\u00e2lons\nsera \u00e0 deux & demi pour cent, au dessus du pair; & on dira \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons que\nle change pour Paris est \u00e0 deux & demi pour cent, au dessous du pair:\nparceque dans ces circonstances celui qui donnera de l'argent \u00e0\nCh\u00e2lons pour une lettre de change pour Paris ne donnera que\nquatre-vingt-dix-sept livres dix sols, pour recevoir cent livres \u00e0\nParis: & il est visible que la Ville ou Place o\u00f9 le change est au dessus\ndu pair doit \u00e0 celle o\u00f9 il est au dessous, tant que le prix du change\nsubsiste sur ce pied. Le change n'est \u00e0 Paris \u00e0 deux & demi pour cent,\nau dessus du pair pour Ch\u00e2lons, que parceque Paris doit \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons, &\nqu'on a besoin de voiturer l'argent de cette dette de Paris \u00e0 Ch\u00e2lons:\nc'est pourquoi lorsqu'on voit que le change est communement au dessous\ndu pair dans une ville, par rapport \u00e0 une autre, on pourra conclure que\ncette premiere ville doit la balance du commerce \u00e0 l'autre, & lorsque le\nchange est \u00e0 Madrid ou \u00e0 Lisbonne au dessus du pair pour tous les autres\npa\u00efs, cela fait voir que ces deux Capitales doivent toujours envo\u00efer des\nespeces \u00e0 ces autres pa\u00efs.\nDans toutes les Places & Villes qui se servent de la m\u00eame monnoie & des\nm\u00eames especes d'or & d'argent, comme Paris & Ch\u00e2lons sur Marne, Londres\n& Bristol, l'on conno\u00eet & l'on exprime le prix du change en donnant & en\nprenant tant pour cent, de plus ou de moins que le pair. Quand on paie\nquatre-vingt-dix-huit livres dans une place, pour recevoir cent livres\ndans une autre, on dit que le change est \u00e0 deux pour cent au dessous du\npair \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s: lorsqu'on paie cent deux livres dans une place, pour ne\nrecevoir que cent livres dans une autre, on dit que le change est \u00e0 deux\npour cent exactement au-dessus du pair: quand on donne cent livres dans\nune place, pour en recevoir cent livres dans une autre, on dit que le\nchange est au pair. En tout cela il n'y a aucune difficult\u00e9 ni aucun\nmystere.\nMais lorsqu'on regle le change entre deux Villes ou Places, o\u00f9 la\nmonnoie est toute diff\u00e9rente, o\u00f9 les especes sont de diff\u00e9rentes\ngrandeurs, finesses, tailles, & m\u00eame de diff\u00e9rens noms, la nature du\nchange paro\u00eet d'abord plus difficile \u00e0 expliquer; mais dans le fond ce\nchange \u00e9tranger ne differe de celui entre Paris & Ch\u00e2lons que par la\ndiff\u00e9rence du jargon dont les Banquiers se servent. On parle \u00e0 Paris du\nchange avec la Hollande en reglant l'\u00e9cu de trois livres contre tant de\ndeniers de gros de Hollande, mais le pair du change entre Paris &\nAmsterdam est toujours cent onces d'or ou d'argent contre cent onces\nd'or ou d'argent de m\u00eame poids & titre: cent deux onces pa\u00ef\u00e9es \u00e0 Paris\npour recevoir seulement cent onces \u00e0 Amsterdam, reviennent toujours \u00e0\ndeux pour cent au dessus du pair. Le Banquier qui fait les transports de\nla balance du commerce, doit toujours savoir calculer le pair; mais dans\nle langage des changes avec l'Etranger, on dira le prix du change \u00e0\nLondres avec Amsterdam se fait en donnant une livre sterling \u00e0 Londres\npour recevoir trente-cinq escalins d'Hollande en banque: avec Paris, en\ndonnant \u00e0 Londres trente deniers ou peniques sterling, pour recevoir \u00e0\nParis un \u00e9cu ou trois livres tournois. Ces fa\u00e7ons de parler n'expriment\npas si le change est au-dessus ou au dessous du pair; mais le Banquier\nqui transporte la balance du commerce en sait bien le compte, & combien\nil recevra d'especes \u00e9trangeres pour celles de son pa\u00efs qu'il fait\nvoiturer.\nQu'on fixe le change \u00e0 Londres pour argent d'Angleterre en Roubles de\nMoscovie, en Marcs Lubs de Hambourg, en Richedales d'Allemagne, en\nLivres de gros de Flandres, en Ducats de Venise, en Piastres de G\u00e8nes ou\nde Livourne, en Millerays ou Crusades de Portugal, en Pieces de huit\nd'Espagne, ou Pistoles &c. le pair du change pour tous ces pa\u00efs, sera\ntoujours cent onces d'or ou d'argent contre cent onces: & si dans le\nlangage des changes il se trouve qu'on donne plus ou moins que ce pair,\ncela vient au m\u00eame dans le fond que si l'on disoit le change est de tant\nau dessus ou au dessous du pair, & on conno\u00eetra toujours si l'Angleterre\ndoit la balance ou non \u00e0 la place avec laquelle on regle le change, ni\nplus ni moins qu'on le sait dans notre exemple de Paris & de Ch\u00e2lons.\nCHAPITRE III.\n_Autres \u00e9claircissemens pour la connoissance de la nature des changes._\nOn a vu que les changes sont regl\u00e9s sur la valeur intrinseque des\nespeces, c'est-\u00e0-dire, sur le pair, & que leur variation provient des\nfrais & des risques des transports d'une place \u00e0 l'autre, lorsqu'il faut\nenvo\u00efer en especes la balance du commerce. On n'a pas besoin de\nraisonnement pour une chose qu'on voit dans le fait & dans la pratique.\nLes Banquiers apportent quelquefois des raffinemens dans cette pratique.\nSi l'Angleterre doit \u00e0 la France cent mille onces d'argent pour la\nbalance du commerce, si la France en doit cent mille onces \u00e0 la\nHollande, & la Hollande cent mille onces \u00e0 l'Angleterre, toutes ces\ntrois sommes se pourront compenser par lettres de change entre les\nBanquiers respectifs de ces trois Etats, sans qu'il soit besoin\nd'envo\u00efer aucun argent d'aucun c\u00f4t\u00e9.\nSi la Hollande envoie en Angleterre pendant le mois de Janvier des\nmarchandises pour la valeur de cent mille onces d'argent, & l'Angleterre\nn'en envoie en Hollande dans le m\u00eame mois que pour la valeur de\ncinquante mille onces, (je suppose la vente & le paiement faits dans le\nm\u00eame mois de Janvier de part & d'autre) il reviendra \u00e0 la Hollande dans\nce mois une balance de commerce de cinquante mille onces, & le change\nd'Amsterdam sera \u00e0 Londres au mois de Janvier \u00e0 deux ou trois pour cent\nau dessus du pair, c'est-\u00e0-dire dans le langage des changes, que le\nchange de Hollande qui \u00e9toit en D\u00e9cembre au pair ou \u00e0 trente cinq\nescalins par livre sterling \u00e0 Londres, y montera en Janvier \u00e0 trente six\nescalins ou environ; mais lorsque les Banquiers auront envo\u00ef\u00e9 cette\ndette de cinquante mille onces en Hollande, le change pour Amsterdam\nretombera naturellement au pair \u00e0 Londres, ou \u00e0 trente-cinq escalins.\nMais si un Banquier Anglois pr\u00e9voit en Janvier, par l'envoi qu'on y fait\nen Hollande d'une quantit\u00e9 extraordinaire de marchandises, que la\nHollande lors des paiemens & ventes en Mars redevra considerablement \u00e0\nl'Angleterre, il pourra d\u00e8s le mois de Janvier, au lieu d'envo\u00efer les\ncinquante mille \u00e9cus ou onces qu'on y doit ce mois-l\u00e0 \u00e0 la Hollande,\nfournir ses lettres de change sur son Correspondant \u00e0 Amsterdam,\npa\u00efables \u00e0 deux usances ou deux mois pour en pa\u00efer la valeur \u00e0\nl'\u00e9ch\u00e9ance: & par ce mo\u00efen profiter du change qui \u00e9toit en Janvier au\ndessus du pair, & qui sera en Mars au dessous du pair: & par ce mo\u00efen\ngagner doublement sans envo\u00efer un sol en Hollande.\nVoil\u00e0 ce que les Banquiers appellent des sp\u00e9culations qui causent\nsouvent des variations dans les changes pour un peu de tems,\nindependamment de la balance du commerce: mais il en faut toujours \u00e0 la\nlongue revenir \u00e0 cette balance qui fait la regle constante & uniforme\ndes changes; & quoique les sp\u00e9culations & cr\u00e9dits des Banquiers puissent\nquelquefois retarder le transport des sommes qu'une Ville ou Etat doit \u00e0\nun autre, il faut toujours \u00e0 la fin pa\u00efer la dette & envo\u00efer la balance\ndu commerce en especes, \u00e0 la Place o\u00f9 elle est due.\nSi l'Angleterre gagne constamment une balance de commerce avec le\nPortugal, & perd toujours une balance avec la Hollande, les prix du\nchange avec la Hollande & avec le Portugal le feront bien conno\u00eetre; on\nverra bien qu'\u00e0 Londres le change pour Lisbonne est au dessous du pair,\n& que le Portugal doit \u00e0 l'Angleterre; on verra aussi que le change pour\nAmsterdam est au dessus du pair, & que l'Angleterre doit \u00e0 la Hollande:\nmais on ne pourra pas voir par les changes la quantit\u00e9 de la dette. On\nne verra pas si la balance d'argent qu'on tire de Portugal sera plus\ngrande ou plus petite que celle qu'on est oblig\u00e9 d'envo\u00efer en Hollande.\nCependant il y a une chose qui fera toujours bien conno\u00eetre \u00e0 Londres,\nsi l'Angleterre gagne ou perd la balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de son commerce (on\nentend par la balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, la diff\u00e9rence des balances particulieres\navec tous les Etats \u00e9trangers qui commercent avec l'Angleterre), c'est\nle prix des matieres d'or & d'argent, mais particulierement de l'or,\n(aujourd'hui que la proportion du prix de l'or & de l'argent en especes\nmonno\u00ef\u00e9es differe de la proportion du prix du march\u00e9, comme on\nl'expliquera dans le Chapitre suivant). Si le prix des matieres d'or au\nmarch\u00e9 de Londres, qui est le centre du commerce d'Angleterre, est plus\nbas que le prix de la Tour o\u00f9 l'on fabrique les guin\u00e9es ou especes d'or,\nou au m\u00eame prix que ces especes intrins\u00e9quement; & si on porte \u00e0 la Tour\ndes matieres d'or pour en recevoir la valeur en guin\u00e9es ou especes\nfabriqu\u00e9es, c'est une preuve certaine que l'Angleterre gagne dans la\nbalance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de son commerce; c'est une preuve que l'or qu'on tire\ndu Portugal suffit non-seulement pour pa\u00efer la balance que l'Angleterre\nenvoie en Hollande, en Suede, en Moscovie, & dans les autres Etats o\u00f9\nelle doit, mais qu'il reste encore de l'or pour envo\u00efer fabriquer \u00e0 la\nTour, & la quantit\u00e9 ou somme de cette balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale se conno\u00eet par\ncelle des especes fabriqu\u00e9es \u00e0 la Tour de Londres.\nMais si les matieres d'or se vendent \u00e0 Londres au march\u00e9, plus haut que\nle prix de la Tour, qui est ordinairement de trois livres dix-huit\nschelings par once, on ne portera plus de ces matieres \u00e0 la Tour pour\nles fabriquer, & c'est une marque certaine qu'on ne tire pas de\nl'Etranger, par exemple du Portugal, autant d'or qu'on est oblig\u00e9 d'en\nenvo\u00efer dans les autres pa\u00efs o\u00f9 l'Angleterre doit: c'est une preuve que\nla balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du commerce est contre l'Angleterre. Ceci ne se\nconno\u00eetroit pas s'il n'y avoit pas une d\u00e9fense en Angleterre d'envo\u00efer\ndes especes d'or hors du Ro\u00efaume: mais cette d\u00e9fense est cause que les\nBanquiers timides \u00e0 Londres aiment mieux acheter les matieres d'or\n(qu'il leur est permis de transporter dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers) \u00e0 trois\nlivres dix-huit schelings jusqu'\u00e0 quatre livres sterling l'once, pour\nles envo\u00efer chez l'Etranger, que d'y envo\u00efer les guin\u00e9es ou especes d'or\nmonno\u00ef\u00e9es \u00e0 trois livres dix-huit schelings, contre les loix, & au\nhasard de confiscation. Il y en a pourtant qui s'y hasardent, d'autres\nfondent les especes d'or, pour les envo\u00efer en guise de matieres, & il\nn'est pas possible de juger de la quantit\u00e9 d'or que l'Angleterre perd,\nlorsque la balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du commerce est contre elle.\nEn France on d\u00e9duit les frais de la fabrication des especes, qui va\nd'ordinaire \u00e0 un & demi pour cent, c'est-\u00e0-dire, qu'on y regle toujours\nle prix des especes au dessus de celui des matieres. Pour conno\u00eetre si\nla France perd dans la balance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de son commerce, il suffira de\nsavoir si les Banquiers envoient chez l'Etranger les especes de France;\ncar s'ils le font c'est une preuve qu'ils ne trouvent pas de matieres \u00e0\nacheter pour ce transport, attendu que ces matieres quoiqu'\u00e0 plus bas\nprix en France que les especes, sont de plus grande valeur que ces\nespeces dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, au moins de un & demi pour cent.\nQuoique les prix des changes ne varient guere que par rapport \u00e0 la\nbalance du commerce, entre l'Etat & les autres Pa\u00efs, & que naturellement\ncette balance n'est que la diff\u00e9rence de la valeur des denr\u00e9es & des\nmarchandises que l'Etat envoie dans les autres pa\u00efs, & de celles que les\nautres pa\u00efs envoient dans l'Etat; cependant il arrive souvent des\ncirconstances & causes accidentelles qui font transporter des sommes\nconsiderables d'un Etat \u00e0 un autre, sans qu'il soit question de\nmarchandises & de commerce, & ces causes influent sur les changes tout\nde m\u00eame que feroient la balance & l'exc\u00e9dent de commerce.\nDe cette nature sont les sommes d'argent qu'un Etat envoie dans un autre\npour des services secrets & des vues de politique d'Etat, pour des\nsubsides d'alliances, pour l'entretien de troupes, d'Ambassadeurs, de\nSeigneurs qui vo\u00efagent, &c. les capitaux que les Habitans d'un Etat\nenvoient dans un autre, pour s'y interesser dans les fonds publics ou\nparticuliers, l'inter\u00eat que ces Habitans tirent annuellement de pareils\nfonds &c. Les changes ne manquent pas de varier avec toutes ces causes\naccidentelles, & de suivre la regle du transport d'argent dont on a\nbesoin; & dans la consid\u00e9ration de la balance du commerce, on ne s\u00e9pare\npas, & m\u00eame on auroit de la peine \u00e0 en s\u00e9parer ces sortes d'articles;\nils influent bien s\u00fbrement sur l'augmentation & la diminution de\nl'argent effectif d'un Etat, & de ses forces & puissances comparatives.\nMon sujet ne me permet pas de m'\u00e9tendre sur les effets de ces causes\naccidentelles, je me bornerai toujours aux vues simples de commerce, de\npeur d'embarrasser mon sujet, qui ne l'est que trop par la multiplicit\u00e9\ndes faits qui s'y pr\u00e9sentent.\nLes changes haussent plus ou moins au dessus du pair \u00e0 proportion des\ngrands ou petits frais, & risques du transport d'argent, & cela suppos\u00e9,\nles changes haussent bien plus naturellement au dessus du pair dans les\nVilles ou Etats o\u00f9 il y a des d\u00e9fenses de transporter de l'argent hors\nde l'Etat, que dans celles o\u00f9 le transport en est libre.\nSupposons que le Portugal consomme annuellement & constamment des\nquantit\u00e9s considerables de Manufactures de laine & autres d'Angleterre,\ntant pour ses propres habitans que pour ceux du Bresil; qu'il en paie\nune partie en vin, huiles, &c. mais que pour le surplus du paiement il y\nait une balance constante de commerce qu'on envoie de Lisbonne \u00e0\nLondres. Si le Roi de Portugal fait de rigoureuses d\u00e9fenses, & sous\npeine non-seulement de confiscation, mais m\u00eame de la vie, de transporter\naucune matiere d'or ou d'argent hors de ses Etats, la terreur de ces\nd\u00e9fenses emp\u00eachera d'abord les Banquiers de se m\u00ealer d'envo\u00efer la\nbalance. Le prix des Manufactures Angloises restera en caisse \u00e0\nLisbonne. Les Marchands Anglois ne pouvant avoir de Lisbonne leurs\nfonds, n'y enverront plus de draps. Il arrivera que les draps\ndeviendront d'une chert\u00e9 extraordinaire; cependant les draps ne sont pas\nencheris en Angleterre, on s'abstient seulement de les envo\u00efer \u00e0\nLisbonne \u00e0 cause qu'on n'en peut pas retirer la valeur. Pour avoir de\nces draps la Noblesse Portugaise & autres qui ne sauroient s'en passer,\nen offriront jusqu'au double du prix ordinaire; mais comme on n'en\nsauroit avoir assez qu'en envo\u00efant de l'argent hors de Portugal,\nl'augmentation du prix du drap deviendra le profit de quiconque enverra\nl'or ou l'argent, contre les d\u00e9fenses, hors du Ro\u00efaume; cela encouragera\nplusieurs Juifs, & autres de porter l'or & l'argent aux Vaisseaux\nAnglois qui sont dans la Rade de Lisbonne, m\u00eame au hasard de la vie. Ils\ngagneront d'abord cent ou cinquante pour cent \u00e0 faire ce m\u00e9tier, & ce\nprofit est pa\u00ef\u00e9 par les habitans Portugais, dans le haut prix qu'ils\ndonnent pour le drap. Ils se familiariseront peu-\u00e0-peu \u00e0 ce man\u00e9ge,\napr\u00e8s l'avoir pratiqu\u00e9 souvent avec succ\u00e8s, & dans la suite on verra\nporter l'argent \u00e0 bord des Vaisseaux Anglois pour le prix de deux ou un\npour cent.\nLe Roi de Portugal fait la loi ou la d\u00e9fense: ses Sujets, m\u00eame ses\nCourtisans, paient les frais du risque qu'on court pour rendre la\nd\u00e9fense inutile, & pour l'\u00e9luder. On ne tire donc aucun avantage d'une\npareille loi, au contraire elle cause un d\u00e9savantage r\u00e9el au Portugal\nparcequ'elle est cause qu'il sort plus d'argent de l'Etat qu'il n'en\nsortiroit s'il n'y avoit pas une telle loi.\nCar ceux qui gagnent \u00e0 ce man\u00e9ge, soit Juifs ou autres, ne manquent pas\nd'envo\u00efer leurs profits en pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, & lorsqu'ils en ont assez ou\nlorsque la peur les prend ils suivent souvent eux-m\u00eames leur argent.\nQue si l'on prenoit quelques-uns de ces contrevenans sur le fait, qu'on\nconfisqu\u00e2t leurs biens & qu'on les f\u00eet mourir, cette circonstance &\ncette ex\u00e9cution au lieu d'emp\u00eacher la sortie de l'argent ne feront que\nl'augmenter, parceque ceux qui se contentoient auparavant de un ou deux\npour cent pour sortir de l'argent, voudront avoir vingt ou cinquante\npour cent, ainsi il est n\u00e9cessaire qu'il en sorte toujours de quoi pa\u00efer\nla balance.\nJe ne sais si j'ai bien r\u00e9ussi \u00e0 rendre ces raisons sensibles \u00e0 ceux qui\nn'ont point d'id\u00e9e de commerce. Je sais que pour ceux qui ont quelque\nconnoissance de la pratique, rien n'est plus ais\u00e9 \u00e0 comprendre, & qu'ils\ns'\u00e9tonnent avec raison que ceux qui conduisent les Etats & administrent\nles Finances des grands Ro\u00efaumes, aient si peu de connoissance de la\nnature des changes, que de d\u00e9fendre la sortie des matieres & des especes\nd'or & d'argent, en m\u00eame tems.\nLe mo\u00efen unique de les conserver dans un Etat, c'est de conduire si bien\nle commerce avec l'Etranger que la balance ne soit pas contraire \u00e0\nl'Etat.\nCHAPITRE IV.\n_Des variations de la proportion des valeurs, par rapport aux M\u00e9taux qui\nservent de monnoie._\nSi les M\u00e9taux \u00e9toient aussi faciles \u00e0 trouver, que l'eau l'est\ncommun\u00e9ment, chacun en prendroit pour ses besoins, & ces m\u00e9taux\nn'auroient presque point de valeur. Les m\u00e9taux qui se trouvent les plus\nabondans & qui coutent le moins de peine \u00e0 produire, sont aussi ceux qui\nsont \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9. Le fer paro\u00eet le plus n\u00e9cessaire; mais comme on\nle trouve commun\u00e9ment en Europe, avec moins de peine & de travail que le\ncuivre, il est \u00e0 bien meilleur march\u00e9.\nLe cuivre, l'argent & l'or, sont les trois m\u00e9taux dont on se sert\ncommun\u00e9ment pour monnoie. Les Mines de cuivre sont les plus abondantes &\ncoutent le moins de terre & de travail \u00e0 produire. Les plus abondantes\nMines de cuivre sont aujourd'hui en Suede: il y faut plus de\nquatre-vingts onces de cuivre au March\u00e9 pour pa\u00efer une once d'argent. Il\nest aussi \u00e0 remarquer que le cuivre qu'on tire de certaines Mines est\nplus parfait & plus beau que celui qu'on tire d'autres Mines. Celui du\nJapon & de Suede est plus beau que celui d'Angleterre. Celui d'Espagne\n\u00e9toit du tems des Romains, plus beau que celui de l'Ile de Chypre. Au\nlieu que l'or & l'argent, de quelque Mine qu'on les tire, sont toujours\nde la m\u00eame perfection, lorsqu'on les a rafin\u00e9s.\nLa valeur du cuivre, comme de tout autres choses, est proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la\nterre & au travail qui entrent dans sa production. Outre les usages\nordinaires auxquels on l'emploie, comme pour des pots, des vases, de la\nbatterie de cuisine, des serrures, &c., on s'en sert presque dans tous\nles Etats pour monnoie, dans le troc du menu. En Suede on s'en sert\nsouvent m\u00eame dans les gros paiemens lorsque l'argent y est rare. Pendant\nles cinq premiers siecles de Rome, on ne se servoit pas d'autre monnoie.\nOn ne commen\u00e7a \u00e0 se servir d'argent dans le troc, que dans l'ann\u00e9e\nquatre cent quatre-vingt-quatre. La proportion du cuivre \u00e0 l'argent fut\nalors r\u00e9gl\u00e9e dans les monnoies, comme 72 \u00e0 1; dans la fabrication de\ncinq cent douze, comme 80 \u00e0 1; dans l'\u00e9valuation de cinq cent\ntrente-sept, comme 64 \u00e0 1; dans la fabrication de cinq cent\nquatre-vingt-six, comme 48 \u00e0 1; dans celle de six cent soixante-trois de\nDrusus, & celle de Sylla de six cent soixante & douze, comme 53-1/3 \u00e0 1;\ndans celle de Marc Antoine de sept cent douze, & d'Auguste de sept cent\nvingt-quatre, comme 56 \u00e0 1; dans celle de Neron l'an de Jesus-Christ\ncinquante-quatre, comme 60 \u00e0 1; dans celle d'Antonin l'an de l'Ere\npr\u00e9sente cent soixante, comme 64 \u00e0 1; dans le tems de Constantin trois\ncent trente, style pr\u00e9sent, comme 120 & 125 \u00e0 1; dans le siecle de\nJustinien environ cinq cent cinquante, comme 100 \u00e0 1; & cela a toujours\nvari\u00e9 depuis au-dessous de la proportion de 100 dans les monnoies en\nEurope.\nAujourd'hui qu'on ne se sert guere de cuivre pour monnoie, que dans le\ntroc du menu, soit qu'on l'allie avec la calamine, pour faire du cuivre\njaune, comme en Angleterre, soit qu'on l'allie avec une petite partie\nd'argent, comme en France & en Allemagne, on le fait valoir commun\u00e9ment\ndans la proportion de 40 \u00e0 1; quoique le cuivre au March\u00e9 soit\nordinairement \u00e0 l'argent comme 80 & 100 \u00e0 1. La raison est, qu'on\ndiminue ordinairement sur le poids du cuivre les frais de la\nfabrication; & lorsqu'il n'y a pas trop de cette petite monnoie pour la\ncirculation du bas troc dans l'Etat, les monnoies de cuivre seul, ou de\ncuivre alli\u00e9, passent sans difficult\u00e9 malgr\u00e9 le d\u00e9faut de leur valeur\nintrinseque. Mais lorsqu'on les veut faire passer dans le troc dans un\npa\u00efs \u00e9tranger, on ne les veut recevoir qu'au poids du cuivre & de\nl'argent qui est alli\u00e9 avec le cuivre; & m\u00eame dans les Etats o\u00f9, par\nl'avarice ou l'ignorance de ceux qui gouvernent, on donne cours \u00e0 une\ntrop grande quantit\u00e9 de cette petite monnoie pour la circulation du bas\ntroc, & o\u00f9 l'on ordonne qu'on en re\u00e7oive une certaine partie dans les\ngros paiemens, on ne la re\u00e7oit pas volontiers, & la petite monnoie perd\nun agiot contre l'argent blanc, c'est ce qui arrive \u00e0 la monnoie de\nBillon & aux Ardites en Espagne pour les gros paiemens; cependant la\npetite monnoie passe toujours sans difficult\u00e9 dans le bas troc, la\nvaleur dans ces paiemens \u00e9tant ordinairement petite en elle-m\u00eame, par\ncons\u00e9quent la perte l'est encore davantage: c'est ce qui fait qu'on s'en\naccommode sans peine, & qu'on change le cuivre contre de petites pieces\nd'argent au-dessus du poids & valeur intrinseque du cuivre dans l'Etat\nm\u00eame, mais non dans les autres Etats; chaque Etat en a\u00efant de sa propre\nfabrication de quoi conduire son troc du menu.\nL'or & l'argent ont, comme le cuivre, une valeur proportionn\u00e9e \u00e0 la\nterre & au travail n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 leur production; & si le public se\ncharge des frais de la fabrication de ces m\u00e9taux, leur valeur en lingots\n& en especes est la m\u00eame, leur valeur au March\u00e9 & \u00e0 la Monnoie est la\nm\u00eame chose, leur valeur dans l'Etat & dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers est\nconstamment la m\u00eame, toujours regl\u00e9e sur le poids & sur le titre;\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, sur le poids seul, si ces m\u00e9taux sont purs & sans alliage.\nLes Mines d'argent se sont toujours trouv\u00e9es plus abondantes que celles\nde l'or, mais non pas \u00e9galement dans tous les pa\u00efs, ni dans tous les\ntems: il a toujours fallu plusieurs onces d'argent pour pa\u00efer une once\nd'or; mais tant\u00f4t plus tant\u00f4t moins, suivant l'abondance de ces m\u00e9taux &\nla demande. L'an de Rome trois cent dix, il falloit en Grece treize\nonces d'argent pour pa\u00efer une once d'or, c'est-\u00e0-dire, que l'or \u00e9toit \u00e0\nl'argent comme 1 \u00e0 13; l'an quatre cent ou environ, comme 1 \u00e0 12; l'an\nquatre cent soixante, comme 1 \u00e0 10, tant en Grece qu'en Italie, & par\ntoute l'Europe. Cette proportion d'1 \u00e0 10 paro\u00eet avoir continu\u00e9\nconstamment pendant trois siecles jusqu'\u00e0 la mort d'Auguste, l'an de\nRome sept cent soixante-sept, ou l'an de grace quatorze. Sous Tibere,\nl'or devint plus rare, ou l'argent plus abondant, la proportion a mont\u00e9\npeu-\u00e0-peu \u00e0 celle de 1 \u00e0 12, 12-1/2 & 13. Sous Constantin l'an de grace\ntrois cent trente, & sous Justinien cinq cent cinquante, elle s'est\ntrouv\u00e9e comme 1 \u00e0 14-2/5. L'histoire est plus obscure depuis;\nquelques-uns croient avoir trouv\u00e9 cette proportion comme 1 \u00e0 18, sous\nquelques Rois de France. L'an de grace huit cent quarante, sous le regne\nde Charles le Chauve, on fabriqua les monnoies d'or & d'argent sur le\nfond, & la proportion se trouva comme 1 \u00e0 12. Sous le regne de Saint\nLouis, qui mourut en mil deux cent soixante & dix, la proportion \u00e9toit\ncomme 1 \u00e0 10; en mil trois cent soixante-un, comme 1 \u00e0 12; en mil quatre\ncent vingt-un, au-dessus de 1 \u00e0 11; en mil cinq cent au-dessous de 1 \u00e0\n12; en mil six cent environ, comme 1 \u00e0 12; en mil six cent quarante-un,\ncomme 1 \u00e0 14; en mil sept cent, comme 1 \u00e0 15; en mil sept cent trente,\nLa quantit\u00e9 d'or & d'argent qu'on avoit apport\u00e9e du Mexique & du P\u00e9rou\ndans le siecle pass\u00e9, a rendu non-seulement ces m\u00e9taux plus abondans,\nmais m\u00eame a hauss\u00e9 la valeur de l'or contre l'argent qui s'est trouv\u00e9\nplus abondant, de maniere qu'on en fixe la proportion dans les monnoies\nd'Espagne, suivant les prix du March\u00e9, comme 1 \u00e0 16; les autres Etats de\nl'Europe ont suivi d'assez pr\u00e8s le prix de l'Espagne dans leurs\nmonnoies, les uns les mirent comme 1 \u00e0 15-7/8, les autres comme 1 \u00e0\n15-3/4, \u00e0 15-5/8, &c. suivant le g\u00e9nie & les vues des Directeurs des\nMonnoies. Mais depuis que le Portugal tire des quantit\u00e9s consid\u00e9rables\nd'or du Bresil, la proportion a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 baisser de nouveau, sinon\ndans les Monnoies, au moins dans les prix du March\u00e9, qui donne une plus\ngrande valeur \u00e0 l'argent, que par le pass\u00e9; outre qu'on apporte assez\nsouvent des Indes orientales beaucoup d'or, en \u00e9change de l'argent qu'on\ny porte d'Europe, parceque la proportion est bien plus basse dans les\nIndes.\nDans le Japon o\u00f9 il y a des Mines d'argent assez abondantes, la\nproportion de l'or \u00e0 l'argent est aujourd'hui comme 1 \u00e0 8; \u00e0 la Chine,\ncomme 1 \u00e0 10; dans les autres pa\u00efs des Indes en-de\u00e7\u00e0, comme 1 \u00e0 11,\ncomme 1 \u00e0 12, comme 1 \u00e0 13, & comme 1 \u00e0 14, \u00e0 mesure qu'on approche de\nl'Occident & de l'Europe: mais si les Mines du Bresil continuent \u00e0\nfournir tant d'or, la proportion pourra bien baisser \u00e0 la longue, comme\n1 \u00e0 10, m\u00eame en Europe, qui me paro\u00eet la plus naturelle, si on pouvoit\ndire qu'il y e\u00fbt autre chose que le hasard qui guide cette proportion:\nil est bien certain que dans le tems que toutes les Mines d'or &\nd'argent en Europe, en Asie & en Afrique, \u00e9toient le plus cultiv\u00e9es pour\nle compte de la R\u00e9publique Romaine, la proportion dixieme a \u00e9t\u00e9 la plus\nconstante.\nSi toutes les Mines d'or rapportoient constamment la dixieme partie de\nce que les Mines d'argent rapportent, on ne pourroit pas encore pour\ncela d\u00e9terminer que la proportion entre ces deux m\u00e9taux seroit la\ndixieme. Cette proportion d\u00e9pendroit toujours de la demande & du prix du\nMarch\u00e9: il se pourroit faire, que des personnes riches aimeroient mieux\nporter dans leurs poches de la monnoie d'or que celle d'argent, & qu'ils\nse mettroient dans le go\u00fbt des dorures & ouvrages d'or pr\u00e9ferablement \u00e0\nceux d'argent, pour hausser le prix de l'or au March\u00e9.\nOn ne pourroit pas non plus d\u00e9terminer la proportion de ces m\u00e9taux, en\nconsid\u00e9rant la quantit\u00e9 qui s'en trouve dans un Etat. Supposons la\nproportion dixieme en Angleterre, & que la quantit\u00e9 de l'or & de\nl'argent qui y circule se trouve de vingt millions d'onces d'argent & de\ndeux millions d'onces d'or, cela seroit \u00e9quivalent \u00e0 quarante millions\nd'onces d'argent; qu'on envoie hors d'Angleterre, un million d'onces\nd'or des deux millions d'onces qu'il y a, & qu'on apporte en \u00e9change dix\nmillions d'onces d'argent, il y aura alors trente millions d'onces\nd'argent & seulement un million d'onces d'or, c'est-\u00e0-dire, toujours\nl'\u00e9quivalent de quarante millions d'onces d'argent: si l'on considere la\nquantit\u00e9 d'onces, il y en a trente millions d'argent & un million\nd'onces d'or; & par cons\u00e9quent si la quantit\u00e9 de l'un & de l'autre m\u00e9tal\nen d\u00e9cidoit, la proportion de l'or \u00e0 l'argent seroit trentieme,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire, comme 1 \u00e0 30, mais cela est impossible. La proportion dans\nles pa\u00efs voisins \u00e9trangers est dixieme, il ne coutera donc que dix\nmillions d'onces d'argent, avec quelques bagatelles pour les frais du\ntransport, pour faire rapporter dans l'Etat un million d'onces d'or en\n\u00e9change de dix millions d'onces d'argent.\nPour juger donc de la proportion de l'or \u00e0 l'argent, il n'y a que le\nprix du March\u00e9 qui puisse d\u00e9cider: le nombre de ceux qui ont besoin d'un\nm\u00e9tal en \u00e9change de l'autre, & de ceux qui veulent faire cet \u00e9change, en\nd\u00e9termine le prix. La proportion d\u00e9pend souvent de la fantaisie des\nHommes; les altercations se font grossierement & non g\u00e9ometriquement.\nCependant je ne crois pas qu'on puisse imaginer aucune regle pour y\nparvenir, que celle-l\u00e0: au moins nous savons dans la pratique, que c'est\ncelle-l\u00e0 qui d\u00e9cide, de m\u00eame que dans le prix & la valeur de toute autre\nchose. Les March\u00e9s \u00e9trangers influent sur le prix de l'or & de l'argent,\nplus que sur le prix d'aucune autre denr\u00e9e ou marchandise, parceque rien\nne se transporte avec plus de facilit\u00e9 & moins de d\u00e9chet. S'il y avoit\nun commerce ouvert & courant entre l'Angleterre & le Japon, si on\nemplo\u00efoit constamment un nombre de Vaisseaux pour faire ce commerce, &\nque la balance du commerce f\u00fbt en tous points \u00e9gale, c'est-\u00e0-dire, qu'on\nenvo\u00ef\u00e2t constamment d'Angleterre autant de marchandises au Japon, eu\n\u00e9gard au prix & valeur, qu'on y tireroit des marchandises du Japon, il\narriveroit qu'on tireroit \u00e0 la longue tout l'or du Japon en \u00e9change\nd'argent, & qu'on rendroit la proportion au Japon pareille entre l'or &\nl'argent, \u00e0 celle qui regne en Angleterre; \u00e0 la seule diff\u00e9rence pr\u00e8s\ndes risques de la navigation: car les frais du vo\u00efage, dans notre\nsupposition, seroient support\u00e9s par le commerce des marchandises.\nA compter la proportion quinzieme en Angleterre, & huitieme au Japon, il\ny auroit plus de 87 pour cent \u00e0 gagner, en portant l'argent d'Angleterre\nau Japon, & en rapportant l'or: mais cette diff\u00e9rence ne suffit pas dans\nle train ordinaire, pour pa\u00efer les frais d'un si penible & long vo\u00efage,\nil vaut mieux rapporter des marchandises du Japon, contre l'argent que\nde rapporter l'or. Il n'y a que les frais & risques du transport de l'or\n& de l'argent qui puissent laisser une diff\u00e9rence de proportion entre\nces m\u00e9taux dans des Etats diff\u00e9rens; dans l'Etat le plus prochain cette\nproportion ne diff\u00e9rera guere, il y aura de diff\u00e9rence, d'un Etat \u00e0\nl'autre, un, deux ou trois pour cent, & d'Angleterre au Japon la somme\nde toutes ces diff\u00e9rences de proportion se montera au-del\u00e0 de\nquatre-vingt-sept pour cent.\nC'est le prix du March\u00e9 qui d\u00e9cide la proportion de la valeur de l'or \u00e0\ncelle de l'argent: le prix du March\u00e9 est la base de cette proportion\ndans la valeur qu'on donne aux especes d'or & d'argent monno\u00ef\u00e9es. Si le\nprix du March\u00e9 varie consid\u00e9rablement, il faut r\u00e9former celui des\nespeces monno\u00ef\u00e9es pour suivre la regle du March\u00e9; si on n\u00e9glige de le\nfaire, la confusion & le desordre se mettent dans la circulation, on\nprendra les pieces de l'un ou de l'autre m\u00e9tal \u00e0 plus haut prix que\ncelui qui est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 la Monnoie. On en a une infinit\u00e9 d'exemples dans\nl'antiquit\u00e9; on en a un tout r\u00e9cent en Angleterre par les loix faites \u00e0\nla Tour de Londres. L'once d'argent blanc, du titre d'onze deniers de\nfin, y vaut cinq schellings & deux deniers ou peniques sterling: depuis\nque la proportion de l'or \u00e0 l'argent (qu'on avoit fix\u00e9e \u00e0 l'imitation de\nl'Espagne comme 1 \u00e0 16) est tomb\u00e9e comme 1 \u00e0 15 & 1 \u00e0 14-1/2, l'once\nd'argent se vendoit \u00e0 cinq schellings & six deniers sterling, pendant\nque la guin\u00e9e d'or continuoit d'avoir toujours cours \u00e0 vingt-un\nschelings & six deniers sterling, cela fit qu'on emporta d'Angleterre\ntous les \u00e9cus d'un \u00e9cu blanc, schellings & demi-schellings blancs qui\nn'\u00e9toient pas us\u00e9s dans la circulation: l'argent blanc devint si rare en\nmil sept cent vingt-huit (quoiqu'il n'en rest\u00e2t que les pieces les plus\nus\u00e9es), qu'on \u00e9toit oblig\u00e9 de changer une guin\u00e9e \u00e0 pr\u00e8s de cinq pour\ncent de perte. L'embarras & la confusion que cela produisit dans le\ncommerce & la circulation, obligerent la Tr\u00e9sorerie de prier le c\u00e9lebre\nle Chevalier Isaac Newton, Directeur des Monnoies de la Tour, de faire\nun rapport des mo\u00efens qu'il cro\u00efoit les plus convenables pour remedier \u00e0\nce d\u00e9sordre.\nIl n'y avoit rien de si ais\u00e9 \u00e0 faire; il n'y avoit qu'\u00e0 suivre dans la\nfabrication des especes d'argent \u00e0 la Tour le prix de l'argent au\nMarch\u00e9; & au lieu que la proportion de l'or \u00e0 l'argent \u00e9toit depuis\nlong-tems par les loix & regles de la Monnoie de la Tour, comme 1 \u00e0\n15-3/4, il n'y avoit qu'\u00e0 fabriquer les especes d'argent plus foibles\ndans la proportion du March\u00e9 qui \u00e9toit tomb\u00e9e au-dessous de celle de 1 \u00e0\n15, & pour aller au-devant de la variation que l'or du Bresil apporte\nannuellement dans la proportion de ces deux m\u00e9taux, on auroit m\u00eame p\u00fb\nl'\u00e9tablir sur le pi\u00e9 de 1 \u00e0 14-1/2, comme on a fait en mil sept cent\nvingt-cinq en France, & comme il faudra bien qu'on fasse dans la suite\nen Angleterre m\u00eame.\nIl est vrai qu'on pouvoit \u00e9galement ajuster les especes monno\u00ef\u00e9es\nd'Angleterre, au prix & proportion du march\u00e9, en diminuant la valeur\nnum\u00e9raire des especes d'or, c'est le parti qui fut pris par le Chevalier\nNewton dans son rapport, & par le Parlement en cons\u00e9quence de ce\nrapport. Mais c'\u00e9toit le parti le moins naturel & le plus d\u00e9savantageux,\ncomme je vais le faire comprendre. Il \u00e9toit d'abord plus naturel de\nhausser le prix des especes d'argent, puisque le public les avoit d\u00e9ja\nhauss\u00e9es au March\u00e9, puisque l'once d'argent qui ne valoit que soixante\ndeux deniers sterling au prix de la Tour, en valoit au-del\u00e0 de\nsoixante-cinq au March\u00e9, & qu'on portoit hors de l'Angleterre toutes les\nespeces blanches que la circulation n'avoit pas consid\u00e9rablement\ndiminu\u00e9es de poids: d'un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, il \u00e9toit moins d\u00e9savantageux \u00e0 la\nNation Angloise de hausser les especes d'argent que de baisser celles\nd'or, par rapport aux sommes que l'Angleterre doit \u00e0 l'Etranger.\nSi l'on Suppose que l'Angleterre doit \u00e0 l'Etranger cinq millions\nsterlings de capital, qui y est plac\u00e9 dans les fonds publics, on peut\n\u00e9galement supposer que l'Etranger a pa\u00ef\u00e9 ce capital en or \u00e0 raison de\nvingt-un schellings six deniers la guin\u00e9e, ou bien en argent blanc \u00e0\nraison de soixante-cinq deniers sterlings l'once, suivant le prix du\nMarch\u00e9.\nCes cinq millions ont par cons\u00e9quent cout\u00e9 \u00e0 l'Etranger \u00e0 vingt-un\nschellings six deniers la guin\u00e9e, quatre millions six cents cinquante &\nun mille cent soixante-trois guin\u00e9es; mais pr\u00e9sentement que la guin\u00e9e\nest r\u00e9duite \u00e0 vingt-un schellings, il faudra pa\u00efer pour ces capitaux,\nquatre millions sept cents soixante-un mille neuf cents quatre guin\u00e9es,\nce qui fera de perte pour l'Angleterre cent dix mille sept cents\nquarante-une guin\u00e9es, sans compter ce qu'il y aura \u00e0 perdre sur les\nint\u00e9r\u00eats annuels qu'on paie.\nMonsieur Newton m'a dit pour r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette objection, que suivant les\nloix fondamentales du Ro\u00efaume, l'argent blanc \u00e9toit la vraie & seule\nmonnoie, & que comme telle, il ne la falloit pas alt\u00e9rer.[1]\n  [1] Ici M. Newton sacrifia le fond \u00e0 la forme.\nIl est ais\u00e9 de r\u00e9pondre que le public a\u00efant alt\u00e9r\u00e9 cette loi par l'usage\n& le prix du March\u00e9, elle avoit cess\u00e9 d'\u00eatre une loi; qu'il ne falloit\npas dans ces circonstances s'y attacher scrupuleusement, au d\u00e9savantage\nde la Nation, & pa\u00efer aux Etrangers plus qu'on ne leur devoit. Si l'on\nn'avoit pas regard\u00e9 les especes d'or comme une monnoie v\u00e9ritable, l'or\nauroit support\u00e9 la variation, comme cela arrive en Hollande & \u00e0 la\nChine, o\u00f9 l'or est plut\u00f4t regard\u00e9 comme marchandise que comme monnoie.\nSi l'on avoit augment\u00e9 les especes d'argent au prix du March\u00e9, sans\ntoucher \u00e0 l'or, on n'auroit pas perdu avec l'Etranger, & on auroit eu\nabondamment des especes d'argent dans la circulation; on en auroit\nfabriqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la Tour, au lieu qu'on n'en fabriquera plus jusqu'\u00e0 ce qu'on\nfasse un arrangement nouveau.\nPar la diminution de la valeur de l'or, que le rapport de M. Newton a\nproduit de vingt-un schellings six deniers \u00e0 vingt-un schellings, l'once\nd'argent qui se vendoit au March\u00e9 de Londres auparavant \u00e0 65 & 65\npeniques 1/2 ne se vendoit plus \u00e0 la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 qu'\u00e0 soixante-quatre\ndeniers: mais le mo\u00efen qu'il s'en fabriqu\u00e2t \u00e0 la Tour, l'once valoit au\nMarch\u00e9 soixante-quatre, & si on le portoit \u00e0 la Tour pour monno\u00efer, elle\nne devoit plus valoir que soixante-deux; aussi n'en porte-t'on plus. On\na v\u00e9ritablement fabriqu\u00e9 aux d\u00e9pens de la Compagnie de la Mer du Sud,\nquelques schellings, ou cinquiemes d'\u00e9cu, en y perdant la diff\u00e9rence du\nprix du March\u00e9; mais on les a enlev\u00e9s aussi-t\u00f4t qu'on les a mis en\ncirculation; on ne verroit aujourd'hui aucune espece d'argent dans la\ncirculation si elles \u00e9toient du poids legitime de la Tour, on ne voit\ndans le troc que des especes d'argent us\u00e9es, & qui n'excedent point le\nprix du March\u00e9 dans leur poids.\nCependant la valeur de l'argent blanc au March\u00e9 hausse toujours\ninsensiblement; l'once qui ne valoit que soixante-quatre apr\u00e8s la\nr\u00e9duction dont nous avons parl\u00e9, est encore remont\u00e9e au March\u00e9 \u00e0 65-1/2\n& 66; & pour qu'on puisse avoir des especes d'argent pour la circulation\n& en faire fabriquer \u00e0 la Tour, il faudra bien encore r\u00e9duire la valeur\nde la guin\u00e9e d'or \u00e0 vingt schellings au lieu de vingt-un schellings, &\nperdre avec l'Etranger le double de ce qu'on y a d\u00e9ja perdu, si on\nn'aime mieux suivre la voie naturelle, mettre les especes d'argent au\nprix du March\u00e9. Il n'y a que le prix du March\u00e9 qui puisse trouver la\nproportion de la valeur de l'or \u00e0 l'argent, de m\u00eame que toutes les\nproportions des valeurs. La r\u00e9duction de M. Newton de la guin\u00e9e \u00e0\nvingt-un schellings n'a \u00e9t\u00e9 calcul\u00e9e que pour emp\u00eacher qu'on n'enlev\u00e2t\nles especes d'argent foibles & us\u00e9es qui restent dans la circulation:\nelle n'\u00e9toit pas calcul\u00e9e pour fixer dans les monnoies d'or & d'argent\nla v\u00e9ritable proportion de leur prix, je veux dire par leur v\u00e9ritable\nproportion, celle qui est fix\u00e9e par les prix du March\u00e9. Ce prix est\ntoujours la pierre de touche dans ces matieres; les variations en sont\nassez lentes, pour donner le tems de regler les monnoies & emp\u00eacher les\ndesordres dans la circulation.\nDans certains siecles la valeur de l'argent hausse lentement contre\nl'or, dans d'autres, la valeur de l'or hausse contre l'argent; c'\u00e9toit\nle cas dans le siecle de Constantin, qui rapporta toutes les valeurs \u00e0\ncelle de l'or comme la plus permanente; mais le plus souvent la valeur\nde l'argent est la plus permanente, & l'or est le plus sujet \u00e0\nvariation.\nCHAPITRE V.\n_De l'augmentation & de la diminution de la valeur des especes monno\u00ef\u00e9es\nen d\u00e9nomination._\nSuivant les principes que nous avons \u00e9tablis, les quantit\u00e9s d'argent qui\ncirculent dans le troc, fixent & d\u00e9terminent les prix de toutes choses\ndans un Etat, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 la v\u00eetesse ou lenteur de la circulation.\nCependant nous vo\u00efons si souvent, \u00e0 l'occasion des augmentations &\ndiminutions qu'on pratique en France, des changemens si \u00e9tranges, qu'on\npourroit s'imaginer que les prix du March\u00e9 correspondent plut\u00f4t \u00e0 la\nvaleur nominale des especes, qu'\u00e0 leur quantit\u00e9 dans le troc; \u00e0 la\nquantit\u00e9 des livres tournois monnoie de compte, plut\u00f4t qu'\u00e0 la quantit\u00e9\ndes marcs & des onces, & cela paro\u00eet directement oppos\u00e9 \u00e0 nos principes.\nSupposons ce qui est arriv\u00e9 en mil sept cent quatorze, que l'once\nd'argent ou l'\u00e9cu ait cours pour cinq livres, & que le Roi publie un\nArr\u00eat, qui ordonne la diminution des \u00e9cus tous les mois pendant vingt\nmois, c'est-\u00e0-dire, d'un pour cent par mois, pour r\u00e9duire la valeur\nnum\u00e9raire \u00e0 quatre livres au lieu de cinq livres; vo\u00efons quelles en\nseront naturellement les cons\u00e9quences, eu \u00e9gard au g\u00e9nie de la Nation.\nTous ceux qui doivent de l'argent s'empresseront de le pa\u00efer, pendant\nles diminutions, afin de n'y pas perdre: les Entrepreneurs & Marchands\ntrouvent une grande facilit\u00e9 \u00e0 emprunter de l'argent, cela determine les\nmoins habiles, & les moins accr\u00e9dit\u00e9s \u00e0 augmenter leurs entreprises: ils\nempruntent de l'argent, \u00e0 ce qu'ils croient, sans int\u00e9r\u00eat, & se chargent\nde marchandises au prix courant; ils en haussent m\u00eame les prix par la\nviolence de la demande qu'ils en font; les vendeurs ont de la peine \u00e0 se\nd\u00e9faire de leurs marchandises contre un argent qui doit diminuer entre\nleurs mains dans sa valeur num\u00e9raire: on se tourne du c\u00f4t\u00e9 des\nmarchandises des pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers, on en fait venir des quantit\u00e9s\nconsid\u00e9rables pour la consommation de plusieurs ann\u00e9es: tout cela fait\ncirculer l'argent avec plus de v\u00eetesse, tout cela hausse les prix de\ntoutes choses, ces hauts prix emp\u00eachent l'Etranger de tirer les\nmarchandises de France \u00e0 l'ordinaire: la France garde ses propres\nmarchandises, & en m\u00eame tems tire de grandes quantit\u00e9s de marchandises\nde l'Etranger. Cette double op\u00e9ration est cause qu'on est oblig\u00e9\nd'envo\u00efer des sommes considerables d'especes dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers,\npour pa\u00efer la balance.\nLe prix des changes ne manque jamais d'indiquer ce d\u00e9savantage. On voit\ncommunement les changes \u00e0 six & dix pour cent contre la France, dans le\ncourant des diminutions. Les personnes \u00e9clair\u00e9es en France resserrent\nleur argent dans ces m\u00eames tems; le Roi trouve mo\u00efen d'emprunter\nbeaucoup d'argent sur lequel il perd volontiers les diminutions: il\npropose de se d\u00e9dommager par une augmentation \u00e0 la fin des diminutions.\nPour cet effet on commence, apr\u00e8s plusieurs diminutions, \u00e0 resserrer\nl'argent dans les coffres du Roi, \u00e0 reculer les paiemens, pensions & la\npaie des arm\u00e9es; dans ces circonstances, l'argent devient extr\u00eamement\nrare \u00e0 la fin des diminutions, tant par rapport aux sommes resserr\u00e9es\npar le Roi & par plusieurs particuliers, que par rapport \u00e0 la valeur\nnum\u00e9raire des especes, laquelle valeur est diminu\u00e9e. Les sommes envo\u00ef\u00e9es\nchez l'Etranger contribuent aussi beaucoup \u00e0 la raret\u00e9 de l'argent, &\npeu-\u00e0-peu cette raret\u00e9 est cause qu'on offre les magasins de\nmarchandises dont tous les Entrepreneurs sont charg\u00e9s \u00e0 cinquante &\nsoixante pour cent \u00e0 meilleur march\u00e9 qu'elles n'\u00e9toient du tems des\npremieres diminutions. La circulation tombe dans des convulsions; l'on\ntrouve \u00e0 peine assez d'argent pour envo\u00efer au march\u00e9; plusieurs\nEntrepreneurs & Marchands font banqueroute, & leurs marchandises se\nvendent \u00e0 vil prix.\nAlors le Roi augmente derechef les especes, met l'\u00e9cu neuf, ou l'once\nd'argent de la nouvelle fabrique, \u00e0 cinq livres, il commence \u00e0 pa\u00efer\navec ces nouvelles especes les troupes & les pensions: les vieilles\nespeces sont mises hors de la circulation, & ne sont re\u00e7ues qu'\u00e0 la\nMonnoie \u00e0 plus bas prix num\u00e9raire; le Roi profite de la diff\u00e9rence.\nMais toutes les sommes de nouvelles especes qui sortent de la Monnoie ne\nr\u00e9tablissent pas l'abondance d'argent dans la circulation: les sommes\nresserr\u00e9es toujours par des particuliers, & celles qu'on a envo\u00ef\u00e9es dans\nle pa\u00efs \u00e9tranger, excedent de beaucoup la quantit\u00e9 de l'augmentation\nnum\u00e9raire sur l'argent qui sort de la Monnoie.\nLe grand march\u00e9 des marchandises en France commence \u00e0 y attirer l'argent\nde l'Etranger, qui les trouvant \u00e0 cinquante & soixante pour cent, & \u00e0\nplus bas prix, envoie des matieres d'or & d'argent en France pour les\nacheter: par ce mo\u00efen l'Etranger qui les fait porter \u00e0 la Monnoie se\nd\u00e9dommage bien de la taxe qu'il y paie sur ces matieres: il trouve le\ndouble d'avantage sur le vil prix des marchandises qu'il achete; & la\nperte de la taxe de la monnoie tombe r\u00e9ellement sur les Fran\u00e7ois dans la\nvente des marchandises qu'ils font \u00e0 l'Etranger. Ils ont des\nmarchandises pour la consommation de plusieurs ann\u00e9es: ils revendent aux\nHollandois, par exemple, les \u00e9piceries qu'ils avoient tir\u00e9es\nd'eux-m\u00eames, pour les deux tiers de ce qu'ils en avoient pa\u00ef\u00e9. Tout ceci\nse fait lentement, l'Etranger ne se d\u00e9termine \u00e0 acheter ces marchandises\nde France que par rapport au grand march\u00e9; la balance du commerce qui\n\u00e9toit contre la France, au tems des diminutions, se tourne en sa faveur\ndans le tems de l'augmentation, & le Roi peut profiter de vingt pour\ncent ou plus sur toutes les matieres qui entrent en France, & qui se\nportent \u00e0 la Monnoie. Comme les Etrangers doivent \u00e0 pr\u00e9sent la balance\ndu commerce \u00e0 la France, & qu'ils n'ont point chez eux des especes de la\nnouvelle fabrique, il faut qu'ils fassent porter leurs matieres &\nvieilles especes \u00e0 la Monnoie, pour avoir des nouvelles especes pour\npa\u00efer; mais cette balance de commerce que les Etrangers doivent \u00e0 la\nFrance, ne provient que des marchandises qu'ils en tirent \u00e0 vil prix.\nLa France est partout la duppe de ces op\u00e9rations, elle paie des prix\nbien hauts pour les marchandises \u00e9trangeres lors des diminutions, elle\nles revend \u00e0 vil prix lors de l'augmentation aux m\u00eames Etrangers: elle\nvend \u00e0 vil prix ses propres marchandises, qu'elle avoit tenues si haut\nlors des diminutions, ainsi il seroit difficile que toutes les especes\nqui sont sorties de France lors des diminutions y puissent rentrer lors\nde l'augmentation.\nSi l'on falsifie les especes de la nouvelle fabrique chez l'Etranger,\ncomme cela arrive presque toujours, la France perd les vingt pour cent\nque le Roi \u00e9tablit pour la taxe de la monnoie c'est autant de gagn\u00e9 pour\nl'Etranger, qui profite en outre du bas prix des Marchandises en France.\nLe Roi fait un profit consid\u00e9rable par la taxe de la monnoie, mais il en\ncoute le triple \u00e0 la France pour lui faire trouver ce profit.\nOn comprend bien que dans les tems qu'il y a une balance courante de\ncommerce en faveur de la France contre les Etrangers, le Roi est en \u00e9tat\nde tirer une taxe de vingt pour cent ou plus, par une nouvelle\nfabrication d'especes & par une augmentation de leur valeur num\u00e9raire.\nMais si la balance du commerce \u00e9toit contre la France, lors de cette\nnouvelle fabrication, & augmentation, elle n'auroit pas de succ\u00e8s, & le\nRoi n'en tireroit pas un grand profit: la raison est que dans ces\ncirconstances, on est oblig\u00e9 d'envo\u00efer constamment de l'argent chez\nl'Etranger. Or l'\u00e9cu vieux est aussi bon dans les pa\u00efs \u00e9trangers que\nl'\u00e9cu de la nouvelle fabrique: cela \u00e9tant les Juifs & Banquiers\ndonneront une prime ou b\u00e9n\u00e9fice entre quatre yeux pour les vieilles\nespeces, & le particulier qui les peut vendre au dessus du prix de la\nMonnoie ne les y portera pas. On ne lui donne \u00e0 la Monnoie qu'environ\nquatre livres de son \u00e9cu, mais le Banquier lui en donnera d'abord quatre\nlivres cinq sols, & puis quatre livres dix, & finalement quatre livres\nquinze: voila comment il peut arriver qu'une augmentation des especes\nmanque de succ\u00e8s; cela ne peut guere arriver lorsqu'on fait\nl'augmentation apr\u00e8s des diminutions indiqu\u00e9es, parcequ'alors la balance\nse tourne naturellement en faveur de la France, de la maniere que nous\nl'avons expliqu\u00e9.\nL'exp\u00e9rience de l'augmentation de l'ann\u00e9e 1726, peut servir \u00e0 confirmer\ntout ceci, les diminutions qui avoient pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 cette augmentation furent\nfaites tout-d'un-coup sans avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 indiqu\u00e9es, cela emp\u00eacha les\nop\u00e9rations ordinaires des diminutions, cela emp\u00eacha que la balance du\ncommerce ne se tourn\u00e2t fortement en faveur de la France lors de\nl'augmentation de l'ann\u00e9e 1726, aussi peu de personnes porterent leurs\nvieilles especes \u00e0 la Monnoie, & on fut oblig\u00e9 d'abandonner le profit de\nla taxe qu'on avoit en vue.\nIl n'est pas de mon sujet d'expliquer les raisons des Ministres pour\ndiminuer les especes tout-d'un-coup, ni celles qui les tromperent dans\nle projet de l'augmentation de l'ann\u00e9e 1726; je n'ai voulu parler des\naugmentations & diminutions en France que parceque les effets qui en\nr\u00e9sultent quelquefois semblent combattre les principes que j'ai \u00e9tablis,\nque l'abondance ou la raret\u00e9 de l'argent dans un Etat, hausse ou baisse\nles prix de toutes choses \u00e0 proportion.\nApr\u00e8s avoir expliqu\u00e9 les effets des diminutions & augmentations des\nespeces, pratiqu\u00e9es en France, je soutiens qu'elles ne d\u00e9truisent ni\nn'affoiblissent mes principes: car si l'on me dit que ce qui coutoit\nvingt livres ou cinq onces d'argent avant les diminutions indiqu\u00e9es, ne\ncoute pas m\u00eame quatre onces ou vingt livres de la nouvelle fabrique lors\nde l'augmentation; j'en conviendrai sans m'\u00e9carter de mes principes,\nparcequ'il y a moins d'argent dans la circulation qu'il n'y en avoit\navant les diminutions, comme je l'ai expliqu\u00e9. L'embarras du troc dans\nles tems & op\u00e9rations dont nous parlons, cause des variations dans les\nprix des choses, & dans celui de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat de l'argent qu'on ne sauroit\nprendre pour regle dans les principes ordinaires de la circulation & du\ntroc.\nLe changement de la valeur num\u00e9raire des especes a \u00e9t\u00e9 dans tous les\ntems l'effet de quelque misere ou disette dans l'Etat, ou bien celui de\nl'ambition de quelque Prince ou Particulier. L'an de Rome 157, Solon\naugmenta la valeur num\u00e9raire des drachmes d'Ath\u00eanes, apr\u00e8s une s\u00e9dition,\n& abolition des dettes. Entre l'an 490 & 512 de Rome, la R\u00e9publique\nRomaine augmenta par plusieurs fois la valeur num\u00e9raire de ses monnoies\nde cuivre, de fa\u00e7on que leur as est venu \u00e0 en valoir six. Le pretexte\n\u00e9toit de subvenir aux besoins de l'Etat, & d'en pa\u00efer les dettes,\naccrues par la premiere guerre Punique: cela ne laissa pas de causer\nbien de la confusion. L'an 663, Livius Drusus, Tribun du peuple,\naugmenta la valeur num\u00e9raire des especes d'argent d'un huitieme, en\naffoiblissant leur titre d'autant: ce qui donna lieu aux Faux-monno\u00efeurs\nde mettre la confusion dans le troc. L'an 712, Marc Antoine dans son\nTriumvirat, augmenta la valeur num\u00e9raire de l'argent, de cinq pour cent,\npour subvenir aux besoins du Triumvirat, en mettant du fer avec\nl'argent. Plusieurs Empereurs dans la suite ont affoibli ou augment\u00e9 la\nvaleur num\u00e9raire des especes: les Rois de France en ont fait autant en\ndiff\u00e9rens tems; & c'est ce qui est cause que la livre tournois, qui\nvaloit ordinairement une livre pesant d'argent, est venue \u00e0 si peu de\nvaleur. Cela n'a jamais manqu\u00e9 de causer du d\u00e9sordre dans les Etats: il\nimporte peu ou point du tout quelle soit la valeur num\u00e9raire des\nespeces, pourv\u00fb qu'elle soit permanente: la pistole d'Espagne vaut neuf\nlivres ou florins en Hollande, environ dix-huit livres en France,\ntrente-sept livres dix sols \u00e0 Venise, cinquante livres \u00e0 Parme: on\n\u00e9change dans la m\u00eame proportion les valeurs entre ces diff\u00e9rens pa\u00efs. Le\nprix de toutes choses augmente insensiblement lorsque la valeur\nnum\u00e9raire des especes augmente, & la quantit\u00e9 actuelle en poids & titre\ndes especes, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 la v\u00eetesse de la circulation, est la base & la\nregle des valeurs. Un Etat ne gagne ni ne perd par l'augmentation ou\ndiminution de ces especes, pendant qu'il en conserve la m\u00eame quantit\u00e9,\nquoique les particuliers puissent gagner ou perdre par la variation,\nsuivant leurs engagemens. Tous les peuples sont remplis de faux pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s\n& de fausses id\u00e9es sur la valeur num\u00e9raire de leurs especes. Nous avons\nfait voir dans le chapitre des changes que la regle constante en est le\nprix & le titre des especes courantes des diff\u00e9rens pa\u00efs, marc pour\nmarc, & once pour once: si une augmentation ou diminution de la valeur\nnum\u00e9raire change pour quelque tems cette regle en France, ce n'est que\npendant un \u00e9tat de crise & de g\u00eane dans le commerce: on revient toujours\npeu-\u00e0-peu \u00e0 l'intrinseque; on y vient n\u00e9cessairement dans les prix du\nmarch\u00e9 autant que dans les changes avec l'Etranger.\nCHAPITRE VI.\n_Des Banques, & de leur cr\u00e9dit._\nSi cent Seigneurs ou Propri\u00e9taires de terre, oeconomes, qui amassent\nannuellement de l'argent par leurs \u00e9pargnes pour en acheter des terres\ndans les occasions, d\u00e9posent chacun dix mille onces d'argent entre les\nmains d'un Orf\u00e9vre ou Banquier de Londres, pour n'avoir pas l'embarras\nde garder cet argent chez eux, & pour pr\u00e9venir les vols qu'on leur en\npourroit faire, ils en tireront des billets pa\u00efables \u00e0 volont\u00e9, souvent\nils le laisseront l\u00e0 long-tems, & lors m\u00eame qu'ils auront fait quelque\nachat, ils avertiront beaucoup de tems d'advance le Banquier de leur\ntenir leur argent pr\u00eat dans l'intervalle des d\u00e9lais des consultations &\n\u00e9critures de Justice.\nDans ces circonstances le Banquier pourra pr\u00eater souvent quatre\nvingt-dix mille onces d'argent (des cent mille qu'il doit) pendant toute\nl'ann\u00e9e, & n'aura pas besoin de garder en caisse plus de dix mille onces\npour faire face \u00e0 tout ce qu'on pourra lui redemander: il a affaire \u00e0\ndes personnes opulentes & oeconomes, \u00e0 mesure qu'on lui demande mille\nonces d'un c\u00f4t\u00e9, on lui apporte ordinairement mille onces d'un autre\nc\u00f4t\u00e9: il lui suffit pour l'ordinaire de garder en caisse la dixieme\npartie de ce qu'on lui a confi\u00e9. On en a eu quelques exemples &\nexperiences dans Londres, & cela fait qu'au lieu que les particuliers en\nquestion garderoient en caisse pendant toute l'ann\u00e9e la plus grande\npartie des cent mille onces, l'usage de le d\u00e9poser entre les mains d'un\nBanquier fait que quatre vingt-dix mille onces des cent mille sont\nd'abord mises en circulation. Voil\u00e0 premierement l'id\u00e9e qu'on peut\nformer de l'utilit\u00e9 de ces sortes de banques; les Banquiers ou Orf\u00e9vres\ncontribuent \u00e0 acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer la circulation de l'argent, ils le mettent \u00e0\ninter\u00eat \u00e0 leurs risques & p\u00e9rils, & cependant ils sont ou doivent \u00eatre\ntoujours pr\u00eats \u00e0 pa\u00efer leurs billets \u00e0 volont\u00e9 & \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sentation.\nSi un particulier a mille onces \u00e0 pa\u00efer \u00e0 un autre, il lui donnera en\npaiement le billet du Banquier pour cette somme: cet autre n'ira pas\npeut-\u00eatre demander l'argent au Banquier; il gardera le billet & le\ndonnera dans l'occasion \u00e0 un troisieme en paiement, & ce billet pourra\npasser dans plusieurs mains dans les gros paiemens, sans qu'on en aille\nde long-tems demander l'argent au Banquier: il n'y aura que quelqu'un\nqui n'y a pas une parfaite confiance, ou quelqu'un qui a plusieurs\npetites sommes \u00e0 pa\u00efer qui en demandera le montant. Dans ce premier\nexemple la caisse d'un Banquier ne fait que la dixieme partie de son\ncommerce.\nSi cent Particuliers, ou Propri\u00e9taires de terres, d\u00e9posent chez un\nBanquier leur revenu tous les six mois, \u00e0 mesure qu'ils en sont pa\u00ef\u00e9s, &\nensuite redemandent leur argent \u00e0 mesure qu'ils ont besoin de le\nd\u00e9penser, le Banquier sera en \u00e9tat de pr\u00eater beaucoup plus de l'argent\nqu'il doit & re\u00e7oit au commencement des semestres, pour un court terme\nde quelques mois, qu'il ne le sera vers la fin de ces semestres: & son\nexperience de la conduite de ses Chalans lui apprendra qu'il ne peut\nguere pr\u00eater pendant toute l'ann\u00e9e, sur les sommes qu'il doit,\nqu'environ la moiti\u00e9. Ces sortes de Banquiers seront ruin\u00e9s de cr\u00e9dit,\ns'ils manquent d'un instant \u00e0 pa\u00efer leurs billets \u00e0 la premiere\npr\u00e9sentation; & lorsqu'il leur manque des fonds en caisse, ils\ndonneroient toutes choses pour avoir promptement de l'argent,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire beaucoup plus d'inter\u00eat qu'ils ne tirent des sommes qu'ils\nont pr\u00eat\u00e9es. Cela fait qu'ils se reglent sur leur exp\u00e9rience pour garder\nen caisse de quoi faire toujours face, & plut\u00f4t plus que moins; ainsi\nplusieurs Banquiers de cette espece, (& c'est le plus grand nombre)\ngardent toujours en caisse la moiti\u00e9 des sommes qu'on d\u00e9pose chez eux, &\npr\u00eatent l'autre moiti\u00e9 \u00e0 inter\u00eat & le mettent en circulation. Dans ce\nsecond exemple, le Banquier fait circuler ses billets de cent mille\nonces ou \u00e9cus avec cinquante mille \u00e9cus.\nS'il a un grand courant de d\u00e9p\u00f4ts & un grand cr\u00e9dit, cela augmente la\nconfiance qu'on a en ses billets, & fait qu'on s'empresse moins \u00e0 en\ndemander le paiement; mais cela ne retarde ses paiemens que de quelques\njours ou semaines, lorsqu'ils tombent entre les mains de personnes qui\nn'ont pas de coutume de se servir de lui, & il doit toujours se regler\nsur ceux qui sont dans l'habitude de lui confier leur argent: si ses\nbillets tombent entre les mains de ceux de son m\u00e9tier, ils n'auront rien\nde plus press\u00e9 que d'en retirer l'argent.\nSi les personnes qui d\u00e9posent de l'argent chez le Banquier sont des\nEntrepreneurs & N\u00e9gocians, qui y mettent journellement de grosses\nsommes, & bient\u00f4t apr\u00e8s les redemandent, il arrivera souvent que si le\nBanquier d\u00e9tourne plus du tiers de sa caisse il se trouvera embarrass\u00e9 \u00e0\nfaire face.\nIl est ais\u00e9 de comprendre par ces inductions, que les sommes d'argent\nqu'un Orf\u00e9vre ou Banquier peut pr\u00eater \u00e0 inter\u00eat, ou d\u00e9tourner de sa\ncaisse, sont naturellement proportionn\u00e9es \u00e0 la pratique & conduite de\nses Chalans: que pendant qu'il s'est vu des Banquiers qui faisoient face\navec une caisse de la dixieme partie, d'autres ne peuvent guere moins\ngarder que la moiti\u00e9 ou les deux tiers, encore que leur cr\u00e9dit soit\naussi estim\u00e9 que celui du premier.\nLes uns se fient \u00e0 un Banquier, les autres \u00e0 un autre, le plus heureux\nest le Banquier qui a pour Chalans des Seigneurs riches qui cherchent\ntoujours des emplois solides pour leur argent sans vouloir, en\nattendant, le mettre \u00e0 int\u00e9r\u00eat.\nUne banque g\u00e9n\u00e9rale & nationale a cet avantage sur la banque d'un\nOrf\u00e9vre particulier, qu'on y a toujours plus de confiance; qu'on y porte\nplus volontiers les plus gros d\u00e9p\u00f4ts, m\u00eame des quartiers de la ville les\nplus \u00e9loign\u00e9s, & qu'elle ne laisse d'ordinaire aux petits Banquiers que\nles d\u00e9p\u00f4ts de petites sommes, dans leurs quartiers: on y porte m\u00eame les\nrevenus de l'Etat, dans les pa\u00efs o\u00f9 le Prince n'est pas absolu; & cela\nbien loin d'en alt\u00e9rer le cr\u00e9dit & la confiance, ne sert qu'\u00e0\nl'augmenter.\nSi les paiemens dans une banque nationale se font en \u00e9critures ou\nvirement de Parties, il y aura cet avantage, qu'on n'y sera pas sujet\naux falsifications, au lieu que si la Banque donne des billets on en\npourra faire de faux & causer du d\u00e9sordre: il y aura aussi ce\nd\u00e9savantage, que ceux qui sont dans les quartiers de la ville, \u00e9loign\u00e9s\nde la Banque, aimeront mieux pa\u00efer & recevoir en argent que d'y aller, &\nsurtout ceux de la campagne; au lieu que si l'on r\u00e9pand des billets de\nBanque, on s'en pourra servir de pr\u00e8s & de loin. On paie dans les\nBanques nationales de Venise & d'Amsterdam en \u00e9criture seulement; mais \u00e0\ncelle de Londres on paie en \u00e9critures, en billets & en argent, au choix\ndes particuliers: aussi c'est aujourd'hui la Banque la plus forte.\nOn comprendra donc que tout l'avantage des Banques publiques ou\nparticulieres dans une ville, c'est d'acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer la circulation de\nl'argent, & d'emp\u00eacher qu'il n'y en ait autant de resserr\u00e9 qu'il y en\nauroit naturellement dans plusieurs intervalles de tems.\nCHAPITRE VII.\n_Autres \u00e9claircissemens & recherches sur l'utilit\u00e9 d'une Banque\nnationale_.\nIl est peu important d'examiner pourquoi la Banque de Venise & celle\nd'Amsterdam, tiennent leurs \u00e9critures dans des monnoies de compte\ndiff\u00e9rentes de la courante & pourquoi il y a toujours un agiot \u00e0\nconvertir ces \u00e9critures en argent courant, ce n'est pas un point qui\nsoit d'aucune utilit\u00e9 pour la circulation. La Banque de Londres ne l'a\npas suivie en cela; ses \u00e9critures, ses billets & ses paiemens, se font &\nse tiennent en especes courantes: cela me paro\u00eet plus uniforme & plus\nnaturel & non moins utile.\nJe n'ai p\u00fb avoir des informations exactes de la quantit\u00e9 des sommes\nqu'on porte ordinairement \u00e0 ces Banques, ni le montant de leurs billets\n& \u00e9critures, non plus que celui des pr\u00eats qu'ils font, & des sommes\nqu'ils gardent ordinairement en Caisse pour faire face: quelqu'autre qui\nsera plus \u00e0 port\u00e9e de ces connoissances en pourra mieux raisonner.\nCependant, comme je sais assez bien que ces sommes ne sont pas si\nimmenses qu'on le croit commun\u00e9ment, je ne laisserai pas d'en donner une\nid\u00e9e.\nSi les billets & \u00e9critures de la Banque de Londres, qui me paro\u00eet la\nplus consid\u00e9rable, se montent une semaine portant l'autre \u00e0 quatre\nmillions d'onces d'argent ou environ un million sterling; & si on se\ncontente d'y garder commun\u00e9ment en Caisse le quart ou deux cents\ncinquante mille livres sterling, ou un million d'onces d'argent en\nespeces, l'utilit\u00e9 de cette Banque pour la circulation correspond \u00e0 une\naugmentation de l'argent de l'Etat de trois millions d'onces, ou sept\ncents cinquante mille livres sterling, qui est sans doute une somme bien\nforte & d'une utilit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s grande pour la circulation dans les\ncirconstances que cette circulation a besoin d'\u00eatre acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e: car j'ai\nremarqu\u00e9 ailleurs qu'il y a des cas o\u00f9 il vaut mieux pour le bien de\nl'Etat de retarder la circulation que de l'acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer. J'ai bien oui\ndire, que les billets & \u00e9critures de la Banque de Londres ont mont\u00e9 dans\ncertains cas, \u00e0 deux millions sterling; mais cela ne me paro\u00eet avoir \u00e9t\u00e9\nque par un accident extraordinaire; & je crois que l'utilit\u00e9 de cette\nBanque ne correspond en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral qu'\u00e0 environ la dixieme partie de tout\nl'argent qui circule en Angleterre.\nSi les \u00e9claircissemens qu'on m'a donn\u00e9s en gros sur les revenus de la\nBanque de Venise en mil sept cent dix-neuf sont v\u00e9ritables, on pourroit\ndire en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des Banques nationales que leur utilit\u00e9 ne correspond\njamais \u00e0 la dixieme partie de l'argent courant qui circule dans un Etat:\nvoici \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s ce que j'y ai appris.\nLes revenus de l'Etat de Venise peuvent monter annuellement \u00e0 quatre\nmillions d'onces d'argent qu'il faut pa\u00efer en \u00e9critures \u00e0 la Banque, &\nles Collecteurs \u00e9tablis pour cet effet, qui re\u00e7oivent \u00e0 Bergame & dans\nles pa\u00efs les plus \u00e9loign\u00e9s les taxes en argent, sont oblig\u00e9s de les\nconvertir en \u00e9critures de Banque lors des paiemens qu'ils en font \u00e0 la\nR\u00e9publique.\nTous les paiemens \u00e0 Venise pour n\u00e9gociations, achats, & ventes,\nau-dessus d'une certaine somme modique, doivent par la loi se faire en\n\u00e9critures de Banque: tous les D\u00e9tailleurs, qui ont amass\u00e9 de l'argent\ncourant dans le troc, se trouvent oblig\u00e9s d'en acheter des \u00e9critures\npour faire leurs paiemens des gros articles; & ceux qui ont besoin, pour\nleur d\u00e9pense ou pour le d\u00e9tail de la basse circulation, de reprendre de\nl'argent, sont dans le cas de vendre leurs \u00e9critures contre de l'argent\ncourant.\nOn a trouv\u00e9 que les vendeurs & acheteurs de ces \u00e9critures, sont\ncommun\u00e9ment de niveau, lorsque la somme de tous les cr\u00e9dits ou \u00e9critures\nsur les Livres de la Banque, n'excedent pas la valeur de huit cent mille\nonces d'argent ou environ.\nC'est le tems & l'exp\u00e9rience qui ont donn\u00e9 (suivant mon Auteur) cette\nconnoissance \u00e0 ces Venitiens. A la premiere erection de la Banque, les\nparticuliers apportoient leur argent \u00e0 la Banque, pour y avoir des\ncr\u00e9dits en \u00e9critures, pour la m\u00eame valeur: dans la suite cet argent\nd\u00e9pos\u00e9 \u00e0 la Banque, fut d\u00e9pens\u00e9 pour les besoins de la R\u00e9publique, &\ncependant les \u00e9critures conservoient encore leur valeur primordiale,\nparcequ'il se trouvoit autant de particuliers qui avoient besoin d'en\nacheter, que de ceux qui avoient besoin d'en vendre: ensuite l'Etat se\ntrouvant press\u00e9 donna aux Entrepreneurs de la guerre des cr\u00e9dits en\n\u00e9critures de Banque, au d\u00e9faut d'argent, & doubla la somme de ces\ncr\u00e9dits.\nAlors le nombre des Vendeurs d'\u00e9critures \u00e9tant devenu bien sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0\ncelui des Acheteurs, ces \u00e9critures commencerent \u00e0 perdre contre\nl'argent, & tomberent \u00e0 vingt pour cent de perte: par ce discr\u00e9dit le\nrevenu de la R\u00e9publique diminua d'un cinquieme, & le seul remede qu'on\ntrouva \u00e0 ce d\u00e9sordre, fut d'engager une partie des fonds de l'Etat, pour\nemprunter \u00e0 int\u00e9r\u00eat de l'argent en \u00e9critures. Par ces emprunts en\n\u00e9critures on en \u00e9teignit une moiti\u00e9, & alors les Vendeurs & Acheteurs\nd'\u00e9critures se trouvant \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s de niveau, la Banque a recouvr\u00e9 son\ncr\u00e9dit primitif, & la somme des \u00e9critures se trouve r\u00e9duite \u00e0 huit cent\nmille onces d'argent.\nC'est par cette voie qu'on a reconnu que l'utilit\u00e9 de la Banque de\nVenise, par rapport \u00e0 la circulation, correspond \u00e0 environ huit cent\nmille onces d'argent: & si l'on suppose que tout l'argent courant qui\ncircule dans les Etats de cette R\u00e9publique peut monter \u00e0 huit millions\nd'onces d'argent, l'utilit\u00e9 de la Banque correspond au dixieme de cet\nargent.\nUne Banque nationale dans la Capitale d'un grand Ro\u00efaume ou Etat, semble\ndevoir moins contribuer \u00e0 l'utilit\u00e9 de la circulation, \u00e0 cause de\nl'\u00e9loignement de ses Provinces, que dans un petit Etat; & lorsque\nl'argent y circule en plus grande abondance que chez ses Voisins, une\nBanque nationale y fait plus de mal que de bien. Une abondance d'argent\nfictif & imaginaire cause les m\u00eames d\u00e9savantages, qu'une augmentation\nd'argent r\u00e9el en circulation, pour y hausser le prix de la terre & du\ntravail, soit pour encherir les ouvrages & Manufactures au hasard de les\nperdre dans la suite: mais cette abondance furtive s'\u00e9vanouit \u00e0 la\npremiere bouff\u00e9e de discr\u00e9dit, & pr\u00e9cipite le d\u00e9sordre.\nVers le milieu du Regne de Louis XIV en France, on y vo\u00efoit plus\nd'argent en circulation que chez les Voisins, & on y levoit les revenus\ndu Prince sans le secours d'une Banque, avec autant d'aisance & de\nfacilit\u00e9 qu'on leve aujourd'hui ceux d'Angleterre, avec le secours de la\nBanque de Londres.\nSi les viremens de partie \u00e0 Lyon montent dans une de ses quatre Foires \u00e0\nquatre-vingt millions de livres, si on les commence, & si on les finit\navec un seul million d'argent comptant, ils sont sans doute d'une grande\ncommodit\u00e9 pour \u00e9pargner la peine d'une infinit\u00e9 de transports d'argent\nd'une maison \u00e0 une autre; mais \u00e0 cela pr\u00e8s, on con\u00e7oit bien qu'avec ce\nm\u00eame million de comptant qui a commenc\u00e9 & conclu ces viremens, il seroit\ntr\u00e8s possible de conduire dans trois mois tous les paiemens de\nquatre-vingt millions.\nLes Banquiers, \u00e0 Paris, ont souvent remarqu\u00e9 que le m\u00eame sac d'argent\nleur est rentr\u00e9 quatre \u00e0 cinq fois dans les paiemens d'un seul jour,\nlorsqu'ils avoient beaucoup \u00e0 pa\u00efer & \u00e0 recevoir.\nJe crois les Banques publiques d'une tr\u00e8s grande utilit\u00e9 dans les petits\nEtats, & dans ceux o\u00f9 l'argent est un peu rare; mais je les crois peu\nutiles pour l'avantage solide d'un grand Ro\u00efaume.\nL'Empereur Tibere, Prince severe & oeconome, avoit amass\u00e9 dans le Tr\u00e9sor\nde l'Empire deux milliards sept cents millions de Sesterces, ce qui\ncorrespond \u00e0 vingt-cinq millions sterlings, ou cent millions d'onces\nd'argent: somme immense en especes pour ces tems-l\u00e0, & m\u00eame pour\naujourd'hui: il est vrai qu'en resserrant tant d'argent, il g\u00eana la\ncirculation, & que l'argent devint bien plus rare \u00e0 Rome qu'il n'avoit\n\u00e9t\u00e9.\nTibere, qui attribuoit cette raret\u00e9 aux monopoles des Gens d'affaires &\nFinanciers qui affermoient les revenus de l'Empire, ordonna par un Edit\nqu'ils achetassent des terres pour les deux tiers au moins de leur\nfonds. Cet Edit, au lieu d'animer la circulation, la mit entierement en\nd\u00e9sordre: tous les Financiers resserroient & rappelloient leurs fonds,\nsous pr\u00e9texte de se mettre en \u00e9tat d'ob\u00e9ir \u00e0 l'Edit, en achetant des\nterres, qui au lieu d'encherir devenoient \u00e0 beaucoup plus vil prix par\nla raret\u00e9 de l'argent en circulation. Tibere remedia \u00e0 cette raret\u00e9\nd'argent, en pr\u00eatant aux particuliers sous bonnes cautions, seulement\ntrois cents millions de Sesterces: c'est-\u00e0-dire, la neuvieme partie des\nespeces qu'il avoit dans son tr\u00e9sor.\nSi la neuvieme partie du tr\u00e9sor suffisoit \u00e0 Rome pour r\u00e9tablir la\ncirculation, il sembleroit que l'\u00e9tablissement d'une Banque g\u00e9n\u00e9rale\ndans un grand Ro\u00efaume, o\u00f9 son utilit\u00e9 ne corresponderoit jamais \u00e0 la\ndixieme partie de l'argent qui circule, lorsqu'on n'en resserre point,\nne seroit d'aucun avantage r\u00e9el & permanent, & qu'\u00e0 le considerer dans\nsa valeur intrinseque, on ne peut le regarder que comme un exp\u00e9dient\npour gagner du tems.\nMais une augmentation r\u00e9elle de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent qui circule est\nd'une nature diff\u00e9rente. Nous en avons d\u00e9ja parl\u00e9, & le Tr\u00e9sor de Tibere\nnous donne encore occasion d'en toucher un mot ici. Ce Tr\u00e9sor de deux\nmilliards sept cents millions de Sesterces, laiss\u00e9 \u00e0 la mort de Tibere,\nfut dissip\u00e9 par l'Empereur Caligula son Successeur dans moins d'un an.\nAussi ne vit-on jamais \u00e0 Rome l'argent si abondant. Quel en fut l'effet?\nCette quantit\u00e9 d'argent plongea les Romains dans le luxe, & dans toutes\nsortes de crimes pour y subvenir. Il sortoit tous les ans plus de six\ncents mille livres sterlings hors de l'Empire pour les marchandises des\nIndes; & en moins de trente ans l'Empire s'appauvrit, & l'argent y\ndevint tr\u00e8s rare sans aucun d\u00e9membrement ni perte de Province.\nQuoique j'estime qu'une Banque g\u00e9n\u00e9rale est dans le fond de tr\u00e8s peu\nd'utilit\u00e9 solide dans un grand Etat, je ne laisse pas de convenir qu'il\ny a des circonstances o\u00f9 une Banque peut avoir des effets qui paroissent\n\u00e9tonnans.\nDans une Ville o\u00f9 il y a des dettes publiques pour des sommes\nconsid\u00e9rables, la facilit\u00e9 d'une Banque fait qu'on peut vendre & acheter\nses fonds capitaux dans un instant, pour des sommes immenses, sans\ncauser aucun d\u00e9rangement dans la circulation. Qu'\u00e0 Londres un\nparticulier vende son capital de la Mer du Sud, pour acheter un autre\ncapital dans la Banque ou dans la Compagnie des Indes, ou bien dans\nl'esperance que dans quelques-tems il pourra acheter \u00e0 plus bas prix un\ncapital dans la m\u00eame Compagnie de la Mer du Sud, il s'accommode toujours\nde Billets de banque, & on ne demande ordinairement l'argent de ces\nBillets que pour la valeur des int\u00e9r\u00eats. Comme on ne d\u00e9pense guere son\ncapital, on n'a pas besoin de le convertir en especes, mais on est\ntoujours oblig\u00e9 de demander \u00e0 la Banque l'argent n\u00e9cessaire pour la\nsubsistance, car il faut des especes dans le bas troc.\nQu'un Propri\u00e9taire de terres qui a mille onces d'argent, en paie deux\ncents pour les int\u00e9r\u00eats des fonds publics, & en d\u00e9pense lui-m\u00eame huit\ncents onces, les mille onces demanderont toujours des especes: ce\nPropri\u00e9taire en d\u00e9pensera huit cents, & les Propri\u00e9taires des fonds en\nd\u00e9penseront 200. Mais lorsque ces Propri\u00e9taires sont dans l'habitude de\nl'agiot, de vendre & d'acheter des fonds publics, il ne faut point\nd'argent comptant pour ces op\u00e9rations, il suffit d'avoir des billets de\nbanque. S'il falloit retirer de la circulation, des especes pour servir\ndans ces achats & ventes, cela monteroit \u00e0 une somme consid\u00e9rable, &\ng\u00eaneroit souvent la circulation, ou plut\u00f4t il arriveroit dans ce cas,\nqu'on ne pourroit pas vendre & acheter ses capitaux si fr\u00e9quemment.\nC'est sans doute l'origine de ces capitaux, ou l'argent qu'on a d\u00e9pos\u00e9 \u00e0\nla Banque & qu'on ne retire que rarement, comme lorsqu'un Propri\u00e9taire\ndes fonds se met dans quelque n\u00e9goce o\u00f9 il faut des especes pour le\nd\u00e9tail, qui est cause que la Banque ne garde en caisse que le quart ou\nla sixieme partie de l'argent dont elle fait ses billets. Si la Banque\nn'avoit pas les fonds de plusieurs de ces capitaux, elle se verroit,\ndans le cours ordinaire de la circulation, r\u00e9duite comme les Banquiers\nparticuliers \u00e0 garder la moiti\u00e9 des fonds qu'on lui met entre les mains,\npour faire face; il est vrai qu'on ne peut pas distinguer par les Livres\nde la Banque ni par ses op\u00e9rations, la quantit\u00e9 de ces sortes de\ncapitaux qui passent en plusieurs mains, dans les ventes & achats qu'on\nfait dans _Change-alley_, ces billets sont souvent renouvell\u00e9s \u00e0 la\nBanque & chang\u00e9s contre d'autres dans le troc. Mais l'exp\u00e9rience des\nachats & ventes de capitaux des fonds fait bien voir que la somme en est\nconsid\u00e9rable: & sans ces achats & ventes, les sommes en d\u00e9p\u00f4t \u00e0 la\nBanque seroient sans difficult\u00e9 moins consid\u00e9rables.\nCela veut dire que lorsqu'un Etat n'est pas endett\u00e9, & n'a pas besoin\ndes achats & ventes de capitaux, le secours d'une Banque y sera moins\nn\u00e9cessaire & moins consid\u00e9rable.\nDans l'ann\u00e9e mil sept cent vingt, les capitaux des fonds publics & des\n_Bubbles_ qui \u00e9toient des attrapes & des entreprises de Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s\nparticulieres \u00e0 Londres, montoient \u00e0 la valeur de huit cents millions\nsterlings, cependant les achats & ventes de capitaux si venimeux se\nfaisoient sans peine, par la quantit\u00e9 de billets de toutes especes qu'on\nmit sur la place, pendant qu'on se contentoit des m\u00eames papiers pour le\npaiement des int\u00e9r\u00eats; mais sit\u00f4t que l'id\u00e9e des grandes fortunes porta\nnombre de particuliers \u00e0 augmenter leur d\u00e9pense, \u00e0 acheter des\n\u00e9quipages, des linges & soieries \u00e9trangeres, il fallut des especes pour\ntout cela, je dis pour la d\u00e9pense des int\u00e9r\u00eats, & cela mit tous les\nsyst\u00eames en pieces.\nCet exemple fait bien voir, que le papier & le cr\u00e9dit des Banques\npubliques & particulieres peuvent causer des effets surprenans dans tout\nce qui ne regarde pas la d\u00e9pense ordinaire pour le boire & pour le\nmanger, l'habillement & autres n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s des familles: mais que dans le\ntrain uniforme de la circulation, le secours des Banques & du cr\u00e9dit de\ncette espece est bien moins consid\u00e9rable & moins solide qu'on ne pense\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ralement. L'argent seul est le vrai nerf de la circulation.\nCHAPITRE VIII.\n_Des rafinemens du cr\u00e9dit des Banques g\u00e9n\u00e9rales._\nLa Banque nationale de Londres, est compos\u00e9e d'un grand nombre\nd'Actionaires qui choisissent des Directeurs pour en r\u00e9gir les\nop\u00e9rations. Leur avantage primordial consistoit \u00e0 faire un partage\nannuel des profits qui s'y faisoient par l'int\u00e9r\u00eat de l'argent, qu'on\npr\u00eatoit hors des fonds qu'on d\u00e9posoit \u00e0 la Banque; on y a ensuite\nincorpor\u00e9 des fonds publics, dont l'Etat paie un int\u00e9r\u00eat annuel.\nMalgr\u00e9 un \u00e9tablissement si solide, on a vu (lorsque la Banque avoit fait\nde grosses avances \u00e0 l'Etat, & que les porteurs de billets de banque\nappr\u00e9hendoient que la Banque ne fut embarrass\u00e9e) qu'on couroit sus & que\nles Porteurs alloient en foule \u00e0 la Banque pour retirer leur argent: la\nm\u00eame chose est arriv\u00e9e lors de la ch\u00fbte de la Mer du Sud, en mil sept\ncent vingt.\nLes rafinemens qu'on apportoit pour soutenir la Banque & mod\u00e9rer son\ndiscr\u00e9dit, \u00e9toient d'abord d'\u00e9tablir plusieurs Commis pour compter\nl'argent aux Porteurs, d'en faire compter de grosses sommes en pieces de\nsix & de douze sols, pour gagner du tems, d'en pa\u00efer quelques parties\naux Porteurs particuliers qui \u00e9toient-l\u00e0 \u00e0 attendre des journ\u00e9es\nentieres pour \u00eatre pa\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0 leur tour; mais les sommes les plus\nconsid\u00e9rables \u00e0 des amis qui les emportoient & puis les rapportoient \u00e0\nla Banque en cachette, pour recommencer le lendemain le m\u00eame man\u00e9ge: par\nce mo\u00efen la Banque faisoit bonne contenance & gagnoit du tems; en\nattendant que le discr\u00e9dit se ralentit; mais lorsque cela ne suffisoit\npas, la Banque ouvroit des souscriptions, pour engager des Gens\naccr\u00e9dit\u00e9s & solvables, \u00e0 s'unir pour se rendre garans de grosses sommes\n& maintenir le cr\u00e9dit & la circulation des billets de banque.\nCe fut par ce denier rafinement que le cr\u00e9dit de la Banque se maintint\nen mil sept cent vingt, lors de la ch\u00fbte de la Mer du Sud; car aussi-t\u00f4t\nqu'on sut dans le public que la souscription fut remplie par des Hommes\nriches & puissans, on cessa de courir \u00e0 la Banque, & on y apporta \u00e0\nl'ordinaire des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts.\nSi un Ministre d'Etat en Angleterre, cherchant \u00e0 diminuer le prix de\nl'int\u00e9r\u00eat de l'argent, ou par d'autres vues, sait augmenter le prix des\nfonds publics \u00e0 Londres, & s'il a assez de cr\u00e9dit sur les Directeurs de\nla Banque, pour les engager (sous obligation de les d\u00e9dommager en cas de\nperte) \u00e0 fabriquer plusieurs billets de banque, dont ils n'ont re\u00e7u\naucune valeur, en les priant de se servir de ces billets eux-m\u00eames pour\nacheter plusieurs parties & capitaux des fonds publics; ces fonds ne\nmanqueront pas de hausser de prix, par ces op\u00e9rations: & ceux qui les\nont vendus, vo\u00efant ce haut prix continuer, se d\u00e9termineront peut-\u00eatre,\npour ne point laisser leurs billets de banque inutiles & cro\u00efant par les\nbruits qu'on seme que le prix de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat va diminuer & que ces fonds\nhausseront encore, de les acheter \u00e0 un plus haut prix qu'ils ne les\navoient vendus. Que si plusieurs particuliers, vo\u00efant les Agens de la\nBanque acheter ces fonds, se m\u00ealent d'en faire autant cro\u00efant profiter\ncomme eux, les fonds publics augmenteront de prix, au point que le\nMinistre souhaitera; & il se pourra faire que la Banque revendra\nadroitement \u00e0 plus haut prix tous les fonds qu'elle avoit achet\u00e9s, \u00e0 la\nsollicitation du Ministre, & en tirera non-seulement un grand profit,\nmais retirera & \u00e9teindra tous les billets de banque extraordinaires\nqu'elle avoit fabriqu\u00e9s.\nSi la Banque seule hausse le prix des fonds publics en les achetant,\nelle les rabaissera d'autant lorsqu'elle voudra les revendre pour\n\u00e9teindre ses billets extraordinaires; mais il arrive toujours que\nplusieurs particuliers voulant imiter les Agens de la Banque dans leurs\nop\u00e9rations, contribuent \u00e0 les soutenir; il y en a m\u00eame qui y sont\nattrap\u00e9s faute de savoir au vrai ces op\u00e9rations, o\u00f9 il entre une\ninfinit\u00e9 de rafinemens, ou plut\u00f4t de fourberies qui ne sont pas de mon\nsujet.\nIl est donc constant qu'une Banque d'intelligence avec un Ministre, est\ncapable de hausser & de soutenir le prix des fonds publics, & de baisser\nle prix de l'int\u00e9r\u00eat dans l'Etat au gr\u00e9 de ce Ministre, lorsque les\nop\u00e9rations en sont menag\u00e9es avec discr\u00e9tion, & par-l\u00e0 de lib\u00e9rer les\ndettes de l'Etat; mais ces raffinemens qui ouvrent la porte \u00e0 gagner de\ngrandes fortunes, ne sont que tr\u00e8s rarement menag\u00e9s pour l'utilit\u00e9 seule\nde l'Etat; & les op\u00e9rateurs s'y corrompent le plus souvent. Les billets\nde banque extraordinaires, qu'on fabrique & qu'on r\u00e9pand dans ces\noccasions, ne d\u00e9rangent pas la circulation, parcequ'\u00e9tant emplo\u00ef\u00e9s \u00e0\nl'achat & vente de fonds capitaux, ils ne servent pas \u00e0 la d\u00e9pense des\nfamilles, & qu'on ne les convertit point en argent; mais si quelque\ncrainte ou accident impr\u00e9vu poussoit les Porteurs \u00e0 demander l'argent \u00e0\nla Banque, on en viendroit \u00e0 crever la bombe, & on verroit que ce sont\ndes op\u00e9rations dangereuses.\nFIN.\nTABLE\nDES CHAPITRES.\nPREMIERE PARTIE.\n  CHAP. VII. Le travail d'un Laboureur vaut moins que celui d'un\n  CHAP. VIII. Les Artisans gagnent, les uns plus, les autres moins,\n    selon les cas & les circonstances diff\u00e9rentes.                    25\n  CHAP. IX. Le nombre de Laboureurs, Artisans & autres, qui\n    travaillent dans un \u00e9tat, se proportionne naturellement au\n  CHAP. X. Le prix & la valeur intrinseque d'une chose en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral\n    est la mesure de la terre & du travail qui entrent dans sa\n  CHAP. XI. Du pair ou rapport de la valeur de la Terre \u00e0 la valeur\n  CHAP. XII. Tous les Ordres & tous les Hommes d'un Etat subsistent\n    ou s'enrichissent aux d\u00e9pens des Propri\u00e9taires des Terres.        55\n  CHAP. XIII. La circulation & le troc des denr\u00e9es & des\n    marchandises, de m\u00eame que leur production, se conduisent en\n    Europe par des Entrepreneurs, & au hasard.                        62\n  CHAP. XIV. Les humeurs, les modes & les fa\u00e7ons de vivre du Prince\n    & principalement des Propri\u00e9taires de terre, d\u00e9terminent les\n    usages auxquels on emploie les terres dans un Etat, & causent,\n    au March\u00e9, les variations des prix de toutes choses.              76\n CHAP. XV. La multiplication & le d\u00e9croissement des Peuples dans un\n    Etat d\u00e9pendent principalement de la volont\u00e9, des modes & des\n    fa\u00e7ons de vivre des Propri\u00e9taires de terres.                      86\n  CHAP. XVI. Plus il y a de travail dans un Etat, & plus l'Etat est\n  CHAP. XVII. Des M\u00e9taux & des Monnoies, & particulierement de l'or\nSECONDE PARTIE.\n  CHAP. III. De la circulation de l'Argent.                          159\n  CHAP. IV. Autre r\u00e9flexion sur la v\u00eetesse ou la lenteur de la\n    circulation de l'argent, dans le troc.                           183\n  CHAP. V. De l'in\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la circulation de l'argent effectif,\n  CHAP. VI. De l'augmentation & de la diminution de la quantit\u00e9\n  CHAP. VII. Continuation du m\u00eame sujet de l'augmentation & de la\n    diminution de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans un Etat.        232\n  CHAP. VIII. Autre Reflexion sur l'augmentation & sur la\n    diminution de la quantit\u00e9 d'argent effectif dans un Etat.        239\n  CHAP. IX. De l'inter\u00eat de l'argent, & de ses causes.               264\n  CHAP. X. Des causes de l'augmentation & de la diminution de\nTROISIEME PARTIE.\n  CHAP. III. Autres \u00e9claircissemens pour la connoissance de la\n  CHAP. IV. Autres \u00e9claircissemens pour la connoissance de la\n  CHAP. V. De l'augmentation & de la diminution de la valeur des\n    especes monno\u00ef\u00e9es en d\u00e9nomination.                               381\n  CHAP. VII. Autres \u00e9claircissemens & recherches sur l'utilit\u00e9\n  CHAP. VIII. Des rafinemens du cr\u00e9dit des Banques g\u00e9n\u00e9rales.        426\nFIN.\nNOTES DU TRANSCRIPTEUR\nL'orthographe (en particulier les accents) et la ponctuation sont\nconformes \u00e0 l'original. On a cependant corrig\u00e9 les erreurs manifestement\nintroduites par les typographes.\nEnd of Project Gutenberg's Essai sur le commerce, by Richard Cantillon", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  Essai sur le commerce\n"},
{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1714, "culture": " English\n", "content": "   WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n    BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n                   WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n            FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n  PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n                   THE CONTENTS OF THE THIRD VOLUME.\nQUEST. LXV, LXVI. Of the benefits which the invisible church enjoy by\nChrist.\n_What these benefits are_, _Page_ 9\n    _Union with Christ, and Communion in grace and glory_ 10\n_Union with Christ illustrated_ 11\n    _by a conjugal union in particular_ 12\n_The elect united to Christ_ 13\n    _In their effectual calling_ 15\nQUEST. LXVII, LXVIII. Of effectual calling.\nThe Gospel-call _described_ 16\n    _Its difference from effectual calling_ _ibid._\n    _How far improved without special grace_ 20\n    _Not saving without it_ 20\n    _Its efficacy depends on the power of God_ 39\n    _Its issue and consequence_ 26\n_Offers of grace explained_ 16\n    _God\u2019s design therein_ _ibid._\n_Effectual calling_ 39\n    _A work of almighty power_ 40\n    _A work of grace_ 59\n    _Wrought by the Spirit_ 54\n        _This doctrine does not savour of enthusiasm_ 55\n        _Objections answered_ _ibid._\n    _His work internal and super-natural_ 57\n        _Objections answered_ 58\n    _God\u2019s power and grace irresistible_ 61\n    _The seasons of effectual calling_ 63\n    _The state of man before and after it_ 28\n    _The_ Pelagians\u2019 _notion of it_ 30\n        _Their account of conversion absurd_ 31\n_The nature of human liberty_ 34\n_In what respects the will acts freely_ 35\n    _In what not_ _ibid._\n_Regeneration before faith_ 26\n    _How it differs from conversion_ _ibid._\n    _A principle of grace implanted therein_ 46\n    _Whether good works prepare for it_ 51\n        _Scriptures thought to prove this explained_ 52\n    _Man merely passive therein_ 48\n    _But active after it_ 49\nQUEST. LXIX. Of Communion with Christ in _grace_ 65\nQUEST. LXX, LXXI. Of Justification _ibid._\n_Justification. Its importance_ 66\n    _Wherein it consisteth_ 67\n    _The privileges contained in it_ 69\n    _Pardon and eternal life connected_ 69\n    _Privileges attending it_ 72\n    _Its foundation_ 73\n    _Considered as an act of free-grace_ 74\n    _Note on righteousness_ 74\n    _Man cannot work out a righteousness for it_ 75\n_Forgiveness of sin explained_ 70\n_Christ our surety_ 77\n    _He suffered and obeyed as such_ 77\n    _Properties of a surety applied to him_ 78\n    _The Father accepted him as such_ 79\n    _What he did as a surety_ 81\n    _His righteousness imputed for our justification_ 86\n_God provided a surety_ 95\n    _Note on imputation_ 85, 94\n    _We could not have provided one for ourselves_ 96\nQUEST. LXXII, LXXIII. Of justifying Faith.\n_Justifying faith, a note_ 98\n_Justification is by Faith_ 99\n        _This not rightly explained by some_ 104\n        _Explained agreeably to scripture_ 106\n    _It cannot be before Faith; how_ 117\n    _It cannot be by works_ 101\n        _Not by repentance_ 101\n_A full price required by justice_ 103\n    _Forgiveness free, notwithstanding_ 115\n_God reconciled, not made reconcileable by Christ\u2019s death_ 114\n_Faith, its various kinds_ 121\n    _Of the Faith of miracles_ 122\n    _Of an historical Faith_ 124\n    _Of a temporary Faith_ 124\n_Saving Faith explained_ 125\n    _Other graces are joined with it_ 99\n    _But that alone justifies_ _ibid._\n    _How it justifies a sinner_ 98\n    _It brings in a plea_ 107\n        _What it pleads_ _ibid._\n    _How imputed for righteousness_ 112\n    _Its various objects and acts_ 125\n        _By Faith we receive Christ_ 127\n        _And give up ourselves to him_ 129\n        _What this supposes_ 130\n    _Its assent and trust considered_ 119\n        _Of trust in Christ_ 121\n    _Its direct and reflex acts_ 132\n    _When strong, when weak_ 135\n    _Its use in the conduct of life_ 138\n    _How it works in common actions_ 138\n        _How in religious duties_ 140\n    _How it excites other graces_ 141\n    _How to be attained and increased_ 142\n    _How wrought by the word_ 134\nQUEST. LXXIV. Of Adoption 148\n_This Adoption differs from Man\u2019s_ 145\n    _What is understood by sons of God_ 144\n_Believers God\u2019s sons in Christ_ 146\n    _Their privileges as such_ 147\n    _Privileges consequent upon Adoption_ 149\n_How it agrees with justification_ 151\n    _How with sanctification_ 152\nQUEST. LXXV. Of Sanctification 152\n_The meaning of the word Sanctify_ 152\n    _In Sanctification the soul devoted to God_ 154\n        _And sin mortified_ _ibid._\n_Proper means of mortification_ 155\n    _Wrong methods taken for it_ 159\n    _Vivification, what it imports_ 159\n_Holiness, motives to it_ 160\n    _How it differs from moral virtue_ 161\n_Heathens have, in some things, excelled Christians_ 163\n    _And yet were not sanctified_ _ibid._\n_Practical inferences from Sanctification_ 165\nQUEST. LXXVI. Of Repentance unto life 166\n    _Repentance what, a note_ 167\n    _The subjects of it_ 167\n    _It is the work of the Holy Spirit_ 169\n        _How wrought by the word_ 169\n    _It differs from a legal Repentance_ 172\n    _Its various acts_ 173\n    _Inferences from this doctrine_ 175\nQUEST. LXXVII. Wherein Justification and Sanctification differ 176\nQUEST. LXXVIII. Of the Imperfection of Sanctification in this life 178\n_The proof of this Imperfection_ 179\n_Why Sanctification not perfected at once_ 182\n_Wherein this Imperfection appears_ 183\n_The conflict of a renewed soul_ 186\n    _Of an enlightened conscience_ 184\n    _Of the spirit against the flesh_ 187\n        _How this is maintained_ 188\n_Consequences when sin prevails_ 190\n_Inferences from this Imperfection_ 192\nQUEST. LXXIX. Of the saints Perseverance in Grace 194\n_This doctrine explained_ 197\n        _Preferable to the contrary_ 195\n    _The Father and the Son glorified by it_ 216\n    _The saints kept by God\u2019s power_ 199\n_This doctrine proved_\n    _From God\u2019s unchangeable love_ 201\n    _From the covenant of Grace_ 202\n    _From the promises_ 203\n        _An objection answered_ 204\n    _From the saints union to Christ_ 207\n    _From Christ\u2019s intercession_ 209\n    _From the Spirit\u2019s indwelling_ 210\n_How the saints cannot sin_ 212\n_The principle of Grace ever abides_ 213\n_Shipwreck made of doctrines_ 218\n    _Not of the Grace of faith_ 219\n_Objections answered, taken_\n    _From instances of apostacy_ 220\n        Solomon\u2019s _case cleared_ 221\n        _He was a true penitent_ 222\n        _Therefore no apostate_ 224\n    _From the apostacy of_ Judas 225\n        _And of the_ Jewish _church_ 226\n    _From the parable of the debtor_ 238\n    _From_ Ezek. xviii. 24. 227\n_Inferences from the saints\u2019 Perseverance_ 241\nQUEST. LXXX. Of Assurance of Salvation 243\n_What we are to understand by it_ 243\n        _It is attainable in this life_ 245\n    _Without extraordinary revelation_ 247\n_The Spirit promised, to give it_ 250\n        _In an ordinary way_ 251\n    _How it arises from his witness_ 266\n_This doctrine savours not of Enthusiasm_ 252\n_To whom assurance belongs_ 253\n    _The means of attaining it_ 254\n    _Self examination a duty_ 256\n        _How to be performed_ _ibid._\n_Rule for trying marks of grace_ 259\n    _Uncertain marks of grace_ 260\n    _True marks of grace_ 262\n_What they must do who know not the time of their conversion_ 263\nQUEST. LXXXI. Some true believers destitute of Assurance 268\n_What Assurance essential to faith_ 270\n    _And what not so_ _ibid._\n_Texts relating to this explained_ 271\n_Assurance may be long waited for_ 272\n    _Lost by manifold distempers_ 273\n        _By sins and temptations_ 274\n_Deserted believers want Assurance_ 276\n    _Yet supported by God_ _ibid._\n_Inference from this subject_ 278\nQUEST. LXXXII, LXXXIII. Of Communion in glory with Christ enjoyed in\nthis life 279\n_Saints have an earnest of glory_ 280\n_Wherein this consisteth_ 283\n_Of the vision of God by faith_ 284\n_The triumphant death of some saints_ 285\n_Sinners filled with wrath here_ 288\n    _Inferences from those terrors_ 290\n        _And from the saints present joy_ 291\nQUEST. LXXXIV, LXXXV. Of Death 292\n_Death, the appointment of God_ 293\n    _Redounds to the saints advantage_ 297\n    _Its empire universal_ 294\n    _Its time uncertain_ 295\n    _Its sting is sin_ 297\n    _How it should be improved_ 295\n    _Its effects on the Spirit, a note_ 300\nQUEST. LXXXVI. Of the saints Communion with Christ in glory after death\n_Of the immortality of the soul_ 302\n    _How this is to be understood_ _ibid._\n    _Asserted by some Heathens_ 303\n    _Denied or questioned by others_ 304\n    _Proved from scripture_ 307\n    _Objections answered_ 310\n_A note_ 311\n_The saints perfected at death_ 312\n_Of purgatory_ 313\n    _No proof for it in scripture_ 314\n_Heaven the only paradise after death_ 316\n_Of the soul\u2019s sleeping at death_ 318\n    _How this notion is explained_ 320\n        _How to be opposed_ _ibid._\n    _Proved to be false from scripture_ 321\n_The soul, at death, waits for the full redemption of the body_ 324\n_The miseries which the souls of the wicked shall then endure_ 325\nQUEST. LXXXVII. Of the doctrine of the Resurrection 326\n_The Resurrection not contrary to reason_ 328\n    _Clearly revealed in scripture_ 329\n_Fabulous accounts, by Heathens, of persons raised from the dead_ 330\n    _Certain accounts of it in scripture_ 330\n_The Resurrection proved_\n    _From the Old Testament_ 332\n        _An emblem of it in_ Ezek. xxxvii. 1, _& seq._ 335\n        _The_ Jews _belief of it_ 335\n        Abraham\u2019s _belief of it_ 341\n    _From the New Testament_ 342\n    _From scripture-consequences_ 345\n    _From Christ\u2019s dominion_ 346\n    _Objections answered_ 348\n_The Resurrection universal_ 353\n    Jews _speak obscurely of it_ 355\n_The saints shall be raised in glory_ 356\n    _How raised by the Spirit_ 357\n_The saints found alive at Christ\u2019s coming shall be changed_ 356\nQUEST. LXXXVIII. Of the general and final Judgment 359\n_A sense of it impressed on conscience_ 360\n    _Christ shall be the Judge_ 362\n    _The solemnity of his appearing_ 363\n    _The manner of his proceeding_ 367\n_The persons to be judged_ 365\n    _Fallen angels, and all men_ 366\n_The place of Judgment_ 372\n    _The time of it_ 373\n    _The matter of it_ 369\n_Whether the sins of the saints shall be published_ 371\n_Practical inferences_ 374\nQUEST. LXXXIX. Of the Punishment of the wicked 376\n_The punishment of sin in hell_ 377\n    _Of loss, and sense_ 378\n    _Its degree and duration_ 379\n_How these subjects should be insisted on_ 381\nQUEST. XC. Of the Privileges and Honours of the saints at the last day\n_They shall be acknowledged and acquitted_ 383\n    _They shall judge the world, and angels_ 384\n    _What meant thereby; qu\u00e6re tamen._ _ibid._\n_They shall be received into heaven_ 387\n_Whether known to one another there_ 393\n_They shall be freed from sin and misery_ 388\n    _Made perfectly happy_ 389\n    _And joined with angels_ _ibid._\n_Their happiness shall be eternal_ 399\n_Of the language of heaven_ 390\n_Of the beatific vision and fruition of God_ 399\n_Of degrees of the heavenly glory_ 399\n_Whether any additions shall be made thereunto_ 399\n_Inferences from the heavenly happiness_ 403\nQUEST. XCI, XCII.\n    _Of man\u2019s obligation to obedience_ 405\n    _Note on the foundation of moral obligation_ 405\n        _God\u2019s revealed will a law_ 408\nQUEST. XCIII, XCIV, XCV, XCVI, XCVII. Of the Moral Law 409\n_What it is_ 410\n    _What obedience it requires_ 411\n_Its sanction_ 412\n_Its use to all men_ 413\n    _To the unregenerate_ 414\n    _To the regenerate_ 415\nAntinomians, _who are such_ 418\n_Unguarded expressions hurtful_ 420\nQUEST. XCVIII. The Moral Law, where summarily comprehended 421\n_Of the law given from mount_ Sinai 421\n    _Of the judicial law_ 422\n    _Of the ceremonial law_ 423\n_Holy places, with the vessels thereof_ 424\n_Of ministers in holy things_ 426\n_Of holy times or festivals_ 427\nQUEST. XCIX. Rules for the understanding the Ten Commandments 428 to 431\nQUEST. C, CI, CII. The Sum of the Ten Commandments 432\n_The preface to them_ 432\n_Their division into two tables_ 433\n_Remarks on their subject-matter_ 434\n_The sum of the first four_ _ibid._\nQUEST. CIII, CIV. The Duties required in the First Commandment 435 to\nQUEST. CV, CVI. The Sins forbidden in the First Commandment 438\n_Of atheistical thoughts_ 439\n_Of idolatry. The origin of it_ 443\n_Of heart-idolatry_ 447\n    _In idolizing self_ _ibid._\n    _In loving the world_ 448\n    _In regarding the dictates of Satan_ 449\n_Of the case of the witch of_ Endor 451\nJoseph _no sorcerer_ 452\nMoses _no astrologer_ 454\n    _But learned in all the wisdom of_ Egypt _ibid._\nQUEST. CVII, CVIII, CIX, CX. An Explication of the Second Commandment\n_The duties required_ 456\n_The sins forbidden_ 459\n_The reasons annexed_ 465\n_Of Popish superstition_ 460\n    _Of making to ourselves images_ 461\n    _Of image-worship and idolatry_ 462\n    _The Papists guilty of both_ _ibid._\nQUEST. CXI, CXII, CXIII, CXIV. An Explication of the Third Commandment\n_The duties required in it_ 468\n_The sins forbidden in it_ 469\n_The reasons annexed to it_ 476\n_Of religious oaths_ 472\n    _Various forms used therein_ 471\n    _Swearing by God\u2019s Name a duty_ 470\n_Of profane oaths and curses_ 470\n_When God\u2019s Name is taken in vain_ 473\nQUEST. CXV, CXVI. An Explication of the Fourth Commandment 477\n_The sabbath. Its original institution_ 482\n        _In what respect moral_ 478\n            _In what positive_ 479\n    _Its morality proved_ 480\n        _Objections answered_ 481\n    _Was no ceremonial institution_ 481\n    _Its change proved_ 486\n        _From the example of Christ_ 488\n_Objections answered_ 488\n    _From the practice of the Apostles_ 491\n    _And of the Christian church_ 494\n_The proportion of time to be observed_ 495\nQUEST. CXVII, CXVIII. Of sanctifying the Sabbath or Lord\u2019s-day 497\n_The duties preparatory for it_ 497\n_The rest required upon that day_ 500\n    _Works of necessity then lawful_ 502\n_The whole day to be sanctified_ 505\n_The duties of the evening of that day_ 506\nQUEST. CXIX, CXX, CXXI. Of Sins forbidden in the Fourth Commandment 508\n    _The omission of holy duties_ 509\n    _A careless performance of them_ _ibid._\n_The reasons annexed to this Commandment_ 510\n    _Objections answered_ 511\n_The import of the word_ Remember 512\n    _Inferences_ 513\nQUEST. CXXII. The Sum of the six Commandments, respecting our duty to\nman; or, of doing as we would be done by 514\nQUESTIONS CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII, CXXVIII. An Explication of\nthe Fifth Commandment 517\n_Relations, how founded_ 518\n        _Duties of each differ_ _ibid._\n    _Superiors, why called fathers_ _ibid._\n_Duties of inferiors to superiors_ 520\n    _Of children to parents_ _ibid._\n    _Of servants to masters_ 523\n    _Of subjects to magistrates_ 525\n_The necessity and advantage of civil government_ 524\n_Papists arguments for deposing princes, answered_ 526\n_The sins of inferiors_ 529\nQUESTIONS CXXIX, CXXX, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII. The Duties of superiors,\n_The duties of parents to their children_ 531\n    _Of masters to servants_ 533\n    _Of magistrates to subjects_ 534\n_The sins of superiors_ _ibid._\n_The duties of equals_ 535\n_The sins of equals_ 536\n_Reasons annexed to this Commandment_ _ibid._\n_Of the promise of long life_ 537\n    _Old age how far to be desired_ 538\nQUEST. CXXXVII, CXXXV, CXXXVI. An Explication of the Sixth Commandment\n_The life of others to be preserved_ 540\n    _When lawful to take it away_ 541\n_Of duels_ 542\nElijah _not guilty of murder_ 543\n    _Nor_ Abraham _in offering_ Isaac 544\n    _Nor_ Moses _in killing the_ Egyptian 545\n_Self-murder a great sin_ _ibid._\n    _Whether_ Samson _was guilty of it_ 546\n_God\u2019s judgments on murderers_ 547\n_Sinful anger is heart-murder_ 548\n_Passionate men, their sin and guilt_ 549\n    _How to be dealt with_ 550\n   THE _DOCTRINES_ OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED.\n    QUEST. LXV. _What special benefits do the members of the invisible\n    church enjoy by Christ?_\n    ANSW. The members of the invisible church, by Christ, enjoy union\n    and communion with him in grace and glory.\n    QUEST. LXVI. _What is that union which the elect have with Christ?_\n    ANSW. The union which the elect have with Christ, is the work of\n    God\u2019s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really\n    and inseparably joined to Christ, as their head and husband, which\n    is done in their effectual calling.\nWe have, in the foregoing part of this work, considered man as made\nupright at first; but not continuing in that state, plunged into those\ndepths of sin and misery, which would have rendered his state altogether\ndesperate, without the interposition of a Mediator; whose designation to\nthis work, his fitness for, and faithful discharge thereof, have been\nparticularly considered in several foregoing answers, wherein we have\nhad an account of his Person as God-man; his offices of Prophet, Priest,\nand King, his twofold estate, to wit, of humiliation and exaltation; and\nthe benefits which accrue to the church thereby. This church has also\nbeen considered as _visible_ or _invisible_; and the former of these, as\nenjoying many privileges which respect, more especially, the ordinary\nmeans of salvation.\nWe are now led to consider the benefits which the members of the\n_invisible_ church, to wit, the whole number of the elect, who have\nbeen, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, their head,\nenjoy by him. And these are contained in two general heads; namely,\nunion and communion with him in grace and glory; which comprise in them\nthe blessings of both worlds, as the result of their relation to, and\ninterest in him. First, they are united to him, and then made partakers\nof his benefits. All grace imparted to us here, is the result thereof;\nas the apostle says, _Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made\nunto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption_,\n1 Cor. i. 30. And elsewhere our Saviour says, _He that abideth in me,\nand I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit_, John xv. 5. And the\ncontrary hereunto is inconsistent with the exercise of any grace:\n_Without me ye can do nothing_.\nMoreover, that communion which the saints have with Christ in glory,\nwhereby they who are brought to a state of perfection, participate of\nthose graces and comforts which flow from their continued union with\nhim; and the first fruits, or foretastes of glory, which they have in\nthis world, are also founded on it. Thus the apostle calls Christ in his\npeople, _The hope of glory_, Colos. i. 27. and speaking of his giving\neternal life to them, he considers them as being _in his hand_, from\nwhence _none shall pluck them out_, John x. 28. or separate them from\nhim. So that they shall enjoy everlasting happiness with him, inasmuch\nas they shall _be found in him_, Phil. iii. 9. which leads us more\nparticularly to consider,\nWhat this union with Christ is. The scripture often speaks of Christ\u2019s\nbeing, or abiding in his people, and they in him; and assigns it as an\nevidence of their interest in the blessings he has purchased for them:\nand, indeed, it is from hence that all internal and practical godliness\nis derived.\nThis privilege argues infinite condescension in him, and tends to the\nhighest advancement of those who are the subjects thereof. Now that we\nmay understand what is intended thereby, let us take heed that we do not\ninclude in it any thing that tends to extenuate it on the one hand; or\nto exalt those who are made partakers of it above the station or\ncondition into which they are brought thereby, on the other.\nIt is not sufficient to suppose that this union contains in it no more\nthan that his people have the same kind of nature with him, as being\nmade _partakers of flesh and blood_; he having _himself taken part of\nthe same_, Heb. ii. 14. He is indeed allied to us, as having all the\nessential perfections of our nature: and this was an instance of\ninfinite condescension in him, and absolutely necessary to our\nredemption: nevertheless, this similitude of nature; abstracted from\nother considerations, accompanying or flowing from his incarnation,\ncontains in it no other idea of union, between Christ and his people,\nthan that which they have with one another; nor is it a privilege\npeculiar to believers, since Christ took on him the same human nature\nthat all men have, though with a peculiar design of grace to those whom\nhe came to redeem. This I the rather take notice of, because the\nSocinians, and others, that speak of this privilege, inasmuch as it is\noften mentioned in scripture, appear to have very low thoughts of it,\nwhen they suppose nothing more than this to be intended thereby.\nAgain, this union includes in it more than what is contained in that\nmutual love that is between Christ and believers, in that sense in which\nthere is an union of affection between those who love one another; as it\nis said, _The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David; and\nJonathan loved him as his own soul_, 1 Sam. xviii. 1. In which respect\nbelievers are united to one another; or, as the apostle expresses it,\ntheir hearts are _knit together in love_, Col. ii. 2. _being like\nminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind_, Phil.\nii. 2. or, as he adds, _Let this mind also be in you, which was also in\nChrist Jesus_, ver. 5. I say it includes more than this, which is rather\nthe fruit and consequence of our union with Christ, than that wherein it\nprincipally consists.\nMoreover we must take heed that we do not, in explaining this union\nbetween Christ and believers, include more in it than what belongs to\ncreatures infinitely below him, to whom they are said to be united:\ntherefore we cannot but abhor the blasphemy of those who speak of an\nessential union of creatures with God; or, as though they had hereby\nsomething derived to them in common with Christ the great Mediator.[1]\nBut passing by this method of accounting for the union between Christ\nand believers, there are two senses in which it is taken in scripture;\none is, that which results from Christ\u2019s being their federal head,\nrepresentative, or surety; having undertaken to deal with the justice of\nGod in their behalf, so that what he should do, as standing in this\nrelation to them, should be placed to their account, as much as though\nit had been done by them in their own persons: this is what contains in\nit their concern in the covenant of grace, made with him in their\nbehalf; of which something has been said under a foregoing answer;[2]\nand it is the foundation of their sins being imputed to him, and his\nrighteousness to them; which will be farther considered, when we treat\nof the doctrine of justification under a following answer.[3]\nTherefore this union with Christ, which is mentioned in the answer we\nare now explaining, is of another nature, and, in some respects, may be\nproperly styled a _vital union_, as all spiritual life is derived from\nit; or a _conjugal union_, as it is founded in consent, and said to be\nby faith. Now there are two things observed concerning it.\n1. It is expressed by our being spiritually and mystically joined to\nChrist: it is styled a _spiritual_ union, in opposition to those gross\nand carnal conceptions which persons may entertain concerning things\nbeing joined together in a natural way; and, indeed, whatever respects\nsalvation is of a spiritual nature.\nIt is moreover called a _mystical_ union, which is the word most used by\nthose who treat on this subject; and the reason is, because the apostle\ncalls it _a great mystery_, Eph. v. 32. by which we are not to\nunderstand the union there is between man and wife, as contained in the\nsimilitude by which he had before illustrated this doctrine, as the\nPapists pretend,[4] but the union that there is between Christ and his\nchurch. And it is probably styled _a mystery_, because it could never\nhave been known without divine revelation: and as Christ\u2019s\ncondescension, expressed herein, can never be sufficiently admired; so\nit cannot be fully comprehended by us. This is such a nearness to him,\nand such a display of love in him _as passeth knowledge_. However, there\nare some similitudes used in scripture to illustrate it. As,\n(1.) The union that there is between the _vine_ and the _branches_, John\nxv. 1, 2, 5. whereby life, nourishment, growth and fruitfulness are\nconveyed to them: in like manner all our spiritual life together, with\nthe exercise and increase of grace, depend on our union with, abiding\nin, and deriving what is necessary thereunto, from him.\n(2.) It is also compared to the union there is between the _head_ and\n_members_, as the apostle farther illustrates it, when he styles _him\nthe head, from which all the body, by joints and bands, having\nnourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase\nof God_, Col. ii. 19. which is a very beautiful similitude, whereby we\nare given to understand, that as the head is the fountain of life and\nmotion to the whole body, as the nerves and animal spirits take their\nrise from thence, so that if the communication that there is between\nthem and it, be stopped, the members would be useless, dead, and\ninsignificant: so Christ is the fountain of spiritual life and motion,\nto all those who are united to him.\n(3.) This union is farther illustrated, by a similitude taken from that\nunion which there is between the foundation and the building; and\naccordingly Christ is styled, in scripture, _the chief corner stone_,\nEph. ii. 20. and a _sure foundation_, Isa. xxviii. 16. And there is\nsomething peculiar in that phrase which the apostle uses, which is more\nthan any similitude can express; when he speaks of Christ as the _living\nstone_, or rock, on which the church is built; and of believers, as\n_lively stones_, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5. to denote, that they are not only\nsupported and upheld by him, as the building is by the foundation, but\nenabled to put forth living actions, as those whose life is derived from\nthis union with him.\n(4.) There is another similitude taken from that nourishment which the\nbody receives, by the use of food; and therefore our Saviour styles\nhimself the _bread of life_, or the _bread which cometh down from\nheaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die_; and proceeds to speak\nof his _giving his flesh for the life of the world_; and adds, _he that\neateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him_,\nJohn vi. 48-56.\n(5.) There is another similitude, by which our being united to Christ by\nfaith, is more especially illustrated, taken from the union which there\nis between man and wife; accordingly this is generally styled, a\nconjugal union, between Christ and believers. Thus the prophet says,\n_Thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy\nRedeemer, the holy One of Israel_, Isa. liv. 5. And the apostle,\nspeaking of a man\u2019s _leaving his father and mother, and being joined\nunto his wife, and they two being one flesh_, Eph. v. 31, 32. applies\nit, as was before observed, to the union that there is between Christ\nand the church; and adds, that _we are members of his body, of his\nflesh, and of his bones_, ver. 30. which expression, if not compared\nwith other scriptures, would be very hard to be understood; but it may\nbe explained by the like phraseology, used elsewhere. Thus, when God\nformed Eve at first, and brought her to Adam, and thereby joined them\ntogether in a conjugal relation: he says upon this occasion, _This is\nnow bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh_, Gen. ii. 23. And we find\nalso, that other relations, which are more remote than this, are\nexpressed by the same mode of speaking. Thus Laban says to Jacob,\n_Surely thou art my bone and my flesh_, Gen. xxix. 14. And Abimelech\npleading the relation he stood in to the men of Shechem, as a pretence\nof his right to reign over them, tells them, _I am your bone and your\nflesh_, Judges ix. 2. Therefore the apostle makes use of the same\nexpression, agreeably to the common mode of speaking used in scripture,\nto set forth the conjugal relation which there is between Christ and\nbelievers.\nThe apostle, indeed, elsewhere alters the phrase, when he says, _He that\nis joined to the Lord is one Spirit_, 1 Cor. vi. 17. which is so\ndifficult an expression, that some who treat on this subject, though\nconcluding that there is in it something that denotes the intimacy and\nnearness of this union, and more than what is contained in the other\nphrase, of their _being one flesh_, nevertheless, reckon it among those\nexpressions which are inexplicable; though I cannot but give into the\nsense in which some understand it; namely, that inasmuch as the same\nSpirit dwells in believers that dwelt in Christ, though with different\nviews and designs, they are hereby wrought up, in their measure, to the\nsame temper and disposition; or as it is expressed elsewhere, _The same\nmind_ is in them _that_ was _in Christ_, Phil. ii. 5. which is such an\neffect of this conjugal relation that there is between him and them, as\nis not always the result of the same relation amongst men. The reason\nwhy I call this our being united to Christ, by faith, is because it is\nfounded in a mutual consent; as _the Lord avouches them_ on the one\nhand, _to be his people_, so they, on the other hand, _avouch him to be\ntheir God_, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. the latter of which is, properly\nspeaking, an act of faith; whereby they give up themselves to be his\nservants, to all intents and purposes, and that for ever.\nIt is farther observed in this answer. That union with Christ is a work\nof God\u2019s grace: this it must certainly be, since it is the spring and\nfountain from whence all acts of grace proceed; and indeed, from the\nnature of the thing, it cannot be otherwise: for if there be a wonderful\ninstance of condescending grace in God\u2019s conferring those blessings that\naccompany salvation; this may much more be deemed so. If Christ be\npleased to _dwell_ with, and _in_ his people, and to _walk_ _in_ them, 2\nCor. vi. 16. or as it is said elsewhere, to _live in them_, Gal. ii. 20.\nas a pledge and earnest of their being forever with him in heaven; and\nif, as the result hereof, they be admitted to the greatest intimacy with\nhim; we may from hence take occasion to apply what was spoken by one of\nChrist\u2019s disciples, to him, with becoming humility and admiration; _how\nis it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?_\nJohn xiv. 22. Is it not a great instance of grace, that the Son of God\nshould make choice of so mean an habitation, as that of the souls of\nsinful men; and not only be present with, but united to them in those\ninstances which have been before considered?\n2. It is farther observed in this answer, that we are united to Christ\nin effectual calling; which leads us to consider what is contained in\nthe two following answers.\nFootnote 1:\n  _The first that seems to use this unsavoury mode of speaking, is\n  Gregory Nazianzen; who did not consider how inconsistent some of those\n  rhetorical ways of speaking, he seems fond of, are with that doctrine,\n  which, in other parts of his writings, he maintained. Those words_\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _and_ \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _which he sometimes uses to express the\n  nature, or consequence of this union between Christ and believers, are\n  very disgustful. In one place of his writings, (Vid. ejusd. Orat. 41.)\n  exhorting Christians to be like Christ, he says, That because he\n  became like unto us_, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, efficiamur Dii propter\n  ipsum; _and elsewhere, (in Orat. 35. de Folio.) he says_, Hic homo\n  Deus effectus postea quam cum Deo coaluit \u1f31\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u1f41\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bfc \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7, ut ipse quoque tantum Deus efficiar\n  quantum ipse homo. _And some modern writers have been fond of the same\n  mode of speaking, especially among those who, from their mysterious\n  and unintelligible mode of expressing themselves, have rather exposed\n  than defended the doctrines of the gospel. We find expressions of the\n  like nature in a book put forth by Luther, which is supposed to be\n  written by Taulerus, before the Reformation, called Theologia\n  Germanica, and some others, since that time, such as Parcelsus,\n  Swenckfelt, Weigelius, and those enthusiasts, that have adhered to\n  their unintelligible and blasphemous modes of speaking._\nFootnote 2:\n  _See Vol. II. Quest. 31. page 167._\nFootnote 3:\nFootnote 4:\n  _This is the principal, if not the only scripture, from which they\n  pretend to prove marriage to be a sacrament, and they argue thus. The\n  Greek church had no other word to express what was afterwards called a\n  sacrament by the Latin church, but_ \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a mystery: _therefore\n  since the apostle calls marriage, as they suppose, a mystery, they\n  conclude that it is a sacrament; which is a very weak foundation for\n  inserting it among those sacraments which they have added to them that\n  Christ had instituted; for the sacraments are no where called\n  mysteries in scripture: and therefore we are not to explain doctrines\n  by words which were not used till some ages after the apostles\u2019 time:\n  and if there were any thing in their argument_, viz. _that that which\n  is called a mystery in scripture, must needs be a sacrament, it does\n  not appear that the apostle calls marriage_ a great mystery, _but the\n  union that there is between Christ and his church; as he expressly\n  says in the following words_; I speak concerning Christ and the\n  church.\n    QUEST. LXVII. _What is effectual calling?_\n    ANSW. Effectual calling is the work of God\u2019s almighty power and\n    grace; whereby, out of his free and special love to his elect, and\n    from nothing in them moving him thereunto, he doth, in his accepted\n    time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ by his word and Spirit,\n    savingly enlightening their minds, renewing, and powerfully\n    determining their wills; so as they, although in themselves dead in\n    sin, are hereby made willing and able, freely to answer his call,\n    and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.\n    QUEST. LXVIII. _Are the elect effectually called?_\n    ANSW. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although\n    others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of\n    the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for\n    their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them,\n    being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus\n    Christ.\nWe have, in these answers, an account of the first step that God takes,\nin applying the redemption purchased by Christ; which is expressed, in\ngeneral, by the word _calling_; whereby sinners are invited, commanded,\nencouraged, and enabled, to come to Christ, in order to their being made\npartakers of his benefits: the apostle styles it an _high_, _holy_, and\n_heavenly calling_, Phil. iii. 14. 2 Tim. i. 9. Heb. iii. 1. and a being\n_called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord_, 1 Cor. i.\n8. Herein we are _called out of darkness into his marvellous light_, 1\nPet. ii. 9. and _to his eternal glory by Jesus Christ_, chap. v. 10.\nAnd, indeed, the word is very emphatical: For,\n1. A call supposes a person to be separate, or at a distance from him\nthat calls him; and it contains an intimation of leave to come into his\npresence. Thus, in effectual calling, he who was departed from God, is\nbrought nigh to him. God, as it were, says to him, as he did to Adam,\nwhen flying from him, and dreading nothing so much as his presence, when\napprehending himself exposed to the stroke of his vindictive justice,\n_Where art thou?_ Gen. iii. 9. which is styled, _God\u2019s calling unto\nhim_. Or, it is like as when a traveller is taking a wrong way, and in\ndanger of falling into some pit, or snare; and a kind friend calls after\nhim to return, and sets him in the right way: thus God calls to sinners,\nor says, as the prophet expresses it; _Thine ears shall hear a word\nbehind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it; when ye turn to the\nright hand, and when ye turn to the left_.\n2. Herein God deals with men as reasonable creatures; which is by no\nmeans to be excluded from our ideas of the work of grace; though this\nwork contain in it some superior, or supernatural methods of acting, in\norder to bring it about; yet we may be under a divine influence, as\nturning to God, or effectually called by him, and accordingly acted by a\nsupernatural principle; and at the same time our understandings, or\nreasoning powers, not rendered useless, but enlightened or improved\nthereby; by which means, every thing that we do, in obedience to the\ncall of God, appears to be most just and reasonable. This gives no\nground for any one to conclude, that, according to our method of\nexplaining this doctrine, we lay ourselves open to the absurd\nconsequence fastened upon it; as though God dealt with us as stocks and\nstones: but more of this may be considered under a following head.\nWe now proceed, more particularly, to consider the subject-matter of\nthese two answers; wherein we have an account of the difference between\nthe _external_ call of the gospel, which is explained in the latter of\nthem, and the _internal_, saving, and powerful call, which is justly\ntermed _effectual_; and is considered in the former of them. And,\n_First_, Concerning the outward and common call, together with the\npersons to whom it is given; the design of God in giving it, and also\nthe issue thereof, with respect to a great number of those who are said\nto be called.\nThe reason why we choose to insist on this common call, in the first\nplace, is because it is antecedent, and made subservient to the other in\nthe method of the divine dispensation; inasmuch as we are first favoured\nwith the word and ordinances, and then they are made effectual to\nsalvation.\n1. Therefore we shall consider what we are to understand by this common\ncall.\nIt is observed, that it is by the ministry of the word, in which Christ\nis set forth in his person and offices, and sinners are called to come\nto him; and in so doing, to be made partakers of the blessings which he\nhas purchased. This is the sum and substance of the gospel-ministry; and\nit is illustrated Matt. xxii. 1, & _seq._ by the parable of the\n_marriage-feast_, which the _king made for his son, and sent his\nservants_; by which is signified gospel-ministers, to _call_ or invite,\nand therein to use all persuasive arguments to prevail with persons to\ncome to it: this is styled their being _called_. And the observation\nmade on persons refusing to comply with this call, when it is said,\n_Many are called, but few are chosen_, ver. 14. plainly intimates, that\nour Saviour here means no other than a common or ineffectual call. And\nin another parable it is illustrated by an _householder\u2019s hiring\nlabourers into his vineyard_, Matt. xx. 1, & _seq._ at several hours of\nthe day: some were hired early in the morning, at the _third hour_;\nothers at the _sixth_ and _ninth_; which denotes the gospel-call, that\nthe Jewish church had to come to Christ before his incarnation, under\nthe ceremonial law; and others were hired at the _eleventh_ hour,\ndenoting those who were called, at that time, by the ministry of Christ\nand his disciples: that this was only a common and external call, is\nevident, not only from the intimation that they, who had _borne the\nburden and heat of the day_; that is, for many ages had been a\nprofessing people, _murmured_, because others, who were called at the\neleventh hour, had an equal share in his regard; but also from what is\nexpressly said, (the words are the same with those wherewith the other\nparable before-mentioned, is closed) _Many are called, but few are\nchosen_, ver. 16.\nMoreover, the apostle intends this common call, when he speaks of some\nwho have been _called into the grace of Christ_; not called by the power\nand efficacious grace of Christ, as denoting that the call was\neffectual; but called, or invited to come and receive the grace of\nChrist; or called externally, and thereby prevailed on to embrace the\ndoctrine of the grace of Christ: these are said to be _soon removed unto\nanother gospel_, Gal. i. 6. And elsewhere, chap. v. 7. he speaks of\nsome, who, when _the truth_, or the doctrines of the gospel, were first\npresented to them, expressed, for a time, a readiness to receive it;\nupon which account he says, _Ye did run well_, or, ye began well; but\nyet they did not afterwards yield the obedience of faith, to that truth\nwhich they seemed, at first, to have a very great regard: upon which\noccasion the apostle says, _This persuasion cometh not of him that\ncalleth you_, ver. 8.\nThey who express some regard to this call, are generally said to have\n_common_ grace, as contradistinguished from others, who are under the\npowerful, and efficacious influences of the Spirit, which are styled\n_special_. The former of these are oftentimes under some impressive\ninfluences by the common work of the Spirit, under the preaching of the\ngospel; who, notwithstanding, are in an unconverted state; their\nconsciences are sometimes awakened, and they bring many charges and\naccusations against themselves; and from a dread of the consequences\nthereof, abstain from many enormous crimes, as well as practise several\nduties of religion; they are also said to be made partakers of some\ngreat degrees of restraining grace; and all this arises from no other\nthan the Spirit\u2019s common work of conviction; as he is said, _to reprove\nthe world of sin_, John xvi. 8.\nThese are styled, in this answer, the common operations of the Spirit:\nthey may be called operations, inasmuch as they contain in them\nsomething more than God\u2019s sending ministers to address themselves to\nsinners, in a way of persuasion or arguing; for, the Spirit of God deals\nwith their consciences under the ministry of the word. It is true, this\nis no more than common grace; yet it may be styled the Spirit\u2019s work:\nfor though the call be no other than common, and the Spirit considered\nas an external agent, inasmuch as he never dwells in the hearts of any\nbut believers, yet the effect produced, is internal in the mind and\nconsciences of men, and, in some degree, in the will; which is almost\npersuaded to comply with it. These operations are sometimes called the\nSpirit\u2019s _striving with man_, Gen. vi. 3. but inasmuch as many of these\ninternal motions are said to be resisted and quenched, when persons\nfirst act contrary to the dictates of their consciences, and afterwards\nwholly extinguish them; therefore the Spirit\u2019s work in those whom he\nthus calls, is not effectual or saving; these are not united to Christ\nby his Spirit, nor by faith; and this is generally styled common grace,\nin speaking to which, we shall consider,\n(1.) That there are some things presented to us, in an objective way,\nwhich contain the subject matter of the gospel, or that call, which is\ngiven to sinners to pursue those methods, which, by divine appointment,\nlead to salvation. As _faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word\nof God_, Rom. x. 17. so do common convictions, and whatever carries in\nit the appearance of grace in the unregenerate. In this respect God\ndeals with men as intelligent creatures, capable of making such\nimprovement of those instructions and intimations, as may tend, in many\nrespects, to their advantage. This must be supposed, or else the\npreaching of the gospel could not be reckoned an universal blessing to\nthem who are favoured with it, abstracting from those saving advantages\nwhich some are to receive hereby. This is here called the grace which is\noffered to them, who are outwardly called, by the ministry of the word.\nOffers of grace, and invitations to come to Christ, are words used by\nalmost all who have treated on this subject: though some, of late, have\nbeen ready to conclude, that these modes of speaking tend to overthrow\nthe doctrine we are maintaining; for they argue to this purpose; that an\noverture, or invitation, supposes a power in him to whom it is given to\ncomply with it. Did I think this idea necessarily contained in these\nwords, I should rather choose to substitute others in the room of them:\nhowever, to remove prejudices, or unjust representations, which the use\nthereof may occasion, either here or elsewhere, I shall briefly give an\naccount of the reason why I use them, and what I understand thereby. If\nit be said, This mode of speaking is not to be found in scripture; this,\nit is true, should make us less tenacious of it. Nevertheless, it may be\nused without just offence given, if it be explained agreeably\nthereunto.[5] Therefore let it be considered,\n(2.) That the presenting an object, whatever it be, to the understanding\nand will, is generally called, an _offering_ it; as God says to David,\nfrom the Lord; _I offer thee three things, choose thee one of them_, &c.\n1 Sam. xxiv. 12. So if God sets before us life and death, blessing and\ncursing, and bids us choose which we will have; this is equivalent to\nwhat is generally called, an offer of grace.\nAnd as for invitations to come to Christ, it is plain, that there are\nmany scriptures that speak to that purpose; namely, when it is said, _In\nthe last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,\nsaying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink_, John vii.\n37. And, _Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters_, Isa. lv.\n1. And elsewhere Christ says, _Come unto me all ye that labour, and are\nheavy laden, and I will give you rest_, Matt. xi. 28. And, _Let him that\nis athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life\nfreely_, Rev. xxii. 17.\n(3.) When an offer, or invitation to accept of a thing, thus objectively\npresented to us, is made, it always supposes the valuableness thereof;\nand how much it would be our interest to accept of it; and that it is\nour indispensable duty so to do; which are the principal ideas that I\nintend, in my sense of the word, when I speak of offers of grace in the\ngospel, or invitations to come to Christ. Nevertheless, taking them in\nthis sense, does not necessarily infer a power in us to accept them,\nwithout the assistance of divine grace: thus it may be said, that Christ\ncame into the world to save sinners; and that he will certainly apply\nthe redemption, which he has purchased, to all, for whom this price was\ngiven; and also, that a right to salvation is inseparably connected with\nfaith and repentance; and that these, and all other graces are God\u2019s\ngifts; and that we are to pray, wait, and hope for them, under the\nministry of the word; and if we be, in God\u2019s own time and way, enabled\nto exercise these graces, this will be our unspeakable advantage: and\ntherefore it cannot but be our duty to attend upon God in all his holy\ninstitutions, in hope of saving blessings: these things may be done; and\nconsequently the gospel may be thus preached, without supposing that\ngrace is in our own power: and this is what we principally intend by\ngospel-overtures or invitations.\n(4.) Nevertheless we cannot approve of some expressions subversive of\nthe doctrine of special redemption, how moving and pathetic soever they\nmay appear to be; as when any one, to induce sinners to come to Christ,\ntells them, that God is willing, and Christ is willing, and has done his\npart, and the Spirit is ready to do his; and shall we be unwilling, and\nthereby destroy ourselves? Christ has purchased salvation for us: the\nSpirit offers his assistances to us; and shall we refuse these\novertures? Christ invites us to come to him, and leaves it to our\nfree-will, whether we will comply with, or reject these invitations: he\nis, at it were, indeterminate, whether he shall save us or no, and\nleaves the matter to our own conduct; we ought therefore to be persuaded\nto comply with the invitation. This method of explaining offers of\ngrace, and invitations, to come to Christ, is not what we intend when we\nmake use of these expressions.\n2. We are now to consider the persons to whom this common call is given.\nIt is indefinite, not directed only to the elect, or those, with respect\nto whom God designs to make it effectual to their salvation; for,\naccording to the commission which our Saviour gave to his apostles, the\ngospel was to be preached to all nations, or to every creature in those\nplaces to which it was sent: and the reason of this is obvious; namely,\nbecause the counsel of God, concerning election, is secret, and not to\nbe considered as the rule of human conduct; nor are they, whom God is\npleased to employ in preaching the gospel, supposed to know whether he\nwill succeed their endeavours, by enabling those who are called, to\ncomply with it.\n3. We shall now shew how far the gospel-call may, without the superadded\nassistance of special grace, be improved by men, in order to their\nattaining some advantage by it, though short of salvation: this may be\ndone in two respects.\n(1.) Gross enormous crimes may hereby be avoided: this appears in many\nunconverted persons, who not only avoid, but abhor them; being induced\nhereunto by something in nature that gives an aversion to them. And it\nmay be farther argued, from the liableness of those who commit them, to\npunishment in proportion to their respective aggravations; which must\neither suppose in man, a power to avoid them: or else, the greatest\ndegree of punishment would be the result of a necessity of nature, and\nnot self-procured by any act of man\u2019s will; though all suppose the will\nto be free, with respect to actions that are sinful. It would be a very\npoor excuse for the murderer to allege, that he could not govern his\npassion, but was under an unavoidable necessity to take away the life of\nanother. Shall the man that commits those sins, which are contrary to\nnature, say, That his natural temper and disposition is so much inclined\nthereunto, that he could, by no means, avoid them? If our natural\nconstitution be so depraved and vitiated, that it leads us, with an\nuncommon and impetuous violence, to those sins that we were not formerly\ninclined to: whence does this arise, but from the habits of vice, being\nincreased by a wilful and obstinate continuance therein, and many\nrepeated acts which they have produced? and might not this, at least, in\nsome degree, have been avoided? We must distinguish between habits of\nsin, that immediately flow from the universal corruption of nature, and\nthose that have taken deeper root in us, by being indulged, and exerting\nthemselves, without any endeavours used, to restrain and give a check to\nthem.\nAnd if it be supposed that our natures are more habitually inclined to\nsin than once they were, might we not so far use the liberty of our\nwills, as to avoid some things, which, we are sensible, will prove a\ntemptation to those particular acts thereof; whereby the corruption of\nnature, that is so prone to comply with it, might be in some measure,\nrestrained, though not overcome: this may be done without converting\ngrace; and consequently some great sins may be avoided. To deny this,\nwould be not only to palliate, but open a door to all manner of\nlicentiousness.\n(2.) Man has a power to do some things that are materially good; though\nnot good in all those circumstances in which actions are good that\naccompany or flow from regenerating grace. Ahab\u2019s humility, 1 Kings xxi.\n29. and Nineveh\u2019s repentance, Jonah iii. 5. and seq. arose from the\ndread they had of the divine threatenings; which is such an inducement\nto repentance and reformation, as takes its rise from nothing more than\nthe influence of common grace. Herod himself, though a vile person,\n_feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy: and when he\nheard him, did many things, and heard him gladly_, Mark vi. 20. And the\nGentiles are said to _do by nature, the things_; that is, some things\n_contained in the law_; insomuch that _they are a law unto themselves_,\nRom. ii. 14. Therefore they did them by the influence of common grace.\nAnd these things, namely, abstaining from grosser sins, and doing some\nactions materially good, have certainly some advantage attending them;\nas thereby the world is not so much like hell as it would otherwise be:\nand as to what respects themselves, a greater degree of punishment is\nhereby avoided.\n3. We are now to consider the design of God in giving this common call\nin the gospel, which cannot be the salvation of all who are thus called:\nthis is evident; because all shall not be saved; whereas, if God had\ndesigned their salvation, he would certainly have brought it about;\nsince his purpose cannot be frustrated. To say that God has no\ndeterminations relating to the success of the gospel, reflects on his\nwisdom: and to conclude that things may happen contrary to his purpose,\nargues a defect of power; as though he could not attain the ends he\ndesigned: but this having before been insisted on, under the heads of\nelection and special redemption, I shall pass it by at present, and only\nconsider, that the ends which God designed in giving the gospel, were\nsuch as were attained by it, namely, the salvation of those who shall\neventually be saved, the restraining of those who have only common\ngrace, and the setting forth the glorious work of redemption by Jesus\nChrist; which, as it is the wonder of angels, who desire to look into\nit; so it is hereby designed to be recommended as worthy of the highest\nesteem, even in those who cast contempt on it: and hereby they are\nconvicted, who shut their eyes against, and neglect to behold that\nglorious light which shines so brightly therein.\n_Object._ To this it is objected, that if Christ invites and calls men\nto come to him, as he often does in the New Testament; and when they\nrefuse to do it, mentions their refusal with a kind of regret; as when\nhe says, _Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life_, John v. 40.\nthis, they suppose, is no other than an insult on mankind, a bidding\nthem come without the least design that they should; as if a magistrate\nshould go to the prison door, and tell the unhappy man, who is not only\nunder lock and key, but loaded with irons, that he would have him leave\nthat place of misery and confinement, and how much he should rejoice, if\nhe would come out; and upon that condition, propose to him several\nhonours that he has in reserve for him: this, say they, is not to deal\nseriously with him. And if the offer of grace in the gospel, answers the\nsimilitude, as they suppose it exactly does, then there is no need for\nany thing farther to be replied to it; the doctrine confutes itself; as\nit argues the divine dealings with men illusory.\n_Answ._ This similitude, how plausible soever it may appear to be to\nsome, is far from giving a just representation of the doctrine we are\nmaintaining: for when the magistrate is supposed to signify his desire\nthat the prisoner would set himself free, which he knows he cannot do;\nhereby it is intimated, that though God knows that the sinner cannot\nconvert himself, yet he commands him to do it, or to put forth\nsupernatural acts of grace, though he has no principle of grace in him:\nbut let it be considered, that this God no where commands any to do.[6]\nOur Saviour intends as much as this, when he speaks of the _tree\u2019s being\nmade good_, before the fruit it produces can be so, Matt. xii. 33. or\nthat it is impossible for _men to gather grapes of thorns, or figs of\nthistles_, chap. vii. 17. implying, that there must be an internal\ndisposition wrought, before any acts of grace can he put forth: this is\nsupposed in the preaching of the gospel, or the call to sinners to\nrepent and believe, which they have no reason to conclude that they can\ndo without the aids of divine grace, and these they are to wait, pray\nand hope for, in all God\u2019s instituted methods.\nMoreover, as for those promises which are made to us, if we would\nrelease ourselves from the chains of sin, and the account given, how\nmuch God would rejoice in our being set free, when the thing is, in\nitself, impossible; this is no otherwise true than as it contains a\ndeclaration of the connexion there is between conversion and salvation,\nor freedom from the slavery of sin, and God\u2019s conferring many spiritual\nhonours and privileges on those who are converted; not that it does, in\nthe least, denote that it is in our own power to convert ourselves: but\nthat this may be more clearly understood, we shall consider it with\nrelation to the two branches before mentioned, and so speak of God,\neither as commanding, calling, and inviting men to do what is out of\ntheir power, namely, to repent, and believe; or else, as holding forth\npromises of that salvation which they shall not attain; because these\ngraces are out of their power, which contains the substance of what is\nusually objected against the doctrine we are maintaining, by those who\nare on the other side of the question; who suppose that this method of\nprocedure is illusory, and therefore unbecoming the divine perfections.\nAnd,\n1. Concerning God\u2019s commanding, calling, and inviting men to do what is\nout of their own power; as for instance, bidding a dead man to arise, or\none that is blind to see, or those that are shut up in prison, to come\nout from thence. This is to be explained, and then, perhaps, the\ndoctrine we are maintaining, will appear to be less exceptionable. We\nhave, elsewhere, in defending the head of particular redemption, against\nan objection not much unlike to this, considered how Christ is said to\nbe offered in the gospel,[7] or in what sense the overture may be said\nto be made to all that are favoured with it; and yet the efficacy\nthereof, only extend to those whom Christ has redeemed, and shall be\neffectually called. But that we may a little farther explain this\nmatter, let us consider,\n(1.) That the gospel contains a declaration, that God designs to save a\npart of this miserable world; and, that in subserviency thereunto, he\nhas given them a discovery of Christ, as the object of faith, and the\npurchaser and author of salvation.\n(2.) He does not therein give the least intimation to any, while in a\nstate of unregeneracy, that they shall be enabled to believe: and, as\nthe consequence thereof, be saved. Their names, characters, or places of\nabode, or their natural embellishments, who shall attain this privilege,\nare no where pointed at in scripture; nor is the book of God\u2019s secret\npurpose, concerning election to eternal life, opened, so as that any one\ncan discern his name written in it, before he be effectually called; for\nwe have no warrant to look any farther than God\u2019s revealed will, which\nassigns no evidence of our interest in the saving blessings of the\ngospel, till they are experienced by us, in this effectual call.\n(3.) God plainly discovers to men, in the gospel, that all those graces,\nwhich are inseparably connected with salvation, are his work and gift,\nand consequently out of their own power; or that _it is not of him that\nwilleth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy_, Rom.\nix. 16. Therefore he no where tells the man, who _is tied and bound with\nthe chain of his sin_, that he is able to set himself free; but puts him\nupon expecting and praying for it, from the _pitifulness of his great\nmercy_. He no where tells him, that he can implant a principle of\nspiritual life and grace in himself; or that he ought so much as to\nattempt to do any thing to atone for his sins, by his obedience and\nsufferings, but suggests the contrary, when he says, _Surely, shall one\nsay, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength_, Isa. xlv. 24.\n(4.) He gives none the least ground to expect, or lay claim to\nsalvation, till they believe; and as faith and salvation are both his\ngifts, he puts them upon seeking, and desiring them, in their respective\norder; first grace, and then glory.\n(5.) The gospel-call is designed to put men upon a diligent attendance\non the ordinances, as means of grace, and to leave the issue and success\nthereof to God, who _waits that he may be gracious_; that so his\nsovereignty may appear more eminently in the dispensing this privilege;\nand, in the mean time, assigns it as their duty to _wait for him_, chap.\nxxx. 18. And while we are engaged in this duty, we are to acknowledge,\nthat we have nothing that can give us any right to this privilege. So\nthat God might justly deny success to his ordinances. Nevertheless, if\nhe is pleased to give us, while we are attending on them, those earnest\ndesires of their being made effectual to our conversion and salvation,\nwe may conclude this to be a token for good, that he designs us some\nspecial advantage thereby; and we do not know but that even this desire\nof grace may be the beginning of the Spirit\u2019s saving work, and therefore\nan earnest of his carrying it on.\n(6.) When God commands persons, in the gospel, to do those things which\ncannot be performed without his special grace, he sometimes supposes\nthem, when he gives forth the command, to have a principle of spiritual\nlife and grace, which is, in effect to bid one that is made alive, to\nput forth living actions; which respect, more especially, the progress\nof grace after the work is begun; in which sense I understand those\nwords of the apostle, _Work out your salvation with fear and trembling;\nfor it is God which worketh; that is, hath wrought, in you both to will\nand to do, of his good pleasure_, Phil. ii. 12.\n2. If we consider the gospel as holding forth promises of salvation,\nwhen, at the same time, it is not in our power to exercise those graces\nthat accompany it; which gives farther occasion to those that except\nagainst the doctrine we are maintaining, to conclude, that it represents\nGod as offering those blessings which he does not design to bestow: This\nmay give us occasion to explain what we mean, when we consider salvation\nas offered in the gospel; whereby we understand nothing else but a\ndeclaration, that all who repent and believe, shall be saved; which\ncontains a character, or description of the persons who have ground to\nexpect this privilege: not that salvation is founded on dubious and\nuncertain conditions, which depend upon the power and liberty of our\nwill; or impossible conditions; as though God should say, if man will\nchange his own heart, and work faith, and all other graces in himself,\nthen he will save him: but all that we mean by it is, that those graces,\nwhich are inseparably connected with salvation, are to be waited for in\nour attendance on all God\u2019s ordinances, and when he is pleased to work\nthem, then we may conclude, that we have a right to the promise of\nsalvation. Thus concerning the gospel-call, what it is, how far it may\nbe improved by those who are destitute of special grace, and what is\nGod\u2019s design in giving it: we now proceed to consider,\n3. The issue and consequence thereof, as it is farther observed in this\nanswer, that many wilfully neglect, contemn, or refuse to comply with\nit, with respect to whom it is not made effectual to their salvation.\nThis appears from the report that Christ\u2019s disciples brought to him,\nconcerning the excuses that many made when called to come to the\nmarriage feast, in the parable: One pretended, that he had _bought a\npiece of ground, and must needs go see it_; and another, that he had\n_bought five yoke of oxen, and_ must _go to prove them_; and another\n_had married a wife, and_ therefore _could not come_. It is elsewhere\nsaid, that _they all made light of it, and went their ways; one to his\nfarm, another to his merchandise; and the remnant took his servants, and\nentreated them spitefully, and slew them_, Luke xiv. 18-20. compared\nwith Matt. xxii. 5, 6.\nAnd the prophet introduces our Saviour himself as complaining, _I have\nlaboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought_, Isa. xlix. 4, 5.\nAnd the reason hereof is, because Israel is _not gathered_; which words\nare to be understood in a comparative sense, as denoting the fewness of\nthose who complied with his gracious invitations, to come to him, or\nwere convinced, by the miracles which he wrought to confirm his\ndoctrine.\nThis is also farther evident, from the small number of those who are\neffectually prevailed upon under the gospel dispensation, which the\napostle calls _the grace of God that brings salvation, that hath\nappeared to all men, teaching them to deny all ungodliness and worldly\nlusts; and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present\nworld_. And also, from the great opposition and hatred, which many\nexpress to the person of Christ, who is the subject matter thereof;\nwhich the prophet not only relates, as what was observed in his day, but\nforetells, that in after-ages, a great part of mankind would not believe\nthe report made concerning him; but that he should be _despised and\nrejected of men_, who would _hide_, as it were, _their faces from him_,\nand _not esteem him_, Isa. liii. 1, 3. This is certainly the highest\ncontempt of the gospel; for it is an undervaluing the greatest\nprivileges, as though they were not worthy to be embraced, desired, or\nsought after; and inasmuch as this is wilful, arising from the enmity of\nthe will of man against God, and the method of salvation which he has\nprescribed therein, it has a tendency to provoke his wrath; so that\nbeing justly left in their unbelief, they will not come to Christ, that\nthey may have life. And as they are judicially left to themselves, they\ncontract a greater degree of alienation from, and averseness to God, and\nso never truly come to Jesus Christ; which is an awful and tremendous\nconsideration.\nThis is the consequence of it, with respect to those who have only this\ncommon call; and therefore we must not conclude, that it is sufficient\nto salvation, unless there be an internal effectual call; and what this\nis, will be considered under our next head; but before we enter thereon,\nit is necessary for us to enquire, whether all, at least, those who sit\nunder the sound of the gospel, have sufficient grace given them, so as\nthat, by their own conduct, without the internal powerful influences of\nthe Spirit, they may attain to salvation. This argument is much insisted\non by those who adhere to the Pelagian scheme; and therefore we cannot\nwholly pass it over: and for our setting this matter in a just light,\nlet it be considered; that every one must allow, that all who sit under\nthe sound of the gospel, have sufficient objective grace, or sufficient\nexternal means, to lead them in the way of salvation; for to deny this,\nwould be to deny that the gospel is a perfect rule of faith: this\ntherefore is allowed on both sides; and we think nothing more is\nintended, when God says, concerning the church of the Jews, _What could\nhave been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it_, Isa. v.\nBut the question is, whether there be a sufficiency of power, or ability\nin man; so that without the internal efficacious grace of God,\ndetermining and inclining the will, to make a right improvement of it,\nit may be sufficient to the salvation of those to whom it is given? This\nis what we cannot but deny. Now, that the external means of grace are\nnot rendered effectual to the salvation of all who are favoured with\nthem, is evident; because, as was but now observed, many neglect and\ncontemn the gospel: and as to others who improve it, so that the means\nof grace become effectual, it must be enquired; what it is that makes\nthem so? How comes it to pass, that the preaching thereof is styled, to\nsome, a savour of life, to others, a savour of death? The answer which\nthe Pelagians give to this, is, that they, in whom it is effectual,\nrender it so, by their improving the liberty of their will; so that they\nchoose what is represented in the gospel, as eligible, and refuse the\ncontrary. And if the question be asked, who maketh thee to differ from\nanother? they have, when disposed to speak agreeably to their own\nscheme, this answer ready at hand, I make myself to differ; that is as\nmuch as to say, I have a natural power of improving the means of grace,\nwithout having recourse to God for any farther assistance, in a\nsupernatural way.\nIt may easily be observed, that this supposition is greatly derogatory\nto the glory of God; and renders all dependance on him, both to will and\nto do, unnecessary: It supposes that we have sufficient ability to work\nthose graces in ourselves that accompany salvation; otherwise it is not\nsufficient to salvation; and therefore it is contrary to all those\nscriptures which speak of them as the work, or the effect of the\nexceeding greatness of the power of God: which leads us to consider,\n_Secondly_, The doctrine of effectual calling, as contained in the\nformer of the answers, which we are explaining; in which we may observe,\nI. The character of those who are effectually called antecedent\nthereunto. They have nothing that can recommend them to the divine\nfavour; for being considered as fallen, guilty creatures, they are not\nonly unable to make atonement for sin, but to do what is spiritually\ngood: thus the apostle represents them, _as without strength_, Rom. v.\n6. which is the immediate consequence of man\u2019s first apostacy from God;\nand universal experience, proves that we have a propensity to every\nthing that is evil, which daily increases: And to this we may add, that\nthe mind is blinded, the affections stupified, the will full of\nobstinacy, the conscience disposed to deal treacherously, whereby we\ndeceive ourselves; so that the whole soul is out of order. The apostle\nspeaks of man _by nature_, as _dead in trespasses and sins, walking\naccording to the course of this world, according to the prince of the\npower of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of\ndisobedience; having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh,\nfulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind_, Eph. ii. 1-3. And\nthe prophet speaks of the _heart_ of man, as being _deceitful above all\nthings, and desperately wicked_, Jer. xvii. 9. And the apostle describes\nsome as \u2018walking in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding\ndarkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance\nthat is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who being past\nfeeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all\nuncleanness with greediness,\u2019 Eph. iv. 17-19. and others, as being\n\u2018filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,\nmaliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity,\nwhisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,\ninventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding,\ncovenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful,\u2019\nRom. i. 29-31. This, indeed, is spoken of the Gentiles, who were\ndestitute of the means of grace, and had contracted greater degrees of\nimpiety than many others; but they, who are effectually called, would\nhave run into the same abominations, their natures being equally\ninclined thereunto, without preventing grace; as some of the church of\nCorinth are said to have done before their conversion, whom he speaks of\nas once having been \u2018unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,\neffeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves; covetous,\ndrunkards, revilers, extortioners,\u2019 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11. And elsewhere\nhe says, \u2018We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient,\ndeceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy,\nhateful, and hating one another,\u2019 Tit. iii. 3. And the obstinacy and\nperverseness of men, going on in a course of sin, is so great, that God\nreproves a professing people, by telling them, that _their neck was as\nan iron sinew, and their brow brass_, Isa. xlviii. 4. Thus they were,\nbefore he _refined_ and _chose_ some of _them, in the furnace of\naffliction_, ver. 10. From hence it evidently appears, that men are not\nnaturally inclined to comply with the gospel-call; but this is a\nprivilege conferred on them, when, by the Spirit, it is made effectual\nto their salvation.\n_Objec._ It is objected, to what has been said concerning persons being\ndead in sin, before they are effectually called; that that is no other\nthan a metaphorical expression; and therefore the sense thereof is not\nto be strained so far as to suppose from hence, that they are altogether\nwithout a power to do that which is spiritually good.\n_Answ._ When the state of men, before they are effectually called,\nis styled, a death in sin, which is a metaphorical expression, we\nmust suppose, that there is a sense affixed to it, which, in some\nrespects, is adapted to those ideas that we have of the word. If\nscripture-metaphors prove nothing, because the words are transferred\nfrom their literal sense to some other that is intended thereby, we\nshall be at the greatest loss to understand many important doctrines\ncontained in the sacred writings, which abound very much with such\nmodes of speaking. We do not suppose the metaphor to be extended so\nfar, as that a person, dead in sin, is incapable of acting, as\nthough he was a stock or a stone, the contrary to which is evident,\nfrom what has been before said concerning the power which they, who\nare in an unregenerate state, have of doing things materially good;\nbut we are now considering men as unable to do what is good in all\nits circumstances, which may render their actions the object of the\ndivine approbation, as agreeable to God\u2019s revealed will; and this,\nwe suppose, an unregenerate person is as unable to do, as a dead man\nis to put forth living actions; and the reason is, because he is\ndestitute of a supernatural principle of spiritual life. Scripture\nand experience, not only evince the weakness, blindness, and\ndisinclination of such, to what is good, but their averseness to it:\nSo that whatever we do, either in the beginning or progress of the\nlife of faith, must proceed from a renewed nature, or a supernatural\nprinciple implanted in the soul; which is sometimes called, a _new\nheart_, Ezek. xxxvi. 26. a _divine nature_, 2 Pet. i. 4. as well as\na quickening, or being raised from the dead. This leads us to\nconsider,\nII. The change that is wrought in this effectual calling, together with\nthe grounds we have to conclude, that it is a supernatural work, or, as\nit is styled in this answer, the work of God\u2019s almighty power and grace.\nThose whom we more especially oppose in this head of argument, are the\nPelagians, and others; who, though in some things they seem to recede\nfrom them, yet cannot support their cause without giving into their\nscheme, when treating on the subjects of free-will, nature and grace:\nthese all allow that there is a change made in conversion or effectual\ncalling; but they suppose that it is a change in man\u2019s natural temper\nand disposition, rather than what arises from a supernatural principle,\nwhich, according to them, consists in overcoming those habits of sin,\nwhich we have contracted, and acquiring habits of virtue, a ceasing to\ndo evil, and learning to do well; and that it is in their own power\nsupposing the concurrence of God as a God of nature, or at least, some\nsuperadded assistances, from the external dispensations of providence,\nwhich have an influence on the minds of men, to produce this change; by\nthis means they think that grace is first attained, and we disposed to\ncomply with the external call of the gospel, whereby it is rendered\neffectual.\nThey sometimes indeed, use the word conversion, and speak of the power\nand grace of God herein; and that they may not seem to detract from the\nglory thereof, they profess themselves to adore and magnify God as the\nauthor of this work; but all this amounts to no more than nature acting\nunder the influence of common providence. Something, indeed, they\nascribe to God; but much less than what we think the scripture does.\nThat which they ascribe to him therein, is,\n1. That he has made man an intelligent creature, having a power capable\nof choosing whatever seems advantageous, or refusing what appears to be\ndestructive to him; and in order hereunto, he is able to discern, what\nis his duty and interest; and when the will duly attends to these\ndictates of the understanding, it has a power inclining it to be\ninfluenced thereby, and embrace whatever overtures are made conducive to\nhis future happiness.\n2. Whereas the understanding and reasoning powers and faculties, are\noftentimes impaired and hindered, in their method of acting, by some\naccidental inconveniences of nature, such as the temperament of the\nbody, or those diseases which it is sometimes liable to, which affect\nthe mind; these God, by his powerful providence, removes, or fences\nagainst, that the work may go on successfully.\n3. Sometimes our outward circumstances in the world, give a different\nturn to our passions, and hinder us from entertaining any inclinations\nto religion; therefore, they suppose, that there is a farther hand of\nprovidence in ordering the various changes or conditions of life, as to\nwhat concerns the prosperous or adverse circumstances thereof, whereby a\nsanguine temper is changed to that which has more of a melancholy or\nthoughtful disposition in it, more inclined to be afraid of those sins\nthat are like to be prejudicial to him; an angry and choleric temper,\nchanged to another that has a greater mixture of meekness and humility;\nand whatever hinderance may arise from his conversing with those who\ntempt him to lay aside all thoughts about religion, or by loading it\nwith reproach, to make him ashamed to pretend to it, the providence of\nGod so orders circumstances and things, as to make them unacceptable to\nhim, or him disinclined to converse with them: by this means there\narises a congruity, as they call it, between men\u2019s natural dispositions\nand that grace which they are called, by the gospel, to exert, when they\nare persuaded to comply with it, without which the overture would be in\nvain.\n4. Providence farther performs its part, by over-ruling some concurring\ncircumstances external to, and thought of, by him, in casting his lot\namong those who are able and desirous to persuade him to alter his\nsentiments, in matters of religion whose industry and zeal for his good,\naccompanied with their skilfulness in managing those persuasive\narguments used to convince him, have a great tendency to prevail upon\nhim; hereby he is persuaded to give the hearing to that which before he\ndespised, and made the subject of ridicule; and sometimes the motives\nand inducements that are used, accompanied with the pathetic way of\naddress, in those whose ministry he attends on, is very conducive to\nanswer the end attained thereby, namely, his conviction and altering his\nconduct of life, pursuant thereunto; all which is under the unforeseen\ndirection of providence.\n5. They add, that there is a kind of internal work in exciting the\npassions, by a general influence upon them, leaving it, notwithstanding,\nin man\u2019s power to determine them, with respect to their proper objects;\nand as for the will, that still remains free and unbiassed; but by this\nmoral suasion, or these rational arguments, it is prevailed upon to\ncomply with that which is for its advantage. According to this method of\naccounting for the work of conversion, what they attribute to the grace\nof God, is nothing more than what is the result of common providence;\nand it is supposed to act no otherwise than in an objective way; and\nthat which gives the turn to all is, the influence of moral suasion,\nwhereby men are prevailed on; but in all these respects, they are only\nbeholden to God, as the God of nature: and when this is called, by them,\na display of divine grace, nature and grace, in this matter, are made to\nsignify the same thing, without scripture warrant.\nMoreover, since, it is plain, all this may be done, and yet persons\nremain in an unconverted state, and the gospel-call be ineffectual, they\nsuppose there is something to be performed on man\u2019s part, which gives a\nsanction to, and completes the work: accordingly he must rightly use and\nimprove the power of reasoning, which God has given him, by diligently\nobserving and attending to his law; and he must persuade himself, that\nit is highly reasonable to obey it; and must also duly weigh the\nconsequence of his compliance or refusal, and endeavour to affect\nhimself with the consideration of promised rewards and punishments, to\nexcite his diligence, or awaken his fears; and must make use of those\nmotives that are proper to induce him to lead a virtuous life; and when\nhe is brought to conclude this most eligible, then he must add hereunto,\nthe force of the strongest resolutions, to avoid occasions of sin,\nperform several necessary duties, and associate himself with those whose\nconversation and example may induce him to be virtuous; he must attend\non the word preached, with intenseness of thought, and a disposition to\nadhere, with the greatest impartiality, to what is recommended to him\ntherein, as conducive to his future happiness: by this means he is\npersuaded; and from thence proceed those acts of grace, which\nafterwards, by being frequently repeated, arrive to a habit, which, if\nit be not lost by negligence, stupidity, and impenitency, or adhering to\nthe temptations of Satan, being brought into a state of conversion, he\nis in a fair way to heaven, which, notwithstanding this, he may of by\napostasy, since the work is to be carried on by him, as it was at first\nbegun, by his own conduct.\nThis account of effectual calling or conversion, supposes it to be\nlittle more than a work of common providence; and all the grace they\nseem to own, is nothing more than nature exerting itself under the\nconduct of those reasoning powers which God has given it. None pretend\nto deny that our reasoning powers are herein to be exerted and improved;\nor that those arguments, which tend to give conviction, and motives to\nenforce obedience, must be duly attended to: neither do we deny that\nthere is a kind hand of providence seen in over-ruling our natural\ntempers and dispositions, in giving a check to that corruption that is\nprevalent in us; and in rendering our condition of life, some way or\nother conducive to a farther work, which God designs to bring about. We\nalso assert, that providence greatly favours us in bringing us under the\nmeans of grace, or casting our lot in such places where we have the\nadvantages of the conversation and example of others, who are burning\nand shining lights in their generation; nor is it less seen in adapting\na suitable word to our condition, or in raising our affections, while\nattending to it: but all this falls very short of effectual calling, as\nit is a display of God\u2019s power and grace. This work is no more than\nnatural; whereas conversion is a supernatural work. Hitherto we may be\nled by common grace; but effectual calling is a work of special grace;\nthe effect of this is only a change of life: but we assert, and have\nscripture ground for it, that there is in that a change of heart. This\nscheme supposes the very principle and spring of grace to be acquired by\nman\u2019s improving his natural powers, under the conduct of God\u2019s\nprovidence: whereas, we suppose, and shall endeavour to prove, under a\nfollowing head, that it is not acquired, but infused, and is the effect\nof divine power. This supposes the work to be brought about by moral\nsuasion; and that the understanding, taking in the arguments that are\nmade use of in an objective way, the will is induced to compliance, by\nchoosing that which is good, and refusing that which is evil: whereas,\nwe assert, that the will of man is bowed and subjected to Christ, its\nenmity overcome; and accordingly we are said to be made willing in the\nday of his power.\nBut since that which bears the greatest share in this work, according to\nthem, is the will and power of man, determining itself, by proper\nmotives and arguments, to what is good; which supposes, that it acts\nfreely therein. This may give us occasion to consider the nature of\nhuman liberty; we do not deny, in general, that man is endowed with a\nfree will, which exerts itself in things of a lower nature, to that\nwhich we are speaking of, for this is as evident, as that he is endowed\nwith an understanding: we shall therefore, in speaking concerning the\nliberty of the will of man, (1.) Consider what are the essential\nproperties of liberty,[8] without which, an action would cease to be\nfree. And, (2.) How far the power of man\u2019s free-will may be extended,\nwith a particular view to the matter, under our present consideration.\n1. Concerning the nature and essential properties of human liberty.\nThey, whose sentiments of free-will and grace we are opposing, suppose\nthat it is essential to a free action, or otherwise it could not be\ndenominated free, that it be performed with indifferency, that is, that\nthe will of man should be so equally poised, that as it determines\nitself to one extreme, it might as well have determined itself to the\nother: therefore, he that loves God freely, might, by a determination of\nhis will, as well have inclined himself to hate him; and on the other\nhand, he that hates God, might, by an act of his will, have determined\nhimself to love him: the balance is supposed to be equal, and it is the\nmethod that the person uses to determine his will, that gives a turn to\nit. And from hence they infer, that they who persevere in grace, which\nthey do freely, may, for the same reason, apostatize; yea, they proceed\nfarther, at least some of them, who have maintained, that our Saviour\nmight have sinned, and consequently the work of our redemption have\nmiscarried in his hands; because, according to this notion of liberty,\nhe acted freely in all those exercises of grace; which, we suppose, were\nno less free, because they were necessary; and also, from this account\nthey give of liberty, they infer that the angels and glorified saints\nmight sin, and so lose that state of blessedness, which they are\npossessed of; otherwise their obedience is not free; which absurdities\nare so apparently gross, that they who duly weigh them, will not easily\ngive into this notion of liberty. And there is another absurdity, which\nthe Pelagians dare not assert; for it would be the greatest blasphemy\nthat could be contained in words, though it equally flows from this\nmethod of explaining the nature of liberty; that either God must not act\nfreely, or else he might act the contrary, with respect to those things\nin which he acts, like himself, as a God of infinite perfection; and\naccordingly, if he loves or delights in himself freely, or designs his\nown glory, as the highest end of all that he does, and uses means to\nbring about those ends which are most conducive thereunto; wherein his\nholiness, wisdom, justice, and faithfulness appear, I say, it will\nfollow from their scheme, and I cannot but tremble to mention it, that\nhe might do the contrary; and what is this but to say, that he might\ncease to be God.\nThe arguments which they who attempt to support this notion of liberty,\ninsist on, are taken from the ideas which we generally have of a\nperson\u2019s acting freely; as for instance, if a man performs any of the\ncommon actions of life, such as walking, sitting, standing, reading,\nwriting, &c. freely, he may do the contrary.\nBut to this I answer, That there is a vast difference between asserting,\nthat many of the actions of life are arbitrary or indifferent, so that\nwe might do the contrary; and saying that indifferency is essential to\nliberty; for that which is essential to an action must belong to every\nindividual action of the same kind.[9] Thus concerning their notion of\nliberty, whom we oppose.\nBut on the other hand, that which we acquiesce in, is, that its\nessential property or nature, consists in a person\u2019s doing a thing\nwithout being laid under a natural necessity to do it;[10] or doing it\nof his own accord, without any force laid on him.[11] Others express it\nby a person\u2019s doing a thing out of choice, as having the highest reason\nto determine him so to do.[12] This is that notion of liberty which we\ncannot but approve of; and we are now to shew,\n(2.) How far the power of man\u2019s free-will may be extended, with a\nparticular view to the matter under our present consideration. Here let\nit be observed,\n_1st_, That the power of man\u2019s will extends itself to things, within its\nown sphere, and not above it; all actions and powers of acting, are\ncontained within certain limits, agreeable to the nature and capacity of\nthe agent. Creatures below man, cannot put forth rational actions: and\nman cannot put forth supernatural actions, if he be not made partaker of\na divine or spiritual nature, as being endowed with a supernatural\nprinciple, such as that which is implanted in regeneration. Consider him\nas an intelligent creature, and it is agreeable to his nature to put\nforth free actions, under the conduct and direction of the\nunderstanding; but if we consider him as renewed, converted, or\neffectually called, and acting agreeably thereunto, then he is under the\ninfluence of an higher principle, which I call a _divine nature_,\naccording to the phrase which the apostle uses, 2 Pet. i. 4. The former\nof these supposes no more than the concourse of common providence, which\nat first gave, and then maintains our reasoning faculties; whereas the\nlatter supposes, that we are under the influence of the Spirit; whereby\nwe are enabled to act in a supernatural way, our natures being renewed\nand disposed thereunto, in which we are not divested of the liberty of\nour wills; but they are improved and enabled, to do what before they\nwere averse and disinclined to.\nThat man acts freely in those things which are agreeable to his nature,\nas an intelligent creature, all will allow. Moreover, we consider the\nunderstanding and will, as both concurring in actions that are free, and\nthat one of these is subservient to the other; as for instance, we\ncannot be said to desire, delight in, choose, or refuse a thing unless\nwe have some idea of it, as an object, which we apprehend meet to be\ndesired or rejected.\nAnd if it be farther enquired, Whether the will has, in itself, a power\nto follow the dictates of the understanding, in things that are\nagreeable to our nature, and be generally disposed to do it, unless\nbiassed by the passions, inclining and determining it another way? This,\nI think, is not to be denied; but in our present argument, we are to\nconsider the will of man as conversant about things supernatural, and\naccordingly, must give a different account of Christian liberty, from\nthat which is merely human, as before described. The Pelagians will\nallow what has been said concerning the nature of liberty in general;\nbut the difference between us and them is, that we confine it within its\nown sphere; whereas they extend it farther, and apply it to\nregeneration, effectual calling, and conversion; in which respect it\ndiscovers itself no otherwise than as enslaved to, or a servant of\nsin;[13] and the powers and faculties of the soul, with relation\nhereunto, are weakened by the prevalency of corruption, so that we are\nnot able to put forth those actions which proceed from, and determine a\nperson to be _renewed in the spirit of his mind_; or to have _put on the\nnew man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness_.\nAgain, if it be farther enquired; whether the will necessarily follows\nthe dictates of the understanding, so that the grace of God takes its\nfirst rise from thence? that which I would say in answer thereunto is,\nThat the understanding, indeed, represents things spiritual and heavenly\nto us, as good and desirable, and worthy of all acceptation; and gives\nus an undeniable conviction, that all the motives used in scripture, to\nchoose and embrace them, are highly probable; but yet it does not follow\nfrom hence, that the will of man is always overcome thereby;[14] and the\nreason is, because of that strong propensity and inclination that there\nis in corrupt nature to sin, which bids defiance to all those arguments\nand persuasions that are used to the contrary, till we are brought under\nthe influence of a supernatural principle, implanted in the soul in\neffectual calling.\nAnd this leads us farther to enquire: Whether, supposing a man has this\nprinciple implanted in effectual calling, he then acts freely; or, what\nis the liberty of man\u2019s will, when internally moved and influenced by\ndivine grace? In answer to which, we must consider, that special grace\ndoes not destroy, but improve the liberty of man\u2019s will: when there is a\nnew nature implanted in him, it discovers its energy, and makes a change\nin all the powers and faculties of the soul; there is a new light\nshining in the understanding, vastly different from, and superior to\nthat which it had before; and it may truly be called, _The light of\nlife_, John viii. 12. not only as it leads to eternal life; but as it\nproceeds from a principle of spiritual life: and this is what we\ngenerally call _saving knowledge_; as it is said, _This is life eternal,\nthat they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom\nthou hast sent_, chap. xvii. 13. Now this light in the understanding,\nbeing attended with power in the will, it is hereby induced to comply\nwith its dictates, not barely as being prevailed on by rational\narguments, but as there is a divine power accompanying them; it is not\nindeed prevailed on without arguments; for the Spirit makes use of the\nword to persuade, as well as to direct; though we do not, with the\nPelagians, say, that the will is overcome only by arguments, as though\nthe victory was owing to our power of reasoning; yet we freely own, that\nwe act with judgment, and see the highest reason for what we do: we are\nenabled to use our reasoning powers indeed; but these are sanctified by\nthe Spirit, as well as the will renewed; and both concur together, in\norder to our receiving and improving the doctrines contained in the\ngospel; and the Spirit of God also removes those rooted prejudices which\nwe had entertained against the way of salvation by Christ: so that upon\nthe whole, the gospel has its use, as it directs and excites our faith:\nour reasoning powers and faculties have their use also, as we take in,\nand are convinced, by what is therein contained; all this would be to no\npurpose, if there were not a superior power determining the will to a\nthorough compliance therewith. We do not deny that moral suasion\noftentimes has a tendency to incline a man to the performance of moral\nduties; but it is what I rather choose to call evangelical persuasion,\nor the Spirit of God setting home upon the heart and conscience, what is\ncontained in the gospel, that makes it effectual to salvation.[15] Thus\nconcerning the nature and extent of human liberty; but inasmuch as this\nis not to be assigned as that which renders the gospel-call effectual,\nlet it be farther considered,\nIII. That this is brought about by the almighty power of God, as it is\nobserved in this answer, that it is a work of God\u2019s almighty power and\ngrace: this is that which enhances the excellency and glory of it, above\nall the works of common providence: however, when we say that it is a\ndivine work, this is hardly sufficient to distinguish it from what the\nPelagians often call it, by which they intend nothing more, than the\npowerful work of God, as the God of nature and providence; therefore we\nmust farther consider it as a work of divine power, exerting itself in a\nsupernatural way and not only excluding the agency of creatures, as\nbearing a part therein, but as opposed to those works which are brought\nabout by the moral influence of persuasive arguments, without any change\nwrought in the will of man; in this sense we understand effectual\ncalling to be a work of God\u2019s almighty power.\nAnd that this may appear, let it be premised, that it is not\ninconsistent with God\u2019s dealing with men as intelligent creatures,\nendowed with liberty of will, for him to exert this power, since special\nprovidence, or efficacious grace, does no more destroy man\u2019s natural\npowers, by its internal influence, enabling and exciting them to do what\nis supernaturally good, than common providence\u2019s being conversant about\nthe free actions of men, makes them cease to be free; only the former\nexerts itself in a different and superior way, producing effects much\nmore glorious and excellent.\nThis being supposed, we shall, without pretending fully to explain the\nmanner of the divine agency, which is principally known by its effects,\nendeavour to shew,\n1. That effectual calling is, in a way of eminency, the work of divine\npower as distinguished from other works, which are, in their kind, the\neffects of power in a natural way.\n2. We shall also observe what effects are produced thereby, and in what\norder.\n3. Consider it, as it is, in a peculiar manner, attributed to the Spirit\nof God; and also shew, that it is a wonderful instance of his grace.\n4. We shall consider this divine power as irresistible, and consequently\nsuch as cannot but be effectual to produce what is designed to be\nbrought about thereby. And,\n5. Speak something concerning the season in which this is done, which is\ncalled God\u2019s accepted time.\n1. Effectual calling is eminently a work of divine power; for the proof\nhereof, we have not only many express texts of scripture that\nsufficiently establish it, but we may appeal to the experience of those\nwho are made partakers of this grace. If they compare their former and\npresent state together, they may easily perceive in themselves, that\nthere is such a change wrought in them, as is contrary to the\ninclinations of corrupt nature; whereby the stubbornness and obstinacy\nof their wills have been subdued, and such effects produced in them, as\nthey never experienced before; and the manner of their production, as\nwell as the consequences thereof, give them a proof of the agency of God\nherein, and the glory of his power exerted, so that they who deny it\nmust be unacquainted with themselves, or not duly observe that which\ncarries its own evidence with it.[16]\nBut we shall principally take our proofs from scripture, in which we\nhave an account of the beginning of this work, which is styled the new\nbirth; wherein we are said to be made _partakers of the divine nature_,\n2 Pet. i. 4. that is, a nature that is produced by divine power; and we\nare said to be _born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of\nthe will of man, but of God_, John i. 13. And the gospel, which is the\ninstrument that he makes use of in calling effectually, is styled, _The\nrod of his strength_, Psal. cx. 2. the effect thereof, ascribed to the\n_revelation of his arm_, Isa. liii. 1. the season in which this is done,\nis called, _The day of his power_, Psal. cx. 3. and it is, by a\nmetonymy, called, _His power_, 1 Cor. i. 18. Rom. i. 16. The cross of\nChrist is also, when preached, and made effectual for the answering this\nvaluable end, styled, The _power of God_, 1 Cor. i. 24. Moreover, the\nprogress of this work is ascribed to the _power of God_, 1 Thess. i. 5.\nit is this that _keeps_ those who are effectually called _through faith\nunto salvation_, 1 Pet. i. 5. And that this power may appear to be\nextraordinary, the apostle uses an uncommon emphasis of expression, when\nhe calls it, _The exceeding greatness of his power_, and, _the working\nof his mighty power_, Eph. i. 19, 20. which words[17] can hardly be\ntranslated without losing something of their force and beauty; and,\nindeed, there is not an expression used in scripture, to signify the\nefficacy of divine power, that exceeds, or, I may say, that equals them.\nAnd that it may appear more strong, the apostle, in the following words,\nrepresents it as being no less than _that power which wrought in Christ,\nwhen God raised him from the dead_.\nAnd to all this let me add, that something to the same purpose may be\ninferred from those metaphorical expressions, by which it is set forth,\nas it is called a _creation_: thus, when we are made partakers of this\nprivilege, we are said to _be created in righteousness and true\nholiness_, Eph. iv. 24. And the apostle seems to compare this with the\ncreation of man at first, after the image of God, which consisted\nprincipally in righteousness and true holiness, and accordingly\nconsiders this image as restored, when a principle of grace is\nimplanted, whereby we are again disposed to the exercise of\nrighteousness and holiness: and elsewhere he says, _We are his\nworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, that we should\nwalk in them_, chap. ii. 16. where he supposes, that this creating power\nmust be exerted before we can put forth good works; and therefore it can\nbe nothing less than the power of God; and it would not have been styled\na _creation_, if it had not been a supernatural work, and therefore it\nis, in that respect, more glorious than many other effects of the divine\npower.\nIt is also styled, _a resurrection from the dead_: thus the apostle\nsays, _You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins_,\nchap. ii. 1, 5. in this respect it certainly exceeds the power of men. A\nphysician, by his skill, may mend a crazy constitution, or recover it\nfrom the confines of death; but, to raise the dead, exceeds the limits\nof finite power. This mode of speaking our Saviour makes use of to\nsignify the conversion or effectual call of sinners, when he says, _The\nhour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the\nSon of God; and they that hear shall live_, John v. 25. He had, in the\nforegoing verse been speaking of their _having eternal life_, and _not\ncoming into condemnation, and being passed from death to life_, who hear\nhis words and believe; and then it follows, that _the hour is coming_,\nthat is, the time is near at hand, to wit, when the Spirit shall be\npoured forth, and the gospel-dispensation be begun, and it _now is_, in\nsome degree, namely, in those who were converted by his ministry, _when\nthe dead shall hear his voice and live_, or pass from a state of\nspiritual death to life, as a means for their attaining eternal life.\nThis is much more agreeable to the context, than to conclude, as some\ndo, to evade the force of this argument; that our Saviour speaks\nconcerning some who were then, or should hereafter be raised from the\ndead, in a miraculous manner; which, they suppose, contains the sense of\nthe words, _now is_, and that _the hour is coming_, refers to the\ngeneral resurrection; but this seems not to be the sense of the text;\nbecause our Saviour supposes them, in a following verse, to be\nastonished at this doctrine; as though it was too great an instance of\npower for him to implant a principle of spiritual life in dead sinners;\nand therefore he proves his assertion from his raising the dead at the\nlast day: _Marvel not, for the hour is coming_, that is, at the end of\nthe world, _when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice_,\nJohn v. 28. This cannot well agree with the sense before given, of\nChrist\u2019s raising the dead, as referring to the general resurrection; for\nthat would be to answer their objection, or put a stop to their wonder\nat what he had said concerning it, by asserting the same thing in other\nwords; whereas, if you suppose the dead\u2019s _hearing his voice_, to imply\na spiritual resurrection; and _the dead raised out of their graves_, to\nbe an argument to convince them that his power was sufficient to bring\nabout this great effect; there is much more beauty in the expression,\nand strength in the reasoning, than to take it otherwise.\nThis is so plain a proof of the argument, we are endeavouring to defend,\nthat nothing farther need be added: however, I cannot but mention\nanother scripture, in which our Saviour says, that _no one can come to\nhim, except the Father draw him_, chap. vi. 44. where Christ, by _coming\nto him_, does not mean attending on his ministry, which did not require\nany power to induce them to it; but _believing on him_, so as to _have\neverlasting life_, in which sense, _coming to him_, is often taken in\nthe gospels, ver. 47. and this is the immediate consequence of effectual\ncalling. Now when our Saviour says, that _none can_ thus _come to him_,\nwithout being _drawn by the Father_, we may understand what he means\nhere, by what is said in a following verse, namely, their being _taught\nof God_, and having _heard and learned of the Father_, ver. 45. such,\nsays he, _Come unto me_. Now this _teaching_ certainly implies more than\ngiving a rule of faith contained in divine revelation, for Christ is not\nhere proving the necessity of divine revelation, as elsewhere; but is\nspeaking concerning the saving efficacy thereof; and none can deny that\nmany have been objectively taught, and instructed by the word, who have\nnot come to Christ, or believed in him to everlasting life: the words\nare a quotation from the prophets, to which he refers; who intimate,\nthat they should be _all taught of God_; which certainly implies more\nthan an objective teaching and instructing; for in this sense, they,\nhaving divine revelation, were always taught of God: and it is a special\nprivilege, which the prophet Isaiah mentions, when he foretels this\nmatter, as appears by his connecting it with that great peace which they\nshould have, or the confluence of saving blessings, which should attend\nit, Isa. liv. 13. And the prophet Jeremiah, who speaks to the same\npurpose, says, _They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and\nevery man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for they shall all know me\nfrom the least of them, even to the greatest_, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. that\nis, they shall not only have an objective revelation, or that which some\ncall moral suasion; but this shall be made effectual to their salvation;\nand in order thereunto, God promises that he would _put his law in the\ninward part, and write it in the heart_; and elsewhere, to _give_ them\n_a new heart_, and to _put a new spirit within them_, and hereby to\n_cause them to walk in his statutes_, Ezek. xxxvi. 26. So that it is not\nbarely a rectifying some mistakes which they were liable to; but\nproducing in them something, which they had not before; not building\nupon the old foundation, but laying a new one, and so working a change\nin the powers and faculties of the soul; and as they were before,\nobdurate and hardened in sin, he promises to _take away the heart of\nstone, and give them an heart of flesh_; and by his _word_, which is\ncompared to an _hammer, to break the rock in pieces_, Jer. xxiii. 29.\nThis is certainly a work of power; but that it is so, will farther\nappear from what follows, in considering the work itself; which leads us\nto shew,\n2. What effects are produced by the power of God, when we are thus\ncalled.\n(1.) The first step that he is pleased to take in this work, is in his\nimplanting a principle of spiritual life and grace, which is absolutely\nnecessary for our attaining to, or receiving advantage by the external\ncall of the gospel; this is generally styled regeneration, or the new\nbirth; or, as in the scripture but now referred to, a _new heart_.\nIf it be enquired, What we are to understand by this principle? We\nanswer, that since principles are only known by the effects which they\nproduce; springs of acting, by the actions themselves, we must be\ncontent with this description; that it is something wrought in the heart\nof man, whereby he is habitually and prevailingly biassed and inclined\nto what is good: so that by virtue hereof, he freely, readily, and\nwillingly chooses those things which tend to the glory of God; and\nrefuses, abhors, and flees from what is contrary thereunto; and, as this\nmore immediately affects the understanding, whereby it is enabled to\ndiscern the things which God reveals in the gospel in a spiritual way,\nit is styled, his _shining in the heart_, 2 Cor. iv. 6. _to give us the\nlight of the knowledge of his glory_, or, his giving _an eye to see, and\nan ear to hear_, Deut. xxix. 4. As it respects the will, it contains in\nit a power, whereby it is disposed and enabled to yield the obedience of\nfaith, to whatever God is pleased to reveal to us as a rule of duty, so\nthat we are made willing in the day of his power; and, as it respects\nthe affections, they are all inclined to run in a right channel, to\ndesire, delight and rejoice in every thing that is pleasing to God, and\nflee from every thing that is provoking to him. This is that whereby a\ndead sinner is made alive, and so enabled to put forth living actions.\nConcerning this principle of grace let it be observed, that it is\ninfused and not acquired. The first principle or spring of good actions,\nmay, with equal reason, be supposed to be infused into us, as\nChristians, as it is undoubtedly true, that the principle of reasoning\nis infused into us as men: none ever supposed that the natural power of\nreasoning may be acquired, though a greater facility or degree thereof\nis gradually attained; so that power, whereby we are enabled to put\nforth supernatural acts of grace, must be supposed to be implanted in\nus; which, were it acquired, we could not, properly speaking, be said to\nbe born of God.\nFrom hence I am obliged to infer, that the regenerating act, or\nimplanting this principle[18] of grace, which is, at least, in order of\nnature, antecedent to any act of grace, put forth by us, is the\nimmediate effect of the power of God, which none who speak of\nregeneration as a divine work, pretend to deny: and therefore, I cannot\nbut conclude, that it is wrought in us without the instrumentality of\nthe word, or any of the ordinary means of grace: my reason for it is\nthis; because it is necessary, from the nature of the thing, to our\nreceiving, improving, or reaping any saving advantage by the word, that\nthe Spirit should produce the principle of faith; and to say, that this\nis done by the word, is in effect, to assert that the word produces the\nprinciple, and the principle gives efficacy to the word; which seems to\nme little less than arguing in a circle. The word cannot profit, unless\nit be mixed with faith; and faith cannot be put forth, unless it\nproceeds from a principle of grace implanted; therefore this principle\nof grace is not produced by it: we may as well suppose, that the\npresenting a beautiful picture before a man that is blind, can enable\nhim to see; or the violent motion of a withered hand, produce strength\nfor action, as we can suppose that the presenting the word in an\nobjective way, is the instrument whereby God produces that internal\nprinciple, by which we are enabled to embrace it. Neither would this so\nwell agree with the idea of its being a new creature, or our being\n_created unto good works_; for then it ought rather to be said, we are\ncreated by faith, which is a good work: this is, in effect, to say, that\nthe principle of grace is produced by the instrumentality of that which\nsupposes its being implanted, and is the result and consequence thereof.\nI am sorry that I am obliged, in this assertion, to appear, at least, to\noppose what has been maintained by many divines of great worth; who\nhave, in all other respects, explained the doctrine of regeneration,\nagreeably to the mind and will of God, and the analogy of faith.[19] It\nmay be, the principal difference between this explication and theirs is,\nthat they speak of regeneration in a large sense, as including in it,\nnot barely the implanting the principle, but the exciting it, and do not\nsufficiently distinguish between the principle, as implanted and deduced\ninto act; for, I readily own, that the latter is by the instrumentality\nof the word, though I cannot think the former so; or, it may be, they\nconsider the principle as exerted: whereas I consider it as created, or\nwrought in us; and therefore can no more conclude, that the new creation\nis wrought by an instrument, than I can, that the first creation of all\nthings was.\nAnd I am ready to conjecture, that that which leads many divines into\nthis way of thinking, is the sense in which they understand the words of\nthe apostle; _Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of\nincorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever_, 1\nPet. i. 23. and elsewhere, _Of his own will begat he us with the word of\ntruth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures_, James\ni. 16. Whereas this does not so much respect the implanting the\nprinciple of grace, as it does our being enabled to act from that\nprinciple; and it is as though he should say, he hath made us believers,\nor induced us to love and obey Him by the word of truth, which supposes\na principle of grace to have been implanted: otherwise the word of truth\nwould never have produced these effects. Regeneration may be taken, not\nonly for our being made alive to God, or created unto good works, but\nfor our putting forth living actions, proceeding from that principle\nwhich is implanted in the soul. I am far from denying, that faith, and\nall other graces, are wrought in us by the instrumentality of the word;\nand it is in this sense that some, who treat on this subject, explain\ntheir sentiments, when they speak of being born again by the word:\ntherefore I persuade myself, that I differ from them only in the\nacceptation of words, and not in the main substance of the doctrine they\nmaintain.[20]\n(2.) The principle of grace being implanted, the acts of grace in those\nwho are adult, immediately ensue; which implies a change of our\nbehaviour, a renovation of our lives and actions; which may properly be\ncalled conversion.\nHaving explained what we mean by regeneration, under our last head, it\nis necessary, in this, to consider how it differs from conversion; in\nwhich I shall take leave to transcribe a few passages from that\nexcellent divine, but now mentioned. \u201cRegeneration is a spiritual\nchange; conversion is a spiritual motion; in regeneration there is a\npower conferred; conversion is the exercise of this power; in\nregeneration there is given us a principle to turn; conversion is our\nactual turning: in the covenant, the new heart, and God\u2019s putting the\nSpirit into them, is distinguished from their walking in his statutes,\nfrom the first step we take, in the way of God, and is set down as the\ncause of our motion: in renewing us, God gives us a power; in converting\nus, he excites that power. Men are naturally dead, and have a stone upon\nthem; regeneration is a rolling away the stone from the heart, and a\nraising to newness of life; and then conversion is as natural to a\nregenerate man, as motion is to a lively body: a principle of activity\nwill produce action. The first reviving us is wholly the act of God,\nwithout any concurrence of the creature; but, after we are revived, we\ndo actively and voluntarily live in his sight. Regeneration is the\nmotion of God in the creature; conversion is the motion of the creature\nto God, by virtue of that first principle; from this principle all the\nacts of believing, repenting, mortifying, quickening, do spring. In all\nthese a man is active; in the other, he is merely passive.\u201d[21] This is\nwhat we may call the second step, which God takes in effectual calling;\nand it is brought about by the instrumentality of the word. The word\nbefore this, was preached to little or no purpose; or, it may be, was\ndespised, rejected, and disregarded; but now a man is enabled to see a\nbeauty, and a glory in it, all the powers and faculties of the soul,\nbeing under the influence of that spiritual life implanted in\nregeneration, and inclined to yield a ready and cheerful obedience to\nit; and this work is gradual and progressive; and as such, it is called\nthe work of sanctification; of which more under a following answer,[22]\nand is attended with repentance unto life, and all other graces that\naccompany salvation; and in this respect we are drawn to Christ by his\nword and Spirit, or by his Spirit making use of his word, our minds\nsavingly enlightened, our wills renewed, and determined to what is good,\nso that hereby we are made willing and able freely to answer the call of\nGod, and to accept of, and embrace the grace offered and conveyed\ntherein; as it is expressed in the answer we are explaining.\nThe first thing in which that change, which is wrought in effectual\ncalling, manifests itself is, in our understandings\u2019 being enlightened\nto receive the truths revealed to us in the word of God; and accordingly\nwe see things with a new and different light; behold a greater beauty,\nexcellency and glory in divine things, than ever we did before: we are\nalso led into ourselves, and convinced of sin and misery, concluding\nourselves, by nature, to be in a lost and undone condition; and then the\nsoul sees the glory of Christ, the greatness of his love, who came to\nseek and save those that were lost, who is now precious to him, as he is\nsaid to be to them that believe; and pursuant hereunto the will, being\ndetermined, or enabled so to do, by the Spirit of God exciting the\nprinciple of grace, which he had implanted, accepts of him on his own\nterms; the affections all centre in, and desire to derive all spiritual\nblessings from him; Thus the work of grace is begun in effectual\ncalling, which is afterwards carried on in sanctification.\nAnd inasmuch as we are considering the beginning of the work of grace in\neffectual calling, I cannot but take notice of a question, which\nfrequently occurs under this head, namely, Whether man, in the first\nmoment thereof, _viz._ in regeneration, be merely passive, though active\nin every thing that follows after it? This we cannot but affirm, not\nonly against the Pelagians, but others, whose method of treating the\ndoctrine of divine grace, seems to agree with theirs. And here, that we\nmay obviate a popular objection, usually brought against our assertion,\nas though hereby we argued, that God dealt with men as though they were\nmachines, and not endowed with understanding or will let it be observed;\nthat we consider the subjects of this grace no otherwise than as\nintelligent creatures, capable of being externally excited and disposed\nto what is good; or else God would never work this principle in them.\nNor do we suppose, however men are said to be passive in the first\nmoment in which this principle is implanted, that they are so\nafterwards, but are enabled to act under the divine influence; even as\nwhen the soul of Adam was created at first, it could not be said to be\nactive in its own creation, and in the implanting those powers which\nwere concreate with it; yet it was active, or those powers exerted\nthemselves immediately after it was created. This is the state of the\nquestion we are now debating; and therefore we cannot but maintain, that\nmen do not concur to the implanting the principle of grace; for then\nthey would be active in being created unto good works; which are the\nresult, and not the cause of that power which is infused into them, in\norder thereunto.\nThis is sufficiently evident, not only from the impotency of corrupt\nnature, as to what is good, but its utter averseness thereunto, and from\nthe work\u2019s being truly and properly divine; or (as has been before\nobserved) the effect of almighty power. This is not a controversy of\nlate date; but has been either defended or opposed, ever since\nAugustine\u2019s and Pelagius\u2019s time. Many volumes have been written\nconcerning the aids and assistances of divine grace in the work of\nconversion. The School-men were divided in their sentiments about it, as\nthey adhered to, or receded from Augustine\u2019s doctrine: both sides seem\nto allow that the grace of God affords some assistance hereunto; but the\nmain thing in debate, is, Whether the grace of God only bears one part\nin this work, and the will of man the other; like two persons lifting at\nthe same burden, and carrying it between them. Some have allowed the\ndivine concourse as necessary hereunto, who yet have not been willing to\nown that man bears no part in this work; or, _that it is God that works\nin us, both to will and to do of his own good pleasure_, Phil. ii. 13.\nwhich, the apostle asserts in so plain terms, that the most known sense\nthereof, cannot well be evaded; and, indeed, were it otherwise, it could\nhardly be said, that _we are not sufficient of ourselves, to think any\nthing as of ourselves_; which, though it be immediately applied to\nministers, is certainly, by a parity of reason, applicable to all\nChristians, 2 Cor. iii. 5. nor would it be, in all respects, true, that\nwe are _born of God_; or, that we, who before were dead in sin, are\nraised to a spiritual life, or made, with respect to the principle of\nspiritual actions, new creatures; all which is done in regeneration.[23]\nWe might also take occasion, under this head, to observe, what we often\nmeet with in practical discourses and sermons, concerning preparatory\nworks, or previous dispositions, which facilitate and lead to the work\nof conversion. Some assert, that we must do what we can, and by using\nour reasoning powers and faculties, endeavour to convert, or turn\nourselves, and then God will do the rest, or finish the work which we\nhave begun: and here many things are often considered as the steps which\nmen may take in the reformation of their lives, the abstaining from\ngross enormities, which they may have been guilty of, thinking on their\nways, and observing the tendency of their present course of life, and\nsetting before themselves those proper arguments that may induce them to\nrepent and believe; and then they may be said to have prepared\nthemselves for the grace of God, so that it will ensue hereupon. And if\nthere be any thing remaining, which is out of their power, God has\nengaged to succeed their endeavours, so that he will bring them into a\nstate of regeneration and conversion.\nThis method of accounting for the work of grace, is liable to many\nexceptions, particularly as it supposes man to be the first mover in his\nown conversion, and the divine energy to be dependent upon our conduct;\nthe contrary to which, is not only agreeable to scripture, but the\ndivine perfections; as well as to the doctrine we have been maintaining,\nconcerning effectual calling\u2019s, being a divine work in the most proper\nsense thereof. But that we may impartially consider this matter, and\nset, what some call a preparatory work, in a just light, let it be\nobserved,\n1. That these preparatory works must either be considered as good in all\nthose circumstances that are necessary to denominate them good, and\nparticularly they must proceed from a good principle, that is to say, a\nprinciple of regeneration; or else they are only such works as are\nmaterially good, such many perform who are never brought into a state of\nconversion; or if, on the other hand, they are supposed to proceed from\nsuch a principle, then they are not, from the nature of the thing, works\npreparatory to the first grace, but rather consequent upon it.\n2. It is one thing for us to assert, that it is our duty to perform all\nthose works which some call preparatory, for conversion; such as\nmeditation, attendance on the ordinances, duly weighing those arguments,\nor motives, that should lead us to repentance, and the exercise of all\nother graces; and another thing to say, that every one who performs\nthese duties, shall certainly have regenerating grace; or, it is one\nthing to apply ourselves to the performance of those duties, as far as\nit is in our own power, and, at the same time, to wait, pray, and hope\nfor success to attend them; and another thing to assert, that it shall\nalways attend them, as though God had laid himself under an obligation\nto give special grace to those, who, in this respect, improve that which\nis common, the contrary whereunto may be observed in many instances. And\nwhen we have done all, we must conclude, that the grace of God, if he is\npleased to give success to our endeavours, is free and sovereign.\n3. They who say, That if we do all we can, God will do the rest, advance\nvery little to support their argument, since there is no one who can\npretend that he has done what he could: and may we not farther suppose,\nthat God, in a judicial way, as punishing us for the many sins we\ncommit, may deny this success: therefore, how can it be said, that it\nwill necessarily ensue.\n4. When we perform any of those duties, which some call preparatory to\nconversion, these are to be considered as the Spirit\u2019s preparing his own\nway thereby, rather than corrupt nature\u2019s preparing itself for grace. We\nare far from denying that there is a beautiful order in the divine\ndispensations; the Spirit of God first convinces of sin, and then shews\nthe convinced sinner where his help is to be had; and enables him to\nclose with Christ by faith. He first shews the soul its own corruption\nand nothingness, and then leads him to see Christ\u2019s fulness; or that all\nhis salvation is reposed in his hands, and enables him to believe in him\nto the saving the soul; one of these works, indeed, prepares the way for\nthe other: nevertheless, none of them can be said to prepare the way for\nregeneration, which is the work of the Spirit of God; and without it, no\nother can be said to be a saving work.\n_Object._ It is objected, that there are several scriptures which seem\nto speak of common grace, as being preparatory for special. Thus the\nscribe, mentioned in the gospel, who expressed himself _discreetly_, in\nasserting, that _to love God with all the heart, and with all the\nunderstanding, soul, and strength; and to love our neighbour as\nourselves, is better than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices_, is\nsaid not to be _far from the kingdom of God_, Mark xii. 34. And\nelsewhere, we are exhorted _to ask_, and a promise is annexed thereunto,\nthat _it shall be given us, to seek and we shall find_, Matt. vii. 7.\nAnd in another place, _to turn at God\u2019s reproof and he will pour out his\nSpirit_ unto us, _and make known his words unto us_, Prov. i. 25. And\nseveral other scriptures, in which super-added grace is connected with\nduty enjoined, which duty is supposed to be in our own power, and to be\npreparatory for it.\n_Answ._ (1.) As to the first of these scriptures, in which our Saviour\ntells the scribe, that he was not _far from the kingdom of God_; he\nintends nothing else hereby, but that the profession he made, which he\ncalls, his _answering discreetly_, was not very remote from that which\nwas made by them, who were the subjects of his kingdom: it was the\ndoctrine he mentions, that Christ commends; and therefore it must not be\ninferred from hence, that he had regard to his state, as though his\ninward temper of mind, or moral conduct of life, was such as more\nimmediately disposed him for a state of grace, so that he was, at the\nsame time, hovering between a state of unregeneracy and conversion.\n(2.) As for that instance, in which persons are supposed to prepare\nthemselves for that grace which God gives in answer to prayer, by\nperforming that duty, as though he had obliged himself to give whatever\nthey ask for, relating to their own salvation; this cannot be the sense\nof the scripture but now mentioned, or any other, to the like purpose;\nunless it be understood of the prayer of faith, under the influence of\nthe Holy Spirit; but this supposes regenerating grace; and therefore it\nis foreign to the argument, in which man is considered as preparing\nhimself for the grace of God, and not as expecting farther degrees of\ngrace, upon his being inclined, by the Spirit of God, to seek them.\n(3.) As for the other instance in the objection, relating to God\u2019s\nengaging _to give the Spirit_, and to _make known his words_ to those\nthat _turn at his reproof_; this, I conceive, contains in it nothing\nelse but a promise of the Spirit, to carry on the work of grace, in all\nthose in whom it is begun. Though _turning_, in scripture, be sometimes\ntaken for external reformation, which is in our own power, as it is our\nindispensable duty; yet, whenever a promise of saving blessings is\nannexed to it, as in this scripture, it is to be understood as denoting\nthe grace of repentance. And if it be said, that this is God\u2019s gift, and\ntherefore cannot be the subject of an exhortation, it may be replied\nhereunto; that saving grace is often represented, in scripture, as our\nact, or duty, in order to the performance whereof we ought to say, as\nthe church is presented speaking, _Turn thou me, and I shall be turned_,\nJer. xxxi. 18. that is, I _shall return unto thee with my whole heart,\nand not feignedly_, chap. iii. 10.\nThe same reply might be given to their sense of several other scriptures\nbrought to maintain the doctrine of preparatory works, performed by us,\nas necessarily inferring our obtaining the special grace of God. But I\nshall close this head with a few hints taken from that excellent divine\nbefore mentioned. \u201cMan cannot prepare himself for the new birth: he\nhath, indeed, a subjective capacity for grace, above any other creature\nin the inferior world; and this is a kind of natural preparation, which\nother creatures have not; a capacity, in regard of the powers of the\nsoul, though not in respect of the present disposition of them. He hath\nan understanding to know, and when it is enlightened, to know God\u2019s law;\na will to move and run, and when enlarged by grace, to run the ways of\nGod\u2019s commandments; so that he stands in an immediate capacity to\nreceive the life of grace, upon the breath and touch of God, which a\nstone doth not; for in this it is necessary, that rational faculties\nshould be put as a foundation of spiritual motions. Though the soul be\nthus capable, as a subject, to receive the grace of God, yet it is not\ntherefore capable, as an agent, to prepare itself for it, or produce it.\nIt is capable to receive the truths of God; but, as the heart is stony,\nit is incapable to receive the impressions of those truths. Though some\nthings, which man may do by common grace, may be said to be\npreparations, yet they are not formally so; as that there is an\nabsolute, causal connexion between such preparations, and regeneration;\nthey are not disposing causes of grace: grace is all in a way of\nreception by the soul, not of action from the soul: the highest morality\nin the world is not necessary to the first infusion of the divine\nnature: if there were any thing in the subject that was the cause of it,\nthe tenderest, and softest dispositions would be wrought upon; and the\nmost intelligent men would soonest receive the gospel. Though we see\nthem sometimes renewed, yet many times the roughest tempers are seized\nupon by grace. Though morality seems to set men at a greater nearness to\nthe kingdom of God, yet, with all its own strength it cannot bring it\ninto the heart, unless the Spirit open the lock: yea, sometimes it sets\na man farther from the kingdom of God, as being a great enemy to the\nrighteousness of the gospel, both imputed and inherent; and other\noperations upon the soul, which seem to be nearer preparations; such as\nconvictions, &c. do not infer grace; for the heart, as a field, may be\nploughed by terrors, and yet not planted with any good seed; planting\nand watering are preparations, but not the cause of fruit; the increase\ndepends upon God:\u201d[24] thus this learned author. And he also farther\nproves, that there is no obligation on God, by any thing that may look\nlike a preparation in men; and adds, that if any preparations were our\nown, and were pure, which they are not: yet they cannot oblige God to\ngive supernatural grace: which leads us,\n3. To consider that this work is, in a peculiar manner, attributed to\nthe Spirit of God; the only moving cause whereof, is his grace. That the\nSpirit is the author of this work, is not to be proved by experience, as\nthe expressions of divine power therein are, but by scripture; and the\nscripture is very express as to this matter. Thus, when God promises to\n_give a new heart; to take away the heart of stone, and to give an heart\nof flesh, and to cause his people to walk in his statutes_, Ezek. xxxvi.\n26, 27. he would _put his Spirit within them_; and elsewhere they are\nsaid to have _purified their souls in obeying the truth, through the\nSpirit_, 1 Pet. i. 22. And our Saviour asserts the necessity of our\nbeing _born of the Spirit_, John iii. 5. in order to our entering into\nthe kingdom of God: so that from these, and several other scriptures,\nthat might be referred to, it appears, that effectual calling is the\ninternal powerful work of the Holy Ghost.[25]\n_Obj. 1._ It is objected, by some, that this doctrine savours of\nenthusiasm; since it supposes that there is no difference between the\nSpirit\u2019s internal influences, and inspiration; and to pretend to this,\nnow the miraculous dispensation, which was in the apostle\u2019s days, is\nceased, is vain and enthusiastic.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That the charge of enthusiasm is very\nunjustly deduced from this doctrine; for we must distinguish between the\nextraordinary, and the ordinary influence of the Holy Ghost; the former\nis allowed by all, to be now ceased; and therefore they who pretend to\nit, are liable to this charge; but it is a very great dishonour cast\nupon the Holy Ghost to deny his powerful influence or agency in the work\nof grace; and it renders the condition of the church, at present, in a\nvery material circumstance, so much inferior to what it was of old, that\nit is incapable of attaining salvation; unless it could be proved that\nsalvation might be attained without the divine energy.\nBut, that we may farther reply to this objection, let it be considered;\nthat the Spirit\u2019s influence, as subservient to the work of grace, is\nevidently distinguished from imputation: the latter of these was a\npeculiar honour which was conferred upon some persons, who were either\nto transmit to the church a rule of faith, by the immediate dictates of\nthe Holy Ghost; or else they were favoured with it to answer some\nextraordinary ends, which could not be attained without it, namely,\ntheir being furnished with wisdom, as well as courage and boldness, to\nmaintain the cause, which they were not otherwise furnished to defend,\nagainst the opposition that it met with from their persecuting and\nmalicious enemies, that so it might not suffer through their weakness;\nas when our Saviour bids his disciples _not to take thought what they\nshould say_, when brought before rulers, _&c._ but promises, that _the\nSpirit should speak in them_, Matt. x. 18-20. And in some other\nparticular instances we read, especially in the church at Corinth, that\nwhen ministers had not those advantages to qualify themselves to preach\nthe gospel, which they afterwards were favoured with, some had this\nextraordinary gift, so that they spake by the Spirit; but this was only\nconferred occasionally, and for some special reasons: and therefore,\nthose scriptures that speak of the influences of the Spirit, which were\nmore common, and immediately subservient to the work of grace in the\nsouls of those who were the subjects thereof, were, at that time, the\nsame with them that we are pleading for, which were designed to continue\nin the church, in all the ages thereof: thus when persons are said,\n_through the Spirit to mortify the deeds of the body_, Rom. viii. 13.\nthis does not respect any extraordinary dispensation, which they were\nthen under, since it is the duty of all men, in all ages, without the\nextraordinary influences of the Spirit, to mortify the deeds of the\nbody; and therefore we may expect this powerful energy as well as they,\nor else our condition would be very deplorable.\nAnd besides, we never find that extraordinary gifts were immediately\nsubservient to the subduing corruption, or, at least, that every one\nthat had them, did mortify sin, and so appear to be internally\nsanctified: whereas, this is a character of those who are so; and not to\nhave these influences, determines a person to be in an unregenerate\nstate, or _to live after the flesh_, which is opposed to it, and so to\nbe liable to death, ver. 12. No one can suppose, the apostle intends, in\nthe foregoing verse, when he says, _If ye live after the flesh, ye shall\ndie_; that if ye are not under inspiration, ye shall die, as living\nafter the flesh: but the method of reasoning is strong and conclusive,\nif we understand the divine influence as what is distinct from\ninspiration, and consequently a privilege necessary for the beginning\nand carrying on the work of grace, and so belongs to believers in all\nages.\nAgain, when the Spirit is said _to help our infirmities_, ver. 26. in\nprayer: is not prayer as much a duty now as it was when they had\nextraordinary gifts? therefore, ought we not to hope for the assistance\nof the Spirit, in all ages? and consequently the Spirit\u2019s help, in this\nrespect is not confined to that age, when there was a miraculous\ndispensation, or extraordinary inspiration.\nAnd when it is elsewhere said, _As many as are led by the Spirit of God,\nthey are the sons of God_, ver. 14. can we suppose, that none were the\nsons of God but such as had extraordinary gifts? Does not this privilege\nbelong to us, as well as unto them? If therefore we are the sons of God,\nas well as they, we have this evidence hereof, according to this\nscripture; namely, our _being led by the Spirit of God_; though we\npretend not to be led by him, as a Spirit of inspiration.\nAnd to this we may add, that the apostle elsewhere speaks of some who\nwere _sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise; which is the earnest of\nour inheritance_: and these are described as _trusting in Christ after\nthey had heard the word of salvation_, and _believing in him_, Eph. i.\n13, 14. But this belongs to the church in all ages; therefore sealing is\nnot a privilege confined to those who had the extraordinary gifts of the\nHoly Ghost; but to believers as such.\nMoreover, it is said, _The Spirit beareth witness with our spirits, that\nwe are the children of God_, Rom. viii. 16. Therefore, some persons may\nknow themselves to be the children of God, in a way of self-examination,\nby the witness of the Spirit, which is common to all believers; without\npretending to be inspired therein; which would be to know this matter\nwithout the concurring testimony of our own spirits. Many things, of the\nlike nature, might be observed, concerning the other scriptures, that\nare generally brought to prove, that believers, in our day, are made\npartakers of the powerful influences of the Holy Ghost; though they\npretend not to the Spirit of inspiration; which is a sufficient answer\nto this objection.\n_Object._ 2. If it be farther objected, that if the Spirit does work\ninternally in the souls of men, we are not to suppose, that he works a\nchange in their wills, but only presents objects to them, which they by\ntheir own power, improve, and make use of, for their good; even as a\nfinite Spirit may suggest good or bad thoughts, without disposing us to\ncomply with them; or, as the devil is said to work in men, who is\ncalled, _The Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience_,\nEph. ii. 2.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that an objective influence, properly\nspeaking, is no influence at all; much less is it becoming the dignity\nof the Holy Ghost, to say, That he hath no more an hand in the work of\nconversion, than that which a mere creature might have. I will not deny\nthat the Greek word,[26] which signifies energy, or internal working, is\nsometimes taken for such a kind of influence as is not properly the\neffect of power, as in the instance contained in the objection; yet, let\nit be considered, that the same word is often used, in various other\ninstances, in senses very different, when applied to God and the\ncreature; where the word, in itself, is indeterminate; but the\napplication of it sufficiently determines the matter; so as to leave no\ndoubt, as to the sense of it. Thus to make, form, or produce, when\napplied to God, and the thing made, formed, or produced, is represented\nas an instance of his almighty power, which exceeds the limits of finite\npower, this determines the sense to be very different from making,\nforming, or producing, when applied to men, acting in their own sphere:\nso the apostle speaks of building, in a very different sense, as applied\nto God and the creature, which no one is at a loss to understand, who\nreads the words; _Every house is builded by some man; but he that built\nall things is God_, Heb. iii. 4. Now, to apply this to our present\npurpose, we do not deny, that a finite spirit has an energy, in an\nobjective way; but when the same word is applied to God\u2019s manner of\nacting; and is represented as has been before observed, as an instance\nof his almighty power, producing a change in the soul; and not only\npersuading, but enabling him to perform good works, from a principle of\nspiritual life, implanted, this may easily be understood as having a\nvery different sense from the same word, when applied to the internal\nagency of a finite spirit; and therefore this objection does not\noverthrow the argument we are maintaining.\n_Object._ 3. It is farther objected against what has been said\nconcerning this powerful work of the Spirit, as being illustrated by the\nsimilitude of a person\u2019s being raised from the dead; that this contains\nin it nothing supernatural, or out of the power of man; since the\napostle says, _Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and\nChrist shall give the light_, Eph. v. 14. If arising from the dead be\nthe effect of almighty power, when applied to the work of grace, it\nseems preposterous for this to be recommended as our duty: and if it be\nnot a work of almighty power, then those scriptures that illustrate\neffectual calling by the resurrection of the dead, are nothing to the\nargument for which they have been brought.\n_Answ._ Some suppose, that its being assigned as a matter of duty for\nsinners to rise from the dead, does not infer, that it is in their own\npower; but, that it only signifies, that none can expect eternal life\nbut those who rise from the death of sin; and accordingly, as the\npromise, here mentioned, relating to our _having light_, is said to be\n_Christ\u2019s gift_, so the power to perform that duty, which is inseparably\nconnected with it, to wit, _rising from the dead_, is to be sought for\nat his hand. But if this answer be not reckoned sufficient, I see no\nabsurdity in supposing, that these two expressions, _Awake, thou that\nsleepest, and arise from the dead_, import the same thing. Sleep is, as\nit were, the image of death; and therefore, by a metaphorical way of\nspeaking, it may be here called _death_; and if so, the apostle commands\nbelievers to awake out of their carnal security, or shake off their\nstupid frames, as they expect the light of eternal life: however, if it\nbe taken in this sense here; yet when we meet with the words\n_quickened_, or _raised from the dead_, elsewhere, they may be\nunderstood in a different sense, as denoting the implanting a principle\nof grace in regeneration, as will appear by the context: thus when God\nis said to _quicken those who were dead in trespasses and sins; who\nwalked according to the course of this world, fulfilling the desires of\nthe flesh, and of the mind; and were, by nature, the children of wrath_;\nand to do this with a design to shew the _exceeding riches of his grace,\nand kindness towards them_; and as the consequence thereof, to work that\nfaith which accompanies salvation, which is not of themselves, but his\ngift: I say, if these things are mentioned when we are said to be\n_quickened_, or _raised from the dead_, certainly it argues more than a\nstupid believer\u2019s awaking from that carnal security, which he is under,\nwho is supposed to have a principle of spiritual life, whereby he may be\nenabled so to do.\n_Object._ 4. It is also objected to what has been said, concerning\neffectual calling\u2019s being a work of divine power, that those scriptures,\nwhich speak of it as such, denote nothing else but the power of working\nmiracles; whereby they to whom the gospel was preached, were induced to\nbelieve; as when the apostle says, _His preaching was in demonstration\nof the Spirit, and of power_, 1 Cor. ii. 4. that is, the doctrines he\npreached, were confirmed, and the truth thereof demonstrated by the\npower of the Holy Ghost, enabling them to work miracles: and _the\nkingdom of God is not in word, but in power_, chap. iv. 20. that is, the\ngospel is not only preached, but confirmed by miracles: _Our gospel came\nto you in power, and in the Holy Ghost_, 1 Thes. i. 5. that is, as some\nunderstand it, the gospel which we preach, was confirmed by the power\nand miraculous works of the Holy Ghost; which has no reference to the\ninternal efficacious influences of the Spirit put forth in effectual\ncalling.\n_Answ._ Though we often read that the gospel was confirmed by miracles:\nnevertheless, I cannot see that this is the principle, much less the\nonly sense of these scriptures, and some others that might have been\nproduced to the same purpose.\nAs to the first of them in which the apostle speaks _of his preaching,\nbeing in the demonstration of the Spirit, and of power_; it may be\nobserved, that in the preceding chapter he had been speaking concerning\nChrist preached, and his glory set forth among them, as the power of\nGod; that is to say, the power of God rendered the preaching thereof\neffectual to the conversion of them that believed; which he concludes to\ncontain in it no less a conviction of the truth of the Christian\nreligion, than if he had wrought signs or miracles, which the Jews\ndemanded, and which he had no design to work among them: therefore, why\nshould we suppose, that when he speaks _of his preaching being in the\ndemonstration of the Spirit, and of power_, that he intends the\nconfirming his doctrine by miracles, and not in the same sense as he had\nbefore signified Christ to be the power of God.\nAnd as for the other scripture, in which it is said, _The kingdom of God\nis not in word, but in power_; that is to be understood by comparing it\nwith what immediately goes before, in which he says, that _I will come\nto you shortly, if the Lord will and know not the speech of them who are\npuffed up, but the power_. It we suppose, that by _them who are puffed\nup_, he means some of their teachers, who swelled either with pride or\nenvy, and probably were sowing some seeds of error among them; it does\nnot seem to be a just sense of the text, to explain the words when he\nsays, _I will know not the speech of them who are puffed up, but the\npower_, q. d. I will not so much regard the doctrines they deliver, as I\nwill enquire and be convinced, that they have confirmed them by\nmiracles. For he would rather regard their doctrine than their pretence\nto miracles; or have said, I will not enquire whether ever they have\nwrought any miracles or no, but what efficacy their doctrine has had:\nand therefore the apostle, by _knowing the power_, does not mean that of\nworking miracles, but he intimates that he would know, not only what\ndoctrines these persons taught, but what success attended their\npreaching; and then he adds, that _the kingdom of God_, that is, the\ngospel-state is advanced and promoted, not barely by the church\u2019s\nenjoying the means of grace, such as the preaching of the word; but _by\nthe power of God_, which makes the word preached effectual to salvation,\nwhereby sinners are converted, and many added to the church, such as\nshall be saved.\nAs to the last scripture mentioned, in which the apostle says, _Our\ngospel came to you, not in word only, but in power_, I cannot think that\nhe has any reference in that place, to the confirming the gospel by\nmiracles; because this is assigned as a mark of their election,\n_knowing, brethren, your election of God; for our gospel came unto you,\nnot only in word, but in power_, &c. Now, whether we take election for\nGod\u2019s eternal design to save them, or for the execution thereof, in his\napplying the graces of the Spirit to them; or if we take it in the\nlowest sense, which they, on the other side of the question, generally\ngive into, for their being a choice, religious unblameable society of\nChristians, excelling many others in piety: this could not be evinced by\nthe gospel\u2019s being confirmed by miracles; and therefore this sense seems\nnot agreeable to the apostle\u2019s design; and consequently the objection\ntaken from those scriptures, that speak of the power of God in\nconversion, as implying nothing else but his power, exerted in working\nmiracles, will not, in the least, be sufficient to weaken the force of\nthe argument we are maintaining. Thus concerning effectual calling\u2019s\nbeing a work of power, attributed, in particular, to the Holy Spirit.\nThere is one thing more observed, in the answer we are explaining, which\nmust be briefly considered; namely, that it is a work of grace, which\nwas the internal moving cause thereof; or, the reason of God\u2019s exerting\nhis divine power therein. Effectual calling must be a work of grace,\nwithout any motive taken from them, who are the subjects thereof;\ninasmuch as they had before this, nothing in them, that could render\nthem the objects of divine love, being described as _dead in trespasses\nand sins, alienated from the life of God_, and _enmity_ itself _against\nhim_: so that their condition, antecedent hereunto, cannot be supposed\nto be the moving cause hereof; for that which is in itself, altogether\nunlovely, cannot afford a motive for love to any one that weighs the\ncircumstances of persons and things, and acts in pursuance thereof.\n_Object._ But whereas it is objected, that though the present condition\nof unregenerate persons cannot afford any motive inducing God thereunto,\nyet the foresight of their future conduct might.\n_Answ._ To this we answer, That all the good which shall be found in\nbelievers, is God\u2019s gift; he is the finisher as well as the author of\nfaith; and therefore it cannot be said, that any thing out of himself,\nwas the moving cause hereof. And to this we may add, That God foresaw\nthe vile and unworthy behaviour of believers, proceeding from the\nremainders of corrupt nature in them, as well as those graces which he\nwould enable them to act: so that there is as much in them that might\ninduce him to hate them, as there is to move him to love them; and\ntherefore we must conclude, that his love proceeds from another cause;\nor that it is by the grace of God alone, that we are what we are: which\nleads us to consider,\n4. That the power and grace of God, displayed in effectual calling, is\nirresistible, and consequently such as cannot but be effectual to\nproduce that which is designed to be brought about thereby. To deny\nthis, would be to infer, that the creature has an equal, if not a\nsuperior, force to God: for, as, in nature, every thing that impedes or\nstops a thing that is in motion, must have an equal force to resist with\nthat which is affected by it; so, in the work of grace, if the will of\nman can render the power of God of none effect, or stop the progress of\ndivine grace, contrary to his design or purpose, this must argue the\ncreature\u2019s power of resisting, equal to that which is put forth by God,\nin order to the bringing this work to perfection. This consequence is so\nderogatory to the divine glory, that no one who sees it to be just, will\nmaintain the premises from whence it is deduced.\nIf it be said, that God may suffer himself to be resisted; and his\ngrace, that would otherwise have been effectual, to be defeated; this\nwill not much mend the matter; but only, in order to the avoiding one\nabsurd consequence, bring in another; for if every one would have, what\nhe purposes to be done brought to pass, and would not be disappointed,\nif he could help it, the same must be said of the great God. Now if God\ncould have prevented his purpose from being defeated, but would not,\nthis argues a defect of wisdom; if his own glory was designed, by\npurposing to do that which the creature renders ineffectual, then he\nmisses of that end, which cannot but be the most valuable, and\nconsequently most desirable: therefore, for God to suffer a purpose of\nthis nature, to be defeated, supposing he could prevent it, is to suffer\nhimself to be a loser of that glory which is due to his name. Moreover,\nthis is directly contrary to what the apostle says, _Who hath resisted\nhis will_, Rom. ix. 19. or who hath rendered the grace, which he\ndesigned should take effect, ineffectual, or, which is the same thing,\nwho can do it?\nThe ground on which many have asserted, that the grace of God may be\nresisted, is taken from some scriptures, that speak of man\u2019s being in\nopen hostility against him. Thus we read of a bold daring sinner, as\n_stretching out his hand against God, and strengthening himself against\nthe Almighty, running upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses\nof his bucklers_, Job xv. 25, 26. And Stephen reproves the Jews as\nhaving _always resisted the Holy Ghost, both they and their fathers_,\nActs vii. 51, 52. and the Pharisees are said to _have rejected_, Luke\nvii. 30. or, as the word[27] might have been rendered, _disannulled the\ncounsel of God against themselves_. And elsewhere, the prophet speaks of\nGod\u2019s _stretching out his hand all the day unto a disobedient and\ngainsaying people_, Rom. x. 21. These, and such like scriptures give\noccasion to some to suppose, that the power and grace, as well as the\npurpose of God, may be resisted.\nBut that we may understand the sense of these scriptures, and, at the\nsame time not relinquish the doctrine we are maintaining, and thereby\ninfer the consequence above-mentioned; we must distinguish between our\nopposition to God\u2019s revealed will, contained in his word, which is the\nrule of duty to us; and resisting his secret will, which determines the\nevent. Or, as it may be otherwise expressed, it is one thing to set\nourselves against the objective grace of God, that is, the gospel, and\nanother thing to defeat his subjective grace, that when he is about to\nwork effectually in us, we should put a stop to his proceedings. The\nformer no one denies; the latter we can, by no means, allow of. Persons\nmay express a great deal of reluctancy and perverseness at that time,\nwhen God is about to subdue their stubborn and obstinate wills; but the\npower of God will break through all this opposition; and the will of man\nshall not be able to make his work void, or without effect. The Jews, as\nabove-mentioned, might _resist the Holy Ghost_, that is, oppose the\ndoctrines contained in scripture, which were given by the Spirit\u2019s\ninspiration; and they might make this revelation of no effect, with\nrespect to themselves; but had God designed that it should take effect,\nthen he would have prevented their resisting it. Israel might _be a\ngainsaying people_, that is, they might oppose what God communicated to\nthem by the prophets, which it was their duty and interest to have\ncomplied with; and so the offers of grace in God\u2019s revealed will, might\nbe in vain with respect to them; but it never was so with respect to\nthose whom he designed to save: and if the hardened sinner, _stretching\nout his hand against God_, may be said hereby to express his averseness\nto holiness, and his desire to be exempted from the divine government;\nhe may be found in open rebellion against him, as hating and opposing\nhis law; but he cannot offer any real injury to his divine perfections,\nso as to detract from his glory, to render his purpose of no effect.\nMoses speaking concerning God\u2019s works of providence, says, _They are\nperfect; for all his ways are judgment_, Deut. xxxii. 4. And elsewhere,\nGod, by the prophet Isaiah, says, _I will work, and who shall let it_,\nIsa. xliii. 13. From whence he argues, his eternal Deity, and\nuncontroulable power, when he says, _before the day was, I am he, and\nthere is none that can deliver out of my hand_; so that if a stop might\nbe put to his works of providence, he would cease to be a God of\ninfinite perfection; and may we not from hence infer, that his works of\ngrace are not subject to any controul; so that when he designs to call\nany effectually, nothing shall prevent this end\u2019s being answered, which\nis what we intend, when we speak of the power and grace of God as\nirresistible; which leads us to consider,\n5. The season or time in which persons are effectually called; which in\nthis answer, is said to be God\u2019s accepted time. If the work be free and\nsovereign, without any motive in us, the time in which he does it, must\nbe that which he thinks most proper. Here we may observe,\n(1.) That some are regenerate in their infancy, when the word can have\nno instrumentality, in producing the least acts of grace; these have\ntherefore the seeds thereof, which spring up, and discover themselves,\nwhen they are able to make use of the word. That persons are capable of\nregeneration from the womb, is no less evident, than that they are\ncapable of having the seeds or principle of reason from thence, which\nthey certainly have; and if it be allowed, that regeneration is\nconnected with salvation, and that infants are capable of the latter, as\nour Saviour says, that _of such is the kingdom of God_; then they must\nbe certainly capable of the former; and not to suppose some infants\nregenerate from the womb, would be to exclude a very great part of\nmankind from salvation, without scripture-warrant.\n(2.) Others are effectually called in their childhood, or riper years,\nand some few in old age; that so no age of life may be an inducement to\ndespair, or persons be thereby discouraged from attending on the means\nof grace. Thus it is said concerning Josiah, That _in the eighth year of\nhis reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of\nDavid, his father_, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 1. and David was converted when he\nwas a _youth, a stripling of a ruddy and beautiful countenance_, 1 Sam.\nxvi. 12. compared with chap. xvii. 56, 58. And Moses seems to have been\neffectually called, when he left Pharaoh\u2019s court; and _it came into his\nheart to visit his brethren the children of Israel_; at which time he\nwas _forty years old_, Acts vii. 23. And Abraham seems to have been made\npartaker of this grace, when he was called to leave his country, when he\nwas seventy-five years old; before which, it is probable, that he,\ntogether with the rest of his father\u2019s family, served other gods, Josh.\nxxiv. 2. compared with Gen. xii. 4. And we read, in one single instance,\nof a person converted in the very agonies of death, _viz._ the thief\nupon the cross, Luke xxiii. 43.\n(3.) Sometimes, when persons seem most disposed hereunto, and are under\nthe greatest convictions, and more inclined to reform their lives, than\nat other times, the work appears, by the issue thereof, to be no more\nthan that of common grace, which miscarries and leaves them worse than\nthey were before; and, it may be, after this, when they seem less\ninclined hereunto, that is, God\u2019s accepted time, when he begins the work\nwith power, which he afterwards carries on and completes. Some are\nsuffered to run great lengths in sin, before they are effectually\ncalled; as the apostle Paul, _in whom God was pleased to shew forth all\nlong suffering, as a pattern to them which should hereafter believe_, 1\nTim. i. 16. So that the time and means being entirely in his hand, as we\nought not to presume, but wait for the day of salvation in all his\nordinances; so, whatever our age and circumstances are, we are still\nencouraged to hope for the mercy of God, unto eternal life; or, that he\nwill save and call us, with an holy calling.\nFootnote 5:\n  That the invitations of the gospel are not restricted to a few amongst\n  a larger number who hear them, is clear, from various considerations.\n  The term evangel, or gospel, importing good tidings, evinces, that it\n  is designed not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance and\n  salvation.\n  The blessings, which it announces, lead to the same conclusion;\n  liberty is offered to the captives, and the opening of the prison to\n  those who are bound; those who labour and are heavily laden, are\n  invited to seek, and obtain rest: those who hunger and thirst after\n  righteousness, are assured that they shall be filled; the riches of\n  grace and of glory are promised to the poor in Spirit; sight is\n  offered to the blind; and howsoever diseased, those who are afflicted\n  are invited to come to the great Physician; and even those who are\n  dead in sin are revived by his life-giving word. Such are the\n  circumstances of the worst of men, who are consequently the objects of\n  the mercies proffered in the gospel.\n  The unregenerate elect, who stand amongst those who will not be saved,\n  are like them, possessed of prevailing inclinations to sin, and\n  equally impotent to good: they are all equally guilty of an aversation\n  of heart from God, and so possess in themselves nothing which can\n  evidence a right to gospel blessings more than others.\n  The invitations of the gospel are in universal terms, and although\n  such terms are sometimes restricted by the sense, yet where no such\n  restriction appears, they are to be taken in their own unlimited\n  extent; the ransom is asserted to have been rendered for all; the Lord\n  willeth not the destruction of any, but that all should turn and live;\n  Christ proclaimed to sinners, _if any man thirst, let him come unto me\n  and drink_; and directed his disciples to go and _teach all nations_;\n  and it is his will, that the gospel should be preached _unto every\n  creature_.\n  If in the day of final account, the abominable crimes of Sodom and\n  Gomorrha shall evince less guilt than the impenitency of Chorazin and\n  Bethsaida; the aggravation of guilt, which the gospel produces,\n  demonstrates that its messages are directed unto the worst of men, as\n  well as others.\n  Those who are guided by the light of nature, are guilty, because they\n  violate the rule of conscience: such as possessed the law of God were\n  still more guilty, but sinners under the light of the gospel, who\n  trample under foot the blood of Christ, and despise and reject the\n  mercies of the gospel, are guilty in the highest degree. It is just\n  that they should not receive the offered pardon, but remain under the\n  condemnation of the law, the dominion of iniquity, the slavery of\n  Satan, and be left in their beloved darkness until they sink in\n  despair. Yet nothing but their own aversion rejects the invitation, or\n  prevents their salvation: they are straitened in their own bowels, and\n  are the causes of their own destruction. Thus salvation is offered in\n  general, and God is just, though the application of it is plainly\n  special.\nFootnote 6:\n  Vide Fuller\u2019s \u201cGospel worthy of all Acceptation.\u201d\nFootnote 7:\n  _See Vol. II. page 333._\nFootnote 8:\n  _This is what is generally called the_ formalis _ratio of liberty._\nFootnote 9:\n  _We generally say, that whatever is essential to a thing, belongs to\n  it as such. And there is a known rule in logic_, A quatenus ad omne\n  valet consequentia; _and the then absurd consequences, above\n  mentioned, would necessarily follow from it._\nFootnote 10:\n  _In this respect divines generally consider liberty as opposed to\n  co-action: but here we must distinguish between a natural co-action\n  and a moral one. Liberty is not opposed to a moral co-action, which is\n  very consistent with it. Thus an honest man cannot allow himself in a\n  vile action; he is under a moral constraint to the contrary; and yet\n  he abstains from sin freely. A believer loves Christ freely, as the\n  apostle Paul certainly did; and yet, at the same time, he was under\n  the constraint of the love of Christ; as he himself expresses it_, _2\nFootnote 11:\n  _This divines generally call_ spontaneity.\nFootnote 12:\n  _This some call_ lubentia rationalis.\nFootnote 13:\n  _This some divines call_ voluntas serva.\nFootnote 14:\n  _The question between us and the Pelagians, is not whether the will\n  sometimes follows the dictates of the understanding, but, whether it\n  either always does so? or, if it be otherwise, whether that which\n  hinders it does not arise from a defect in these dictates of the\n  understanding? Accordingly they speak of the dictates of the\n  understanding as practical, and not barely speculative, and with a\n  particular application to ourselves. They also consider the will as\n  having been before in some suspense; but that dictate of the\n  understanding which it follows, is the last, after mature\n  deliberation; and it is supposed to have compared things together; and\n  therefore presents a thing, not only as good, but more eligible than\n  any thing else, which they call a comparate dictate of the\n  understanding; and by this means the will is persuaded to a\n  compliance. But though this may be true in many instances that are\n  natural; yet daily experience proves, that it does not hold good with\n  respect to things divine and supernatural._\nFootnote 15:\n  The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of\n  the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and\n  the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the\n  doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will\n  appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to\n  submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true\n  christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral\n  agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change,\n  when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are\n  followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those\n  who yield are said to be \u201cborn of the word.\u201d Were it not for the\n  information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no\n  further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these\n  teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be\n  real, the efficient cause: \u201cGod sanctifies _by_ the truth,\u201d he\n  \u201c_opens_ the heart to attend\u201d to the word, and when any have _learned_\n  from and been _taught_ or _drawn_ by the Father they come unto Christ;\n  they are therefore also in a higher sense _born of the Spirit_.\n  This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who\n  formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are\n  unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of\n  the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his\n  influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive\n  incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at\n  best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy.\n  The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is\n  unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to\n  make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is\n  distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a\n  preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior\n  to it.\n  It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit\n  not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by \u201cblood,\n  nor by the will of the flesh, nor _by the will_ of man, but of God,\u201d\n  and those only \u201cwho are of God, hear,\u201d believe, and obey his word.\n  This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to\n  the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not\n  incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in\n  its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs.\n  The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent;\n  grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the\n  preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an\n  apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent\n  upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the\n  Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.\u2014It does not render\n  the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is\n  commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the\n  grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with\n  his Spirit\u2019s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his\n  providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes\n  the subjects of his grace.\nFootnote 16:\n  \u201cI have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the\n  heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably\n  absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things.\n  It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; \u2018The\n  moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially\n  different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is\n  raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a\n  different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its\n  nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To\n  argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been\n  misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and\n  impertinent.\u2014The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of\n  power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to\n  produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or\n  inanimate matter.\u2019\n  \u201cBut to this philosophical objection, however plausible and\n  unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the\n  difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a\n  future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: \u2018Ye do err, not\n  knowing the scriptures, nor the power of _God_.\u2019 The Almighty is not\n  limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and\n  mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working\n  in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally.\n  The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must\n  indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of\n  the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we\n  admit the idea of a work properly supernatural\u2014an effect produced not\n  by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all\n  distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to\n  things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone,\n  called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he\n  exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things\n  designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate\n  matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that\n  angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments\n  and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by\n  the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we\n  to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by\n  moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept\n  thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do\n  it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to\n  life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but\n  supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth\n  the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And\n  what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new\n  principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else,\n  in this immediate manner?\n  \u201cSome sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to\n  guard against the notion of regeneration\u2019s being effected by moral\n  suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but\n  very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The\n  change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical;\n  but supernatural.\u201d\n  DR. SMALLEY\nFootnote 17:\n  \u1f5d\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\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\nFootnote 18:\n  The change in regeneration has been often called the communication of\n  _a principle of spiritual life_. It is described as life, in the\n  scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies,\n  because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine\n  truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are\n  figuratively denominated _dead_. Life being the opposite of death,\n  such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the\n  impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the\n  same manner, be termed _living_. Such also are called _spiritual_,\n  because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. \u201cYou\n  hath he quickened;\u201d and, because it has for its object the things\n  which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.\n  These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the word _principle_\n  is destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the\n  Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are\n  the _beginnings_ of the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the\n  meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the\n  immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative\n  axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit,\n  affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of\n  God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because\n  they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But\n  it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the\n  description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so\n  must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the\n  Spirit. Accordingly it has been called \u201ca fixed impression of some\n  spiritual truth upon the heart.\u201d But there is no truth, or other\n  motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed\n  heart; or to become a _principle_ of action to a soul dead in sin.\n  Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and\n  prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into\n  the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the\n  soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate\n  causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of\n  the man is the subject of influence; and He is said to _open the\n  heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in\n  the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do_, or _to\n  give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf_. From such\n  scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new\n  dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are the _effects_ of\n  regeneration, and not the _thing itself_.\n  This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man\n  therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and\n  must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on\n  the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also\n  this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to\n  them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of\n  the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they \u201cwere not of\n  us,\u201d who afterwards have \u201cdeparted from us.\u201d Then also the advice to\n  those who are in the visible church \u201cto examine,\u201d and \u201cprove\n  themselves,\u201d whether Christ be \u201cin them,\u201d is without meaning, or\n  utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is,\n  their visible profession. And to \u201cbe born again,\u201d is but \u201cto see the\u201d\n  visible \u201ckingdom\u201d of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to\n  Nicodemus was merely identical.\nFootnote 19:\n  _See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration._\nFootnote 20:\n  _See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an\n  instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath\n  made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing\n  comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the\n  principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he\n  must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced\n  into act, and not his implanting the principle itself._\nFootnote 21:\n  _See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71._\nFootnote 22:\n  _See Quest._ lxxv.\nFootnote 23:\n  When it is said \u201c_no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath\n  sent me, draw him_,\u201d the negation must be understood as expressive of\n  _moral_ impotency, and as if it had been said \u201c_ye will not come unto\n  me that ye might have life_;\u201d but nevertheless as direct proof of the\n  absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person\n  who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to the\n  _understanding_ is evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from\n  the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the\n  carnality of the _heart_ which created the impotency to come unto or\n  believe on him.\n  The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out\n  our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an\n  aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the\n  inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They\n  are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an\n  important effect in the change of the man\u2019s views, and pursuits, when\n  the Spirit of God has \u201c_opened the heart_\u201d to receive the necessary\n  impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the\n  Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief,\n  strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his\n  own good pleasure.\n  Because it is charged upon the evil that they \u201cresist\u201d the grace of\n  God, and therefore his Spirit will not always \u201cstrive\u201d with men, it by\n  no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our\n  yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a\n  victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until\n  subdued by him: we are \u201cmade willing in a day of his power.\u201d Were it\n  otherwise the glory of man\u2019s salvation would belong to himself, at\n  least in part; but the language of the believer is \u201c_not unto us, O\n  Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given_.\u201d Nor is\n  there any need to suppose man\u2019s salvation thus imputable to himself in\n  order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction;\n  for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin.\n  It does not result that the man, who is thus \u201cmade willing,\u201d is in\n  such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of\n  compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as\n  the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his\n  preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and\n  though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well\n  justify him before men.\n  If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of\n  the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can\n  discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that\n  they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be\n  discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory\n  to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to\n  them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is\n  engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation.\nFootnote 24:\n  _See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c._\nFootnote 25:\n  _When we speak of effectual calling\u2019s being the work of the Spirit,\n  the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine\n  power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine\n  essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the\n  Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit,\n  this implies his personal glory\u2019s being demonstrated thereby,\n  agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine\n  persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293_, &c.\nFootnote 26:\n  \u0395\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\nFootnote 27:\n  \u0391\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n    QUEST. LXIX. _What is the communion in grace, which the members of\n    the invisible church have with Christ?_\n    ANSW. The communion in grace, which the members of the invisible\n    church have with Christ, is, their partaking of the virtue of his\n    mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and\n    whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.\nHaving considered the vital union which the members of the invisible\nchurch have with Christ in their effectual calling, we are now led to\nspeak concerning that communion in grace, which they have with him.\nCommunion with Christ doth not, in the least, import our being made\npartakers of any of the glories or privileges which belong to him as\nMediator; but it consists, in our participation, of those benefits which\nhe hath purchased for us; and it implies, on his part, infinite\ncondescension, that he will be pleased to communicate such blessings on\nus, and on our\u2019s, unspeakable honours and privileges, which we enjoy\nfrom him: it is sometimes called _fellowship_, 1 John i. 3. which is the\nresult of friendship, and proceeds from his love: thus our Saviour\nspeaks of his _loving them, and manifesting himself unto them_, John\nxiv. 21. It also proceeds from union with him, and is the immediate\neffect and consequence of effectual calling: therefore God is said to\n_have called us unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ_, 1 Cor. i.\nAnd it is farther said in this answer, to be a manifestation of our\nunion with him. He has received those blessings for us, which he\npurchased by his blood; and, accordingly is the treasury, as well as the\nfountain of all grace; and we are therefore said to _receive of his\nfulness, grace for grace_, John i. 16. And the blessings which we are\nsaid to receive, by virtue of his mediation, are justification,\nadoption, and sanctification, with all other benefits that either\naccompany or flow from them; which are particularly explained in the\nfollowing answers.\n    QUEST. LXX. _What is justification?_\n    ANSW. Justification is an act of God\u2019s free grace unto sinners, in\n    which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their\n    persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them,\n    or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full\n    satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by\n    faith alone.\n    QUEST. LXXI. _How is justification an act of God\u2019s free grace?_\n    ANSW. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a\n    proper, real, and full satisfaction to God\u2019s justice, in the behalf\n    of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the\n    satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them,\n    did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his\n    righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their\n    justification, but faith; which also is his gift; their\n    justification is, to them, of free grace.\nHitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life\nwhich is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made\nalive, and one that was wholly indisposed for, and averse to the\nperformance of good works, is enabled to perform them by the power of\ndivine grace: and now we are to speak concerning that change of state\nwhich accompanies it; whereby one, who being guilty before God, was\nliable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than\nan eternal banishment from his presence, is pardoned, received into\nfavour, and has a right to all the blessings which Christ has, by his\nobedience and sufferings, purchased for him. This is what we call\njustification; and it is placed immediately after the head of effectual\ncalling, as being agreeable to the method in which it is insisted on in\nthat golden chain of salvation, as the apostle says, _Whom he called,\nthem he also justified_, Rom. viii. 30.\nThis is certainly a doctrine of the highest importance, inasmuch as it\ncontains in it the way of peace, the foundation of all our hope, of the\nacceptance both of our persons and services, and beholding the face of\nGod, at last, with joy. Some have styled it the very _basis_ of\nChristianity; and our forefathers thought it so necessary to be insisted\non and maintained, according to the scripture-account thereof, that they\nreckoned it one of the principal doctrines of the reformation. And,\nindeed, the apostle Paul speaks of it as so necessary to be believed,\nthat he concluded that the denying or perverting of it was the ground\nand reason of the Jews being rejected; _who being ignorant of God\u2019s\nrighteousness, and going about to establish a righteousness of their\nown, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God_: and\nwhen they shall be called, if their call be intended, in that account\nwhich we have, of _the marriage of the Lamb, and his wife having made\nherself ready_, Rev. xix. 7. as many suppose, it is worth observing,\nthat she is described as _arrayed in fine linen, which is the\nrighteousness of saints_, or Christ\u2019s righteousness, by which they are\njustified: this is that in which they glory; and therefore are\nrepresented as being convinced of the importance of that doctrine which,\nbefore, they were ignorant of. This we have an account of in these two\nanswers, which we are now to explain, and shall endeavour to do it in\nthe following method.\nI. We shall consider what we are to understand by the word _justify_.\nII. What are the privileges contained therein, as reduced to two heads,\nto wit, pardon of sin; and God\u2019s accounting them who are justified,\nrighteous in his sight? And,\nIII. What is the foundation of our justification? namely, a\nrighteousness wrought out for us.\nIV. The utter inability of fallen man to perform any righteousness, that\ncan be the matter of his justification in the sight of God.\nV. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us,\nas our surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is\nimputed to us for our justification.\nVI. We shall consider it as an act of God\u2019s free grace. And,\nVII. Shew the use of faith in justification, or in what respects faith\nis said to justify.\nI. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the word\n_justify_. As there are many disputes about the method of explaining the\ndoctrines of justification; so there is a contest between us and the\nPapists, about the sense of the word; they generally supposing, that _to\njustify_, is to make inherently righteous and holy; because\nrighteousness and holiness sometimes import the same thing; and both of\nthem denote an internal change in the person who is so denominated; and\naccordingly they argue, that as to _magnify_ signifies to make great; to\n_fortify_, to make strong; so to _justify_ is to make just or holy: and\nthey suppose, that whatever we do to make ourselves so, or whatever good\nworks are the ingredients of our sanctification, these must be\nconsidered as the matter of our justification. And some Protestant\ndivines have supposed, that the difference between them and us, is\nprincipally about the sense of a word; which favourable and charitable\nconstruction of their doctrine, would have been less exceptionable, if\nthe Papists had asserted no more than that justification might have been\ntaken in this sense, when considered, not as giving us a right to\neternal life, or being the foundation of that sentence of absolution,\nwhich God passes upon us: but since this is the sense they give of it,\nwhen they say that we are justified by our inherent holiness, we are\nbound to conclude, that it is very remote from the scripture sense of\nthe word.\nWe do not deny that justification is sometimes taken in a sense\ndifferent from that which is intended by it, when used to signify the\ndoctrine we are explaining. Sometimes nothing more is intended hereby,\nthan our vindicating the divine perfections from any charge which is\npretended to be brought against them. Thus the Psalmist says, _That thou\nmightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou\njudgest_, Psal. li. 4. And our Saviour is said to be justified, that is,\nhis person or character vindicated or defended from the reproaches that\nwere cast on him; as it is said, _Wisdom is justified of her children_,\nMatt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 35. Also we frequently read of the justification\nof the actions or conduct of persons, in scripture; in which sense their\nown works may be said to justify or vindicate them from the charge of\nhypocrisy or unregeneracy. Again, to justify is sometimes taken, in\nscripture, for using endeavours to turn many to righteousness: and\ntherefore our translators have rendered the words, in the prophecy of\nDaniel, which signify, _they who justify many, they who turn many to\nrighteousness, shall shine as the stars_, Dan. xii. 3.[28]\nThere are various other senses which are given of this word, which we\npass over as not applicable to the doctrine we are maintaining, and\ntherefore shall proceed to consider the sense in which it is used, when\nimporting a sinner\u2019s justification in the sight of God; wherein it is to\nbe taken only in a forensick sense, and accordingly signifies a person\u2019s\nbeing acquitted or discharged from guilt, or a liableness to\ncondemnation, in such a way as is done in courts of judicature: thus we\nread in the judicial law, that _if there be a controversy between men,\nand they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they\nshall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked_, Deut. xxv. 1.\nwhere _to justify the righteous_, is to be understood for acquitting or\ndischarging one that appears to be righteous, or not guilty, from\ncondemnation; whereas _the wicked_, that is, they who appear to be\nguilty, are to be _condemned_: and in this sense the word is used, when\napplied to the doctrine of justification, in the New Testament, and\nparticularly in Paul\u2019s epistles; who largely insists on this subject.\nNow that we may understand how a sinner may expect to be discharged at\nGod\u2019s tribunal, let us consider the methods of proceeding used in human\ncourts of judicature: herein, it is supposed, that there is a law that\nforbids some actions which are deemed criminal; and also, that a\npunishment is annexed to this law, which renders the person that\nviolated it, guilty; and then persons are supposed to be charged with\nthe violation thereof; which charge, if it be not made good, they are\nsaid to be justified, that is, cleared from presumptive, not real guilt:\nbut if the charge be made good, and he that fell under it, liable to\npunishment; if he suffer the punishment he is justified, as in crimes\nthat are not of a capital nature; or if he be any otherwise cleared from\nthe charge, so that his guilt be removed, then he is deemed a justified\nperson: and so the law has nothing to lay to his charge, with respect to\nthat which he was before accused of. Thus when a sinner, who had been\ncharged with the violation of the divine law, found guilty before God,\nand exposed to a sentence of condemnation, is freed from it, then he is\nsaid to be justified; which leads us to consider,\nII. The privileges contained in justification; which are forgiveness of\nsin and a right and title to eternal life. These are sufficiently\ndistinguished, though never separated; so that when we find but one of\nthem mentioned in a particular scripture, which treats on this subject,\nthe other is not excluded. Forgiveness of sin is sometimes expressed in\nscripture, by a not imputing sin; and a right to life, includes in it\nour being made partakers of the adoption of children, and a right to the\ninheritance prepared for them. The apostle mentions both these together,\nwhen he speaks of our having _redemption through the blood of Christ,\neven the forgiveness of sins_; and being _made meet to be partakers of\nthe inheritance of the saints in light_, Col. i. 12, 14. And elsewhere\nhe speaks of Christ\u2019s _redeeming them that were under the law_; which\nincludes the former branch of justification, and of their _receiving the\nadoption of children_, which includes the latter. And again he considers\na justified person as _having peace with God_, which more especially\nrespects pardon of sin, and of their _having access to the grace wherein\nthey stand_, and their _rejoicing in hope of the glory of God_, Rom. v.\n1, 2. which is what we are to understand by, or includes in it, their\nright to life.\nThat justification consists of both these branches, we maintain against\nthe Papists, who suppose that it includes nothing else but forgiveness\nof sin, which is founded on the blood of Christ; whereas, according to\nthem, our right to life depends on our internal qualifications, or\nsincere obedience. And besides these, there are some Protestant divines,\nwho suppose that it consists only in pardon of sin; and this is\nasserted, by them, with different views; some do it as most consistent\nwith the doctrine of justification by works, which they plead for;\nwhereas, others do it as being most agreeable to another notion which\nthey advance, namely, that we are justified only by Christ\u2019s passive\nobedience; which will be considered under a following head. Again, there\nare others, whose sentiments of the doctrine of justification are\nagreeable to scripture, who maintain, that it includes both forgiveness\nof sins, and a right to life; but yet they add, that the former is\nfounded on Christ\u2019s passive obedience, and the latter on his active:\nwhereas, we cannot but think, that the whole of Christ\u2019s obedience, both\nactive and passive, is the foundation of each of these; which will also\nbe considered, when we come to speak concerning the procuring cause of\nour justification.\nAll that we shall observe at present, is, that these two privileges are\ninseparably connected; therefore, as no one can have a right to life,\nbut he whose sins are pardoned; so no one can obtain forgiveness of sin,\nbut he must, as the consequence hereof, have a right to life. As by the\nfall, man first became guilty, and then lost that right to life which\nwas promised in case he had stood; so it is agreeable to the divine\nperfections, provided the guilt be removed, that he should be put in the\nsame state as though it had not been contracted, and consequently, that\nhe should not only have forgiveness of sins, but a right to life.\nForgiveness of sin, without a right to eternal life, would render our\njustification incomplete; therefore, when any one is pardoned by an act\nof grace, he is put in possession of that which, by his rebellion, he\nhad forfeited, he is considered, not only as released out of prison, but\nas one who has the privileges of a subject, such as those which he had\nbefore he committed the crime. Without this he would be like Absalom,\nwhen, upon Joab\u2019s intercession with David, the guilt of murder, which he\nhad contracted, was remitted so far, as that he had liberty to return\nfrom Geshur, whither he was fled: nevertheless, he reckons himself not\nfully discharged from the guilt he had contracted, and concludes his\nreturn to Jerusalem, as it were, an insignificant privilege; unless, by\nbeing admitted to see the king\u2019s face, and enjoy the privileges which he\nwas possessed of before, he might be dealt with as one who was taken\ninto favour, as well as forgiven, 2 Sam. xiv. 2. which was accordingly\ngranted. This leads us to consider these two branches of justification\nin particular. And,\n1. Forgiveness of sin. Sin is sometimes represented as containing in it\nmoral impurity, as opposed to holiness of heart and life; and\naccordingly is said, _to defile a man_, Matt. xv. 19, 20. and is set\nforth by several metaphorical expressions in scripture, which tend to\nbeget an abhorrence of it as of things impure; in which sense it is\nremoved in sanctification rather, than in justification; not but that\ndivines sometimes speak of Christ\u2019s redeeming us from the filth and\ndominion of sin, and our deliverance from it in justification: but these\nare to be understood as rendering us guilty; inasmuch as all moral\npollutions are criminal, as contrary to the law of God; otherwise our\ndeliverance from them would not be a branch of justification; and\ntherefore, in speaking to this head, we shall consider sin as that which\nrenders men guilty before God, and so shew what we are to understand by\nguilt.\nThis supposes a person to be under a law, and to have violated it;\naccordingly sin is described as the _transgression of the law_, 1 John\niii. 4. The law of God, in common with all other laws, is primarily\ndesigned to be the rule of obedience; and in order thereunto, it is a\ndeclaration of the divine will, which, as creatures and subjects, we are\nunder a natural obligation to comply with; and God, as a God of infinite\nholiness and sovereignty, cannot but signify his displeasure in case of\ndisobedience; and therefore he has annexed a threatening to his law, or\npast a condemning sentence, as that which is due for every\ntransgression: this divines sometimes call the sanction of the law, or a\nfence, with which it is guarded, that so, through the corruption of our\nnature, we may not conclude, that we may rebel against him with\nimpunity: this the scripture styles, _The curse of the law_, Gal. iii.\n10. So that guilt is a liableness to the curse or condemning sentence of\nthe law, for our violation of it: this is sometimes called a debt of\npunishment, which we owe to the justice of God, for not paying that debt\nof obedience which was due from us to his law. Thus, when our Saviour\nadvises us to pray, that our sins may be forgiven; he expresses it by\n_forgiving us our debts_, Luke xi. 4. Matt. vi. 12. so that forgiveness,\nas it is a freeing us from guilt, discharges us from the guilt of\npunishment which we were liable to.\nThere is a twofold debt which man owes to God; one he owes to him as a\ncreature under a law; this is that debt of obedience, which he cannot be\ndischarged from; and therefore, a justified person is, in this sense, as\nmuch a debtor as any other. There is also a debt which man contracts as\na criminal, whereby he is liable to suffer punishment; this alone is\nremoved in justification.\nMoreover, we must carefully distinguish between the demerit of sin, or\nits desert of punishment; and the sinner\u2019s obligation to suffer\npunishment for it. The former of these is inseparable from sin, and not\nremoved, or, in the least lessened, by pardoning mercy; for sin is no\nless the object of the divine detestation; nor is its intrinsic evil, or\ndemerit, abated by its being forgiven; and therefore, a justified\nperson, remaining still a sinner, as transgressing the law of God, has\nas much reason to condemn himself, in this respect, as though he had not\nbeen forgiven. The Psalmist speaking concerning a person that is\nactually forgiven or justified, says, notwithstanding, that _if thou\nLord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?_ Psal. cxxx. 3.\nHe was, at the same time, in a justified state; but yet he concludes,\nthat there is a demerit of punishment in every sin that he committed;\nthough, when it is pardoned, the obligation to suffer punishment is\ntaken away:[29] and therefore, the apostle speaking of such, says,\n_There is no condemnation to them_, Rom. viii. 1. We must farther\ndistinguish between our having matter of condemnation in us; this a\njustified person has; and there being no condemnation to us; that is,\nthe immediate result of being pardoned.\nThere are several expressions in scripture, whereby forgiveness is set\nforth, namely, God\u2019s covering sin: thus the Psalmist says, _Blessed is\nhe whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered_, Psal. xxxii.\n1. or, his hiding his face from it, and blotting it out; or, _when it is\nsought for_, Psal. li. 9. its _not being found_, Jer. l. 20. and,\n_casting our sins into the depths of the sea_, Micah vii. 19. And\nelsewhere it is said, That when God had pardoned the sins of his people,\n_he did not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor see perverseness in Israel_,\nNumb, xxiii. 21. which amounts to the same thing as the foregoing\nexpressions of its being covered, hid, blotted out, _&c._\nI am sensible there have been many contests about the sense of this\nscripture; which might, without much difficulty, have been compromised,\nhad the contending parties been desirous to know each others sense,\nwithout prejudice or partiality. It is not to be thought, that when God\nforgives sin, he does not know, or suppose that the person forgiven,\nhad, before this, contracted guilt by sins committed; for without this,\nhe could not be the object of forgiveness. When God is said not to look\nupon, or hide his face from their sins, it is not to be supposed, that\nhe knows not what they have done, or what iniquities they daily commit\nagainst him; for that would be subversive of his omniscience: and when\nhe is said not to mark our iniquities, we are not to understand it, as\nthough he did not look upon the sins we commit, though in a justified\nstate, with abhorrence; for the sinner may be pardoned, and yet the\ncrime forgiven be detested. But God\u2019s not seeing sin in his people, is\nto be taken in a forensic sense; and accordingly, when an atonement is\nmade for sin, and the guilt thereof taken away, the criminal, in the eye\nof the law, is as though he had not sinned; he is as fully discharged\nfrom the indictment, that was brought in against him, as though he had\nbeen innocent, not liable to any charge founded upon it; and therefore\nthe apostle says, _Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God\u2019s elect?\nIt is God that justifieth_, Rom. viii. 33. and it is the same, as for\nGod _not to enter into judgment_, as the Psalmist elsewhere expresses\nit; or to _punish us less than our iniquities have deserved_, Psal.\ncxliii. 2. In this sense the indictment that was brought against him, is\ncancelled, the sentence reversed, and prosecution stopped; so that\nwhatever evils are endured as the consequence of sin, or with a design\nto humble him for it, as bringing sin to his remembrance, with all its\naggravating circumstances, he is, nevertheless, encouraged to hope, that\nthese are not inflicted in a judicial way, by the vindictive justice of\nGod demanding satisfaction; but to display and set forth the holiness of\nhis nature, as infinitely opposite to all sin, and the dispensations of\nhis providence agreeably thereunto; and that with a design to bring him\nto repentance for it.\nAnd, that this privilege may appear to be most conducive to our\nhappiness and comfort, let it be considered; that wherever God forgives\nsin, he forgives all sin, cancels every debt that rendered him liable to\npunishment, otherwise our condition would be very miserable, and our\nsalvation impossible; our condition would be like that of a person who\nhas several indictments brought in against him, every one of which\ncontain an intimation that his life is forfeited; it would avail him\nvery little for one indictment to be superseded, and the sentence due to\nhim for the others, executed: thus the apostle speaks of the _free\ngift_, being _of many_, that is, of the multitude of our _offences unto\njustification_, Rom. v. 16. And elsewhere he speaks of God\u2019s forgiving\nhis people _all trespasses_, Col. ii. 13. And as he forgives all past\nsins, so he gives them ground to conclude, that iniquity shall not be\ntheir ruin; and therefore, the same grace that now abounds towards them\nherein, together with the virtue of the atonement made for sin, shall\nprevent future crimes being charged upon them to their condemnation.\nThus concerning forgiveness of sin.\n2. The other privilege, which they who are justified are made partakers\nof, is the acceptation of their persons, as righteous in the sight of\nGod: thus they are said to be _made accepted in the Beloved_, Eph. i. 6.\nand as their persons are accepted, so are their performances,\nnotwithstanding the many defects that adhere to them. Thus God is said\nto have _had respect unto Abel, and to his offering_, Gen. iv. 4. And,\ntogether with this, they have a right and title to eternal life; which\nis that inheritance which Christ has purchased for, and God, in his\ncovenant of grace, has promised to them. This is a very comprehensive\nblessing; for it contains in it a right to all those great and precious\npromises, which God has made, respecting their happiness both here and\nhereafter. But since we shall have occasion to insist on this in a\nfollowing answer, under the head of adoption, which some divines, not\nwithout good reason, conclude to be a branch of justification, or, at\nleast, to contain in it those positive privileges, which they, who are\njustified, partake of, either here of hereafter, we shall proceed to\nconsider,\nIII. What is the foundation of our justification; and that must be\neither some righteousness wrought out by us; or for us. Since\njustification is a person\u2019s being _made righteous_, as the apostle\nstyles it, Rom. v. 29. we must consider what we are to understand\nhereby; and accordingly a person is said to be righteous who never\nviolated the law of God, nor exposed himself to the condemning sentence\nthereof: in this respect man, while in a state of innocency, was\nrighteous; his perfect obedience was the righteousness which, according\nto the tenor of the covenant he was under, gave him a right to eternal\nlife; especially it would have done so, had it been persisted in, till\nhe was possessed of that life; but such a righteousness as this, cannot\nbe the foundation of our justification, as the apostle says, _By the\nworks of the law shall no flesh be justified_, Gal. ii. 16. Therefore,\nthe righteousness we are now speaking of, must be something wrought out\nfor us, by one who stood in our room and stead, and was able to pay that\ndebt of obedience, and endure those sufferings that were due for sin,\nwhich the law of God might have exacted of us, and insisted on the\npayment of, in our own persons, which, when paid by Christ for us, is\nthat, (as will be considered under a following head,) which we generally\ncall Christ\u2019s righteousness, or what he did and suffered in our stead,\nin conformity to the law of God; whereby its honour was secured and\nvindicated, and justice satisfied; so that God hereby appears to be, as\nthe apostle says, _Just, and the justifier of him which believeth in\nJesus_, Rom. iii. 26.[30]\nIV. We are now to consider the utter inability of fallen man to perform\nany righteousness that can be the matter of his justification in the\nsight of God; whereby it will appear, as it is observed in this answer,\nthat we are not accounted righteous in his sight, for any thing wrought\nin us, or done by us. That we cannot be justified by suffering the\npunishment that was due for sin, appears from the infinite evil thereof;\nand the eternal duration of the punishment that it deserves; as our\nSaviour observes in the parable concerning the debtor, who did not\n_agree with his adversary while in the way_, but was _delivered to the\nofficer_, and _cast into prison_; from whence he was not to come out\n_till he had paid the uttermost farthing_, Matt. v. 25, 26. that is to\nsay, he shall never be discharged. A criminal who is sentenced to endure\nsome punishments short of death, or which are to continue but for a term\nof years, when he has suffered them, is, upon the account hereof,\ndischarged, or justified: but it is far otherwise with man, when fallen\ninto the hands of the vindictive justice of God; therefore the Psalmist\nsays, _enter not into judgment with thy servant_, or do not punish me\naccording to the demerit of sin; _for in thy sight shall no flesh living\nbe justified_.\nNeither can any one be justified by performing active obedience to the\nlaw of God; for nothing is sufficient to answer that end, but what is\nperfect in all respects; it must be sinless obedience, and that not only\nas to what concerns the time to come, but as respecting the time past;\nand that is impossible, from the nature of the thing, to be said of a\nsinner; for it implies a contradiction in terms. This farther appears\nfrom the holiness of God, which cannot but detest the least defect; and\ntherefore will not deal with a sinful creature, as though he had been\ninnocent: and as for sins that are past, they render us equally liable\nto a debt of punishment, with those which are committed at present, or\nshall be hereafter, in the sight of God. Moreover, the honour of the law\ncannot be secured, unless it be perfectly fulfilled; which cannot be\ndone if there be any defect of obedience.\nAs for those works which are done by us, without the assistance of the\nSpirit of God, these proceed from a wrong principle, and have many other\nblemishes attending them, upon the account whereof, they have only a\npartial goodness; and for that reason Augustine gives them no better a\ncharacter than shining sins[31]: but whatever terms we give them, they\nare certainly very far from coming up to a conformity to the divine law.\nAnd as for those good works which are said to be wrought in us, and are\nthe effect of the power and grace of God, and the consequence of our\nbeing regenerated and converted, these fall far short of perfection;\nthere is a great deal of sin attending them, which, if God should mark,\nnone could stand. This is expressed by Job, in a very humble manner;\n_How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot\nanswer him one of a thousand_. And, _if I wash myself with snow water,\nand make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,\nand mine own clothes shall abhor me: for he is not a man as I am, that I\nshould answer him, and we should come together in judgment_, Job ix. 2,\n3, 30-32. when God is said to _work in us that which is well pleasing in\nhis sight_, Heb. xiii. 21. we are not to understand, that the grace\nwhich he works in us, renders us accepted in his sight, in a forensic\nsense, or, that it justifies us; for in this respect we are only _made\naccepted in the Beloved_, that is, in Christ, Eph. i. 3.\nMoreover, as what is wrought in us, has many defects attending it; so it\nis not from ourselves, and therefore cannot be accepted as a payment of\nthat debt of obedience which we owe to the justice of God; and\nconsequently we cannot be justified thereby. Some, indeed, make the\nterms of acceptance, or justification in the sight of God, so very low,\nas though nothing were demanded of us but our sincere endeavours to\nyield obedience, whatever imperfections it be chargeable with. And\nothers pretend, that our confessing our sins will be conducive hereunto;\nand assert, that our tears are sufficient to wash away the guilt of sin.\nThe Papists add, that some penances, of acts of self-denial, will\nsatisfy his justice, and procure a pardon for us; yea, they go farther\nthan this, and maintain, that persons may perform works of\nsupererogation, or pay more than the debt that is owing from them, or\nthan what the law of God requires, and thereby not only satisfy his\njustice, but render him a debtor to them; and putting them into a\ncapacity of transferring these arrears of debt, to those that stand in\nneed of them, and thereby lay an obligation on them, in gratitude, to\npay them honours next to divine. Such absurdities do men run into, who\nplead for human satisfactions, and the merit of good works, as the\nmatter of our justification: and, indeed, there is nothing can tend more\nto depreciate Christ\u2019s satisfaction, on the one hand, and stupify the\nconscience on the other; and therefore, it is so far from being an\nexpedient for justification, that it is destructive to the souls of men.\nAs for our sincere endeavours, or imperfect obedience, these cannot be\nplaced by the justice of God, in the room of perfect; for that is\ncontrary to the nature of justice: We cannot suppose, that he who pays a\npepper-corn, or a few mites, instead of a large sum, really pays the\ndebt that was due from him; justice cannot account this to be a payment;\ntherefore, a discharge from condemnation, upon these terms, cannot be\nstyled a justification. And if it be said that it is esteemed so by an\nact of grace: this is to advance the glory of one divine perfection,\nand, at the same time, detract from that of another; nothing therefore\ncan be our righteousness, but that which the justice of God may, in\nhonour, accept of for our justification: and our own righteousness is so\nsmall and inconsiderable a thing, that it is a dishonour for him to\naccept of it in this respect; and therefore we cannot be justified by\nworks done by us, or wrought in us.\nThis will farther appear, if we consider the properties of this\nrighteousness; and in particular, that it must not only be perfect, and\ntherefore, such as a sinful creature cannot perform; but it must also be\nof infinite value, otherwise it could not give satisfaction to the\ninfinite justice of God; and consequently cannot be performed by any\nother than a divine person. And it must also bear some resemblance to\nthat debt which was due from us, inasmuch as it was designed to satisfy\nfor the debt which he had contracted; and therefore must be performed by\none who is really man. But this having been insisted on elsewhere, under\nthe head of Christ\u2019s Priestly office[32], we shall not farther enlarge\non it; but proceed to consider,\nV. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us,\nas our Surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is\nimputed to us for our justification. We have before considered that it\nis impossible that such a righteousness, as is sufficient to be the\nmatter of our justification, should be wrought out by us in our own\npersons; it therefore follows; that it must be wrought out for us, by\none who bears the character of a surety, and performs every thing that\nis necessary to our justification; such an one is our Lord Jesus Christ.\nIn considering this head, we must,\n1. Shew what we are to understand by a _surety_, since it is the\nrighteousness of Christ, under this relation to us, which is the matter\nof our justification. A surety is one who submits to be charged with,\nand undertakes to pay a debt contracted by another, to the end that the\ndebtor may hereby be discharged: thus the apostle Paul engages to be\nsurety to Philemon, for Onesimus, who had fled from him, whom he had\nwronged or injured, and was hereby indebted to him; concerning whom, he\nsays, _If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine\naccount; I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it_,\nPhilem. ver. 18. And elsewhere, we read of Judah\u2019s overture to be surety\nfor his brother Benjamin, that he should return to his father, as a\nmotive to induce him to give his consent that he should go with him into\nEgypt: _I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if\nI bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the\nblame for ever_, Gen. xliii. 9. This is so commonly known in civil\ntransactions of the like nature, between man and man, that it needs no\nfarther explication; however, it may be observed,\n(1.) That a person\u2019s becoming surety for another, must be a free and\nvoluntary act: for to force any one to bind himself to pay a debt, which\nhe has not contracted, is as much an act of injustice, as it is in any\nother instance to exact a debt where it is not due.\n(2.) He that engages to be surety for another must be in a capacity to\npay the debt, otherwise he is unjust to the creditor, as well as brings\nruin upon himself: therefore it is said, _Be not thou one of them that\nstrike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts, if thou hast\nnothing to pay; why should he take away the bed from under thee?_ Prov.\n(3.) He who engages to be surety for another, is supposed not to have\ncontracted the debt himself; and therefore the creditor must have no\ndemands upon him, as being involved together with the debtor, and so\nbecoming engaged antecedent to his being surety: nevertheless, he is\ndeemed, in the eye of the law, consequent thereunto, to stand in the\ndebtor\u2019s room, and to be charged with his debt, and equally obliged to\nthe payment thereof, as though he had contracted it, especially if the\ncreditor be resolved to exact the payment of him, rather than of the\noriginal debtor[33].\n(4.) As debts are of different kinds, so the obligation of a surety\nagreeably thereunto admits of different circumstances: thus there are\npecuniary debts resulting from those dealings or contracts which pass\nbetween man and man in civil affairs; and there are debts of service or\nobedience; as also debts of punishment, as has been before observed, for\ncrimes committed; in all which cases, as the nature of the debt differs,\nso there are some things peculiar in the nature of suretyship for it. In\npecuniary debts the creditor is obliged to accept of payment at the hand\nof any one, who at the request of the debtor is willing to discharge the\ndebt which he has contracted, especially, if what he pays be his own;\nbut in debts of service or punishment, when the surety offers himself to\nperform of suffer what was due from another, the creditor is at his\nliberty to accept of, or refuse satisfaction from him, but might insist\non the payment of the debt by him in his own person, from whom it was\ndue.\n2. Christ was such a surety for us, or substituted in our room, with a\ndesign to pay the debt which was due to the justice of God from us.\nHere, that we may assume the ideas of a surety but now-mentioned, and\napply them to Christ, as our surety, let it be considered;\n(1.) That what he did and suffered for us was free and voluntary; this\nappears from his readiness to engage therein, expressed by his saying,\n_Lo, I come to do thy will_, Heb. x. 9. And therefore whatever he\nsuffered for us did not infer the least injustice in God that inflicted\n(2.) He was able to pay the debt, so that there was not the least injury\noffered to the justice of God by his undertaking. This is evident, from\nhis being God incarnate; and therefore in one nature he was able to do\nand suffer whatever was demanded of us, and in the other nature to add\nan infinite value to what he performed therein.\n(3.) He was not rendered incapable of paying our debt, or answering for\nthe guilt which we had contracted by any debt of his own, which involved\nhim in the same guilt, and rendered him liable to the same punishment\nwith us, as is evident from what the prophet says concerning him, who\nspeaks of him, as charged with our guilt, though _he had done no\nviolence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth_, Isa. liii. 9. That\nwhich the prophet calls _doing no violence_, the apostle Peter referring\nto, and explaining it, styles _doing_, or committing _no sin_ of any\nkind. He was not involved in the guilt of Adam\u2019s sin, which would have\nrendered him incapable of being a surety to pay that debt for us;\nneither had he the least degree of the corruption of nature, being\nconceived in an extraordinary way, and sanctified from the womb[35]. Nor\ndid he ever commit actual sin, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and\nseparate from sinners.\n(4.) Another thing observed in the character of a surety, which is very\nagreeable to Christ, is; that what he engaged to pay was his own, or at\nhis own disposal, he did not offer any injury to justice, by paying a\ndebt that was before due to it, or by performing any service which he\nhad no warrant to do. It is true, he gave his life a ransom, but\nconsider him as a divine Person, and he had an undoubted right to\ndispose or of, lay down that life which he had as man. Did he consent,\nin the eternal transaction between the Father and him, to be incarnate,\nand in our nature to perform the work of a Surety? this was an act of\nhis sovereign will; and therefore whatever he paid as a ransom for us,\nwas, in the highest sense, his own. The case was not the same as though\none man should offer to lay down his life for another, who has no power\nto dispose of his life at pleasure. We are not lords of our own lives;\nas we do not come into the world by our own wills, we are not to go out\nof it when we please; but Christ was as God, if I may so express myself,\nlord of himself, of all that he did and suffered as man; by which I\nunderstand that he had a right as God to consent or determine to do, and\nsuffer whatever he did and suffered as man; therefore the debt which he\npaid in the human nature was his own.\n(5.) As it has been before observed, that in some cases he that is\nwilling to substitute himself as a surety in the room of the debtor,\nmust be accepted, and approved by him to whom it was due; and in this\nrespect our Saviour\u2019s substitution as our surety in our room, had a\nsanction from God the Father; who gave many undeniable evidences that\nwhat he did and suffered for us, was accepted by him as really as though\nit had been done by us in our own persons, which, as was before\nobserved, might have been refused by him, it being the payment of a debt\nof obedience and sufferings. Now that God the Father testified his\nacceptance of Christ as our surety, appears,\n1. From his well-pleasedness with him, both before and after his\nincarnation; before he came into the world, God seems to speak with\npleasure in the fore-thought of what he would be, and do, as Mediator,\nwhen he says, _Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my\nsoul delighteth_, Isa. xlii. 1. And he is also said to be _well pleased\nfor his righteousness sake_, ver. 21. or in his determining before hand\nthat he should, as Mediator, bring in that righteousness which would\ntend to magnify the law, and make it honourable.\nMoreover, his having anointed him by a previous designation to this\nwork, as the prophet intimates, speaking of him before his incarnation,\nIsa. lxi. 1, 2. is certainly an evidence of his being approved to be our\nsurety. And when he was incarnate, God approved of him, when engaged in\nthe work which he came into the world about: thus, when he was solemnly\nset apart, by baptism to the discharge of his public ministry, we read\nof a voice from heaven, saying, _This is my beloved Son, in whom I am\nwell pleased_, Matt. iii. 17. And to this we may add, that there was the\nmost undeniable proof of God\u2019s well pleasedness with him, as having\naccomplished this work, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at\nhis own right hand, in heavenly places.\n2. This may be farther argued from his justifying and saving those for\nwhom he undertook to be a surety, before the debt was actually paid; and\nhis applying the same blessings to his people, since the work of\nredemption was finished. The application of what Christ undertook to\npurchase, is an evidence of the acceptableness of the price. And this\nmay be considered, either as respecting those that were saved before his\nincarnation and death; or those who are, from that time, in all\nsucceeding ages, made partakers of the saving benefits procured thereby.\nBefore the actual accomplishment of what he undertook to do and suffer,\nas our surety, God the Father trusted him, and, by virtue of his\npromising to pay the debt, discharged the Old Testament saints from\ncondemnation, as effectually as though it had been actually paid. There\nare some cases in which a surety\u2019s undertaking to pay a debt, is\nreckoned equivalent to the actual payment of it; namely, when it is\nimpossible that he should make a failure in the payment thereof, either\nthough mutability, or a fickelness of temper, inducing him to change his\npurpose; or from unfaithfulness, which might render him regardless of\nhis engagement to pay it: or from some change in his circumstances\nwhereby, though he once was able to pay it, he afterwards becomes\nunable: I say, if none of these things can take place, and especially,\nif the creditor, by not demanding present payment, receives some\nadvantage, which is an argument that he does not stand in need thereof:\nin these cases the promise to pay a debt is equivalent to the payment of\nit.\nNow these things may well be applied to Christ\u2019s undertaking to pay our\ndebt: it was impossible that he should fail in the accomplishment of\nwhat he had undertaken; or change his purpose, and so, though he\ndesigned to do it, enter into other measures; or, though he had promised\nto do it, be unfaithful in the accomplishment thereof, these things\nbeing all inconsistent with the character of his person who undertook\nit; and, though he suffered for us in the human nature, it was his\ndivine nature that undertook to do it therein, which is infinitely free\nfrom the least imputation of weakness, mutability, or unfaithfulness:\nand, whereas the present payment was not immediately demanded, nor\ndesigned to be made till the fulness of time was come, his forbearance\nhereof was compensated by that revenue of glory which accrued to the\ndivine name, and that honour that redounded to the Mediator, by the\nsalvation of the elect, before his incarnation; and this was certainly\nan undeniable evidence of God\u2019s approving his undertaking.\nAnd since the work of redemption has been completed, all those who are,\nor shall be brought to glory, have, in themselves, a convincing proof of\nGod\u2019s being well pleased with Christ, as substituted in their room and\nstead, to pay the debt that was due from them to his justice, as the\nfoundation of their justification. From hence it plainly appears, that\nChrist was substituted as a surety in our room and stead, to do that for\nus which was necessary for our justification; and we have sufficient\nground to conclude, that he was so from scripture, from whence alone it\ncan be proved, it being a matter of pure revelation. Thus he is said, in\nexpress terms, to have been _made a surety of a better testament_, Heb.\nvii. 22. and that as our surety, he has paid that debt of sufferings\nwhich was due from us, is evident, in that he is said to _offer himself\na sacrifice for our sins_, ver. 27. and to have been _once offered to\nbear the sins of many_, chap. ix. 28. and from his being holy, harmless,\nundefiled, and separate from sinners, the apostle argues, that he had no\noccasion to offer a sacrifice for himself, or that he had no sin of his\nown to be charged with, therefore, herein he bore or answered for our\nsins: thus the apostle Peter says, _He bare our sins in his own body, on\nthe tree, by whose stripes we are healed_, 1 Pet. ii. 24. And elsewhere,\nwe read of _his being made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be\nmade the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. that is, he, who\nhad no guilt of his own to answer for, submitted to be charged with our\nguilt, to stand in our room and stead, and accordingly to be made a\nsacrifice for sin; all this implies as much as his being made a surety\nfor us. But this having been particularly insisted on elsewhere in\nspeaking concerning Christ\u2019s satisfaction, which could not be explained\nwithout taking occasion to mention his being substituted in the room and\nstead of those for whom he paid a price of redemption; and, having also\nconsidered the meaning of those scriptures that speak of his bearing our\nsins, we shall proceed to consider[36],\n3. What Christ did, pursuant to this character, namely, as our surety,\nas he paid all that debt which the justice of God demanded from us,\nwhich consisted in active and passive obedience. There was a debt of\nactive obedience demanded from man as a creature; and upon his failure\nof paying it, when he sinned, it became an out-standing debt, due from\nus; but such as could never be paid by us. God determines not to justify\nany, unless this out-standing debt be paid; Christ, as our surety,\nengages to take the payment of it on himself: and, whereas this defect\nof obedience, together with all actual transgressions, which proceeded\nfrom the corruption of our nature, render us guilty or liable to the\nstroke of vindictive justice, Christ, as our surety, undertakes to bear\nthat also: this we generally call the imputation of our sin to Christ,\nthe placing our debt to his account, and the transferring the debt of\npunishment, which was due from us to him, upon which account he is said\nto yield obedience, and suffer in our room and stead, or to perform\nactive and passive obedience for us; which two ideas the apostle joins\nin one expression, when he says, that he _became obedient unto death_,\nPhil. ii. 8. But this having been been insisted on elsewhere, under the\nhead of Christ\u2019s satisfaction[37], where we shewed, not only that Christ\nperformed active as well as passive obedience for us, but endeavoured to\nanswer the objections that are generally brought against Christ\u2019s active\nobedience, being part of that debt which he engaged to pay for us; we\nshall pass it by at present.\nBut that which may farther be added, to prove that our sin and guilt\nwere imputed to him, may be argued from his being said to be _made a\ncurse for us_, in order to his redeeming us from the curse of the law,\nGal. iii. 13. and also from his _being made sin for us, that we might be\nmade the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. And also from other\nscriptures, that speak of him as suffering, though innocent; punished\nfor sin, though he was at the same time the Lamb of God, without spot or\nblemish; dealt with as guilty, though he had never contracted any guilt,\nand being made a sacrifice for sin, though sinless, which could not have\nbeen done consistently with the justice of God, had not our sins been\nplaced to his account, or imputed to him.\nIt is indeed a very difficult thing to convince some persons, how Christ\ncould be charged with sin, or have sin imputed to him, in consistency\nwith the sinless purity of his nature, which some think to be no better\nthan a contradiction, though it be agreeable to the scripture mode of\nspeaking, _viz._ _He was made sin for us_, and yet _knew no sin_, 2 Cor.\nv. 21. However, when we speak of sin\u2019s being imputed to him, we are far\nfrom insinuating, that he committed any acts of sin; or, that his human\nnature was, in the least, inclined to, or defiled thereby; we choose\ntherefore to use the scripture phrase, in which he is said to have\n_borne our sins_, rather than to say, that he was a sinner; much less\nwould I give countenance to that expression which some make use of, that\nhe was the greatest sinner in the world; since I do not desire to apply\na word to him, which is often taken in a sense not in the least\napplicable to the holy Jesus. We cannot be too cautious in our\nexpressions, lest the most common sense in which we understand the\ngreatest sinner, when applied to men, should give any one a wrong idea\nof him, as though he had committed, or were defiled with sin. All that\nwe assert is, that he was charged with our sins, when he suffered for\nthem, not with having committed them; but with the guilt of them, which,\nby his own consent, was imputed to him; otherwise his sufferings could\nnot have been a punishment for sin; and if they had not been so, our sin\ncould not have been expiated, nor would his sufferings have been the\nground of our justification. This leads us to consider,\n4. The reference that Christ\u2019s suretyship-righteousness has to our\njustification. This is generally styled its being imputed; which is a\nword very much used by those who plead for the scripture-sense of the\ndoctrine of justification, and as much opposed by them that deny it; and\nwe are obliged to defend the use of it; otherwise Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness, how glorious soever it be in itself, would not avail for\nour justification. Here it is necessary for us to explain what we mean\nby the imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness.\nThere are some who oppose this doctrine, by calling it a putative\nrighteousness, the shadow or appearance of that which has in it no\nreality, or our being accounted what we are not, whereby a wrong\njudgment is passed on persons and things. However, we are not to deny it\nbecause it is thus misrepresented, and thereby unfairly opposed: it is\ncertain, that there are such words used in scripture, and often applied\nto this doctrine, which, without any ambiguity or strain on the sense\nthereof, may be translated, to reckon, to account, or to place a thing\ndone by another to our account; or, as we express it, to impute.[38] And\nthat, either respects what is done by us; or something done by another\nfor us. The former of these senses our adversaries do not oppose; as\nwhen it is said, that Phinehas _executed judgment, and it was counted\nunto him for righteousness_, Psal. cvi. 31. that is, it was approved by\nGod as a righteous action; which expression seems to obviate an\nobjection that some might make against it; supposing, that Phinehas\nherein did that which more properly belonged to the civil magistrate;\nor, that this judicial act in him, was done without a formal trial, and,\nit may be, too hastily; but God owns the action, and, in a way of\napprobation, places it to his account for righteousness, that it should\nbe reckoned a righteous action throughout all generations.\nAgain, sometimes that which is done by a person, is imputed to him, or\ncharged upon him, so that he must answer for it, or suffer the\npunishment due to it: thus Shimei says to David, _Let not my Lord impute\niniquity unto me_, 2 Sam. xix. 19. that is, do not charge that sin,\nwhich I committed, upon me, so as to put me to death for it, which thou\nmightest justly do. And Stephen prays, _Lord, lay not this sin to their\ncharge_, Acts vii. 60. impute it not to them, or inflict not the\npunishment on them that it deserves. No one can deny that what is done\nby a person himself, may be placed to his own account; so that he may be\nrewarded or punished for it; or it may be approved or disapproved: but\nthis is not the sense in which we understand it when speaking concerning\nthe imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness to us; for this supposes that\nwhich is done by another, to be placed to our account. This is the main\nthing which is denied by those who have other sentiments of the doctrine\nwe are maintaining; and, they pretend, that for God to account Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness ours, is to take a wrong estimate of things, to reckon\nthat done by us which was not; which is contrary to the wisdom of God,\nwho can, by no means, entertain any false ideas of things; and if the\naction be reckoned ours, then the character of the person performing it,\nmust also be applied to us; which is to make us sharers in Christ\u2019s\nMediatorial office and glory.\nBut this is the most perverse sense which can be put on words, or a\nsetting this doctrine in such a light as no one takes it in, who pleads\nfor it: we do not suppose, that God looks upon man with his all-seeing\neye, as having done that which Christ did, or to sustain the character\nwhich belongs to him in doing it; we are always reckoned, by him, as\noffenders, or contracting guilt, and unable to do any thing that can\nmake an atonement for it. Therefore, what interest soever we have in\nwhat Christ did, it is not reputed our action; but God\u2019s imputing\nChrist\u2019s righteousness to us, is to be taken in a forensic sense, which\nis agreeable to the idea of a debt being paid by a surety: it is not\nsupposed that the debtor paid the debt which the surety paid; but yet it\nis placed to his account, or imputed to him as really as though he had\npaid it himself. Thus what Christ did and suffered in our room and\nstead, is as much placed to our account, as though we had done and\nsuffered it ourselves; so that by virtue hereof we are discharged from\ncondemnation.[39]\nThis is the sense in which we understand the imputation of Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness to us; and it is agreeable to the account we have thereof\nin scripture: thus we are said to be _made the righteousness of God in\nhim_, 2 Cor. v. 21. the abstract being put for the concrete; that is, we\nare denominated and dealt with as righteous persons, acquitted and\ndischarged from condemnation in the virtue of what was done by him, who\nis elsewhere styled, _The Lord our righteousness_; and the apostle\nspeaks of his _having Christ\u2019s righteousness_, Phil. iii. 9. that is,\nhaving it imputed to him, or having an interest in it, or being dealt\nwith according to the tenor thereof; in this respect he opposes it to\nthat righteousness which was in him, as the result of his own\nperformances: and elsewhere Christ is said to be _made of God unto us\nrighteousness_; that is, his fulfilling the law is placed to our\naccount; and the apostle speaks of _Christ\u2019s being the end of the law\nfor righteousness to every one that believeth_, Rom. x. 4. which is the\nsame with what he asserts in other words elsewhere concerning the\n_righteousness of the law\u2019s being fulfilled in us_, chap. viii. 3, 4.\nwho could not be justified by our own obedience to it, in _that it was\nweak through the flesh_, or by reason of our fallen state; therefore\nChrist did this for us; and accordingly God deals with us as though we\nhad fulfilled the law in our own persons, inasmuch as it was fulfilled\nby him as our surety.\nThis may farther be illustrated, by what we generally understand by\nAdam\u2019s sin being imputed to us, as one contrary may illustrate another;\ntherefore, as sin and death entered into the world by the _offence of\none_, to wit, the first Adam, _in whom all have sinned; so by the\nrighteousness of one the free gift_, Rom. v. 18. that is, eternal life\n_came upon all men_, to wit, those who shall be saved _unto\njustification of life_; and for this reason the apostle speaks of Adam\nas the _figure of him that was to come_, ver. 14. Now as Adam\u2019s sin was\nimputed to us, as our public head and representative, so that we are\ninvolved in the guilt thereof, or fall in him; so Christ\u2019s righteousness\nis imputed to us, as he was our public head and surety: and accordingly,\nin the eye of the law, that which was done by him, was the same as\nthough it had been done by us; and therefore, as the effect and\nconsequence hereof, we are justified thereby. This is what we call\nChrist\u2019s righteousness being imputed to us, or placed to our account;\nand it is very agreeable to the common acceptation of the word, in\ndealings between man and man. When one has contracted a debt, and\ndesires that it may be placed to the account of his surety, who\nundertakes for the payment of it, it is said to be imputed to him; and\nhis discharge hereupon is as valid as though the debtor has paid it in\nhis own person. This leads us,\nVI. To consider justification as it is an act of God\u2019s free grace, which\nis particularly insisted on in one of the answers we are explaining; for\nthe understanding of which, let it be observed, that we are not to\nsuppose, that when we are justified by an act of grace, this is opposed\nto our being justified upon the account of a full satisfaction made by\nour surety to the justice of God; in which respect we consider our\ndischarge from condemnation, as an act of justice. The debtor is,\nindeed, beholden to the grace of God for this privilege, but the surety\nthat paid the debt, had not the least abatement thereof made, but was\nobliged to glorify the justice of God to the utmost, which accordingly\nhe did. However, there are several things in which the grace of God is\neminently displayed, more particularly,\n1. In that God should be willing to accept of satisfaction from the\nhands of our surety, which he might have demanded of us. This appears\nfrom what has been before observed, namely, that the debt which we had\ncontracted was not of the same nature with pecuniary debts, in which\ncase the creditor is obliged to accept of payment, though the overture\nhereof be made by another, and not by him that contracted the debt:\nwhereas the case is different in debts of obedience to be performed, or\npunishment to be endured; in which instances, he, to whom satisfaction\nis to be given, must accept of one to be substituted in the room of him\nfrom whom the obedience or sufferings were originally due; otherwise,\nthe overture made, or what is done and suffered by him, pursuant\nthereunto, is not regarded, or available to procure a discharge for him,\nin whose room he substituted himself. God might have exacted the debt of\nus, in our own persons, and then our condition had been equally\nmiserable with that of fallen angels, for whom no mediator was accepted,\nno more than provided.\n2. The grace of God farther appears, in that he provided a surety for\nus, which we could not have done for ourselves; nor have engaged him to\nperform this work for us, who was the only person that could bring about\nthe great work of redemption.\nThe only creatures who are capable of performing perfect obedience, are\nthe holy angels; but these could not do it, for, as has been before\nobserved, whoever performs it must be incarnate, that they may be\ncapable of paying the debt, in some respects, in kind, which was due\nfrom us; therefore they must suffer death, and consequently have a\nnature which is capable of dying; but this the angels had not, nor could\nhave, but by the divine will.\nBesides, if God should have dispensed with that part of satisfaction,\nwhich consists in a subjection to death, and have declared, that active\nobedience should be sufficient to procure our justification; the angels,\nthough capable of performing active obedience, would, notwithstanding,\nhave been defective therein; so that justice could not, in honour, have\naccepted of it, any more than it could have dispensed with the\nobligation to perform obedience in general; because it would not have\nbeen of infinite value; and it is the value of things that justice\nregards, and not barely the matter of perfection thereof in other\nrespects: so that it must be an obedience that had in it something\ninfinitely valuable, or else it could not have been accepted by God, as\na price of redemption, in order to the procuring our justification: and\nthis could be performed by none but our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious\nauthor and procurer of this privilege.\nIt was impossible for man to have found out this Mediator or Surety; so\nthat it had its first rise from God, and not from us; it is he that\nfound a ransom, and laid help upon one that is mighty; this was the\nresult of his will: therefore our Saviour is represented as saying, _Lo\nI come to do thy will_, Heb. x. 7. as the apostle expresses it. That we\ncould not, by any means, have found out this surety, or engaged him to\nhave done that for us which was necessary for our justification, will\nevidently appear, if we consider,\n(1.) That when man fell, the Son of God was not incarnate; and provided\nwe allow that fallen man had some idea of a Trinity of persons, in the\nunity of the divine Essence, which is not unreasonable to suppose; since\nit was necessary that that should be revealed to him before he fell, in\norder to his performing acceptable worship; yet, can any one suppose\nthat man could have asked such a favour of a divine person, as to take\nhis nature, and put himself in his room and stead, and expose himself to\nthe curse of that law which he had violated; this could never have\nentered into his heart; yea, the very thought, if it had taken its rise\nfirst from him, would have savoured of more presumption than had he\nentreated that God would pardon his sin without a satisfaction. But,\n(2.) If he had supposed it impossible for the Son of God to be\nincarnate, or had conjectured that there had been the least probability\nof his being willing to express this instance of condescending goodness,\nhow could he have known that God would have accepted the payment of our\ndebt, at the hands of another, or have commended his love to us, who\nwere such enemies to him, in not sparing him, but delivering him up for\nus? if God\u2019s accepting of a satisfaction be necessary, in order to its\ntaking effect, as well as the perfection or infinite value of it; it is\ncertain, man could not have known that he would have done it; for that\nwas a matter of pure revelation. Moreover,\n(3.) Should we suppose even this possible, or that man might have\nexpected that God would have been moved to have done it by intreaty; yet\nsuch was the corruption, perverseness, and rebellion of his nature, as\nfallen; and so great was his inability to perform any act of worship,\nthat he could not have addressed himself to God, in a right manner, that\nhe would admit of a surety; and God cannot hear any prayer but that\nwhich is put up to him by faith, which supposes a Mediator, whose\npurchase and gift it is; and therefore, since the sinful creature could\nnot plead with God by faith, that he would send his Son to be a\nMediator, how could he hope to obtain this blessing? it therefore\nevidently follows, that as a man could not give satisfaction for\nhimself; so he could not find out any one that could or would give it\nfor him. And therefore, the grace of God, in the provision that he has\nmade of such a surety as his own Son, unasked for, unthought of, as well\nas undeserved, is very illustrious.\n3. It was a very great instance of grace in our Saviour, that he was\npleased to consent to perform this work for us, without which the\njustice of God could not have exacted the debt of him; and he being\nperfectly innocent, could not be obliged to suffer punishment, which it\nwould have been unjust in God to have inflicted, had he not been willing\nto be charged with our guilt, and to stand in our room and stead. And\nhis grace herein more eminently appears, in that though he knew\nbefore-hand all the difficulties, sorrows, and temptations, which he was\nto meet with in the discharge of this work; yet this did not discourage\nhim from undertaking it; neither was he unapprised of the character of\nthose for whom he undertook it: he knew the rebellion, and guilt\ncontracted thereby, that rendered this necessary, in order to their\nsalvation; and he knew before-hand, that they would, notwithstanding all\nthe engagements he might lay on them to the contrary, discover the\ngreatest ingratitude towards him; and, instead of improving so great an\ninstance of condescending goodness, that they would neglect this great\nsalvation, when purchased by him, and thereby appear to be his greatest\nenemies, notwithstanding this act of friendship to them, unless he not\nonly engaged to purchase redemption for, but apply it to them, and work\nthose graces in them whereby they might be enabled to give him the glory\nwhich is due to him for this great undertaking. And this leads us,\nVII. To consider the use of faith in justification, and how,\nnotwithstanding what has been said concerning our being justified by\nChrist\u2019s righteousness, we may, in other respects, be said to be\njustified by faith; and also shew what this faith is, whereby we are\njustified: which being particularly insisted on in the two following\nanswers, we shall proceed to consider them.\nFootnote 28:\n  \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7.\nFootnote 29:\n  _The former of these divines call_ reatus potentialis, _the latter_,\n  reatus actualis; _the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the\n  latter is taken away by justification._\nFootnote 30:\n  Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or\n  rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be\n  denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by\n  the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and\n  perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none\n  are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in\n  themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore\n  to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their\n  actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men. _To be made_,\n  (or constituted) _righteous_, or, to _be justified_, in the sight of\n  God, in scriptural language cannot mean, _to be made inherently\n  righteous_. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and\n  cannot be ignorant of every man\u2019s real demerit. This righteousness of\n  the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own\n  conformity to the Divine law; \u201c_In the Lord have I righteousness_;\u201d\n  \u201c_That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own\n  righteousness_.\u201d If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of\n  God\u2019s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be\n  justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to be _treated and\n  accepted as righteous_. If God _justifies the ungodly_, his truth and\n  justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect\n  rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or\n  treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their\n  righteousness is defective; but _by the obedience of one_, (that is\n  Christ,) _many are made righteous_. The term _obedience_ excludes the\n  essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which\n  he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor\n  transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an\n  infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the\n  personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive\n  advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been\n  spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may\n  be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their\n  number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety\n  of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and\n  purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down\n  his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of\n  another\u2019s; yet Christ was the _Lord of life_ and possessed what no\n  mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take\n  it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to\n  the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution\n  might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon\n  which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of\n  God before man was created; and was _promised us in Christ Jesus\n  before the world began_. Justice therefore can neither object to the\n  substitution, nor withhold the rewards.\nFootnote 31:\n  _Splendida peccata._\nFootnote 32:\n  _See Vol. II. Page 275._\nFootnote 33:\n  _The distinction often used in the civil law between_ fide-jussor\n  _and_ expromissor, _or a person\u2019s being bound together with the\n  original debtor, and the creditor\u2019s being left to his liberty to exact\n  the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is called_ fide-jussor;\n  _and the surety\u2019s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who\n  contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand by_\n  expromissor, _has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174,\nFootnote 34:\n  _Volenti non fit injuria._\nFootnote 35:\n  _See Vol. II. Page 281._\nFootnote 36:\n  _See Vol. II. page 288._\nFootnote 37:\n  _See Vol. II. page 280-293._\nFootnote 38:\n  \u05d7\u05e9\u05d1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9.\nFootnote 39:\n  I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the\n  views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel, are\n  unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in\n  the proper _imputation_ of sin to Christ, or of Christ\u2019s righteousness\n  to us; nor in his being our _substitute_, or representative.\n  _John._ Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother\n  Peter, on which your suspicions rest?\n  _Peter._ Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with\n  those doctrines; and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I\n  consider as an avowal of what I have stated.\n  _John._ What say you to this, brother James?\n  _James._ I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords\n  with brother Peter\u2019s ideas on these subjects: indeed I suspect it does\n  not: but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in\n  question. Were I to relinquish the one or the other, I should be at a\n  loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my\n  avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a\n  misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that _his views_ of\n  imputation and substitution were unscriptural; but had no intention of\n  disowning the doctrines themselves.\n  _Peter._ Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over\n  your faith; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these\n  important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to\n  Christ, or that Christ\u2019s righteousness is properly imputed to us, or\n  not?\n  _James._ You are quite at liberty, brother Peter, to ask me any\n  questions on these subjects; and if you will hear me patiently, I will\n  answer you as explicitly as I am able.\n  _John._ Do so, brother James; and we shall hear you not only\n  patiently, but, I trust, with pleasure.\n  _James._ To impute,[40] signifies in general, to _charge_, _reckon_,\n  or _place to account_, according to the different objects to which it\n  is applied. This word, like many others, has a _proper_, and an\n  _improper_ or figurative meaning.\n  First: It is applied to the _charging_, _reckoning_, or _placing to\n  the account_ of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO\n  THEM. This I consider as its _proper_ meaning. In this sense the word\n  is used in the following passages. \u201cEli _thought_ she, (Hannah,) had\n  been drunken\u2014Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers were _counted_\n  faithful\u2014Let a man so _account_ of us as the ministers of Christ, and\n  stewards of the mysteries of God\u2014Let such an one _think_ this, that\n  such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be\n  also indeed when we are present\u2014I _reckon_ that the sufferings of this\n  present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall\n  be revealed in us.\u201d[41] Reckoning or accounting, in the above\n  instances, is no other than judging of persons and things _according\n  to what they are, or appear to be_. To impute sin in this sense is to\n  charge guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, or with a view to\n  punishment. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might _not be\n  imputed to him_; thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lord\n  _imputeth not iniquity_: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those\n  who deserted him might _not be laid to their charge_.[42]\n  In this sense the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute\n  treason or any other crime to a man, is the same thing as charging him\n  with having committed it, and with a view to his being punished.\n  Secondly: It is applied to the _charging_, _reckoning_, or _placing to\n  the account_ of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY\n  BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its _improper_ or\n  figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following\n  passages\u2014\u201cAnd this your heave-offering shall be _reckoned_ unto you\n  _as though it were_ the corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness\n  of the wine-press\u2014Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and _holdest_ me for\n  thine enemy\u2014If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,\n  shall not his uncircumcision be _counted_ for circumcision\u2014If he hath\n  wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, _put that on mine account_.\u201d[43]\n  It is in this _latter_ sense that I understand the term when applied\n  to justification. \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was _counted_ unto him\n  for righteousness\u2014To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that\n  justifieth the ungodly, his faith is _counted_ for righteousness.\u201d The\n  counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things\n  _as they are_; but _as they are not, as though they were_. I do not\n  think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it\n  is expressly called \u201cbelieving.\u201d It means believing, however, not as a\n  virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of\n  perfect obedience, but _as having respect to the promised Messiah_,\n  and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44]\n  Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the\n  New Testament; not as that from which the _virtue_ proceeds, but as\n  that which _receives_ from the Saviour\u2019s fulness.\n  But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the\n  object believed in, still this was not Abraham\u2019s _own_ righteousness,\n  and could not be properly _counted_ by him who judges of things as\n  they are, as being so. It was _reckoned_ unto him _as if it were_ his;\n  and the effects, or benefits of it were actually imparted to him: but\n  this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be\n  unworthy.\n  \u201cWhat is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ,\n  (says Calvin,) but to affirm that hereby only we are _accounted_\n  righteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us AS IF IT\n  WERE OUR OWN.\u201d[45]\n  It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He\n  was accounted in the divine administration _as if he were, or had\n  been_ the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted _as\n  if they were, or had been_ righteous.\n  Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just or not, I hope it\n  will be allowed to be explicit.\n  _John._ That it certainly is; and we thank you. Have you any other\n  questions, brother Peter, to ask upon the subject?\n  _Peter._ How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21. _He hath\n  made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the\n  righteousness of God in him?_\n  _James._ Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it.\n  I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word\n  \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 (_sin_) as frequently meaning a _sin-offering_. Dr. Owen so\n  interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[46] though it seems he\n  afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition between the\n  sin which Christ was made, and the righteousness which we are made,\n  together with the same word being used for that which he was _made_,\n  and that which he _knew not_, I am inclined to be of the doctor\u2019s last\n  opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means _sin\n  itself_; and the righteousness which we are made, means _righteousness\n  itself_. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering\n  under the law; but not to its being _made a sacrifice_. Let me be a\n  little more particular. There were two things belonging to the\n  sin-offering. _First_: The imputation of the sins of the people,\n  signified by the priest\u2019s laying his hands upon the head of the\n  animal, and confessing over it their transgressions; and which is\n  called \u201cputting them upon it.\u201d[47] That is, it was _counted_ in the\n  divine administration _as if the animal had been_ the sinner, and the\n  only sinner of the nation. _Secondly_: Offering it in sacrifice, or\n  \u201ckilling it before the Lord for an atonement.\u201d[48] Now the phrase,\n  _made sin_, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the _first_ step in\n  this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was\n  preparatory to Christ\u2019s suffering death rather than of the thing\n  itself, just as our being _made righteousness_ expresses what was\n  preparatory to God\u2019s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term\n  _made_ is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of\n  Christ\u2019s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a\n  divine _constitution_, by which our Redeemer with his own consent,\n  stood in the sinner\u2019s place, as though he had been himself the\n  transgressor; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to\n  Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people \u201cput upon\n  its head,\u201d with this difference; that was only a shadow, but this went\n  really to take away sin.\n  _Peter._ Do you consider Christ as having been _punished, really and\n  properly_ PUNISHED?\n  _James._ I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?\n  _Peter._ An innocent person may _suffer_, but, properly speaking, he\n  cannot be _punished_. Punishment necessarily supposes _criminality_.\n  _James._ Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in\n  any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.\n  _Peter._ Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the\n  commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the\n  latter should have been committed by the party\u2014Criminality is\n  supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed.\n  _James._ This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I\n  understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for\n  the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one _upon the\n  person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him_. It\n  not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was\n  literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and\n  imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If\n  Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged\n  his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment _to\n  him_, but _suffering_ only, as not being inflicted in displeasure\n  against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that\n  there was a more intimate _union_ between Christ and those for whom he\n  died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is\n  enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE\n  ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering\n  himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law,\n  the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself\n  nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.\n  _Peter._ And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, _The\n  Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all_?\n  _James._ Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which,\n  considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The\n  phrase \u201cHe shall bear his iniquity,\u201d which so frequently occurs in the\n  Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his\n  iniquity.\n  _Peter._ And yet you deny that Christ\u2019s sufferings were properly\n  _penal_.\n  _James._ You would not deny eternal life which is promised to\n  believers to be properly _a reward_; but you would deny its being _a\n  real and proper reward_ TO THEM.\n  _Peter._ And what then?\n  _James._ If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it,\n  yet is really and properly the reward of Christ\u2019s obedience, and not\n  our\u2019s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment,\n  and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of\n  our sins, and not his. What he bore _was_ punishment: that is, it was\n  the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we\n  enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God\u2019s\n  well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is\n  the one a punishment _to him_, nor the other, properly speaking, a\n  reward _to us_.\n  There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this\n  subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the\n  term _suffering_. Once it is called a _chastisement_: yet there he is\n  not said to have been chastised; but \u201cthe chastisement of our peace\n  was _upon him_.\u201d This is the same as saying he bore _our_ punishment.\n  He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or\n  accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was\n  treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from\n  heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was\n  poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was\n  angry or displeased _with him_, or that he smote him from any such\n  displeasure.\n  There is a passage in Calvin\u2019s _Institutes_, which so fully expresses\n  my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it\n  in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. \u00a7 10, 11. \u201cIt behoved him that he should, as it\n  were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of\n  eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was _laid upon him_. He\n  was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our\n  iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the\n  wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person\n  himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have\n  been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death.\n  Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry\n  with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom\n  his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his\n  Father\u2019s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been\n  incensed against himself? But this is our meaning\u2014that he sustained\n  the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken\n  and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN\n  HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.\u201d\n  _Peter._ The words of scripture are very express\u2014He hath _made him to\n  be sin for us_\u2014He was _made a curse for us_.\u2014You may, by diluting and\n  qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable\n  _harshness_. In other words, you may choose to correct the language\n  and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his\n  Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached,\n  and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain\n  attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the\n  passages, you must hold with _a commutation of persons_, the\n  _imputation_ of sin and of righteousness, and a _vicarious\n  punishment_, equally pregnant with _execration_ as with _death_.\n  _John._ I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which\n  tends not to convince, but to irritate.\n  _James._ If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not\n  perceive it. I admit with Mr. _Charnock_, \u201cThat Christ was \u2018made sin\u2019\n  _as if he had_ sinned all the sins of men; and we are \u2018made\n  righteousness,\u2019 _as if we had_ not sinned at all.\u201d What more is\n  necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further\n  must be to maintain that Christ\u2019s being _made sin_ means that he was\n  literally rendered wicked, and that his being _made a curse_ is the\n  same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts.\n  Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but\n  he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated _as if\n  he were_ a sinner, and his _being one_. If such a medium there be, I\n  should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no\n  existence.\n  Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate\n  his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to\n  certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In\n  most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some\n  things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the _real_ and\n  _proper punishment_ of Christ, he talks of his being \u201cguilty by\n  imputation.\u201d The term _guilty_, I am aware, is often used by\n  theological writers for _an obligation to punishment_, and so applies\n  to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the\n  punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the _desert_\n  of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the\n  opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment\n  of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from\n  obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are\n  transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are\n  untransferable. To say that Christ was _reckoned_ or _counted_ in the\n  divine administration _as if he were_ the sinner, and came under an\n  obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one\n  thing: but to say he _deserved_ that curse, is another. Guilt,\n  strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and\n  could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ.\n  If Christ by imputation became _deserving_ of punishment, we by\n  non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally\n  transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and\n  then, instead of approaching God as _guilty_ and _unworthy_, we might\n  take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but\n  meritorious beings.\n  _Peter._ Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the\n  righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his _obedience\n  itself_ is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture\n  represents believers as receiving only the _benefits_, or effects of\n  Christ\u2019s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and\n  accepted for Christ\u2019s _righteousness sake_.\u2014But it is not merely _for\n  the sake_ of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are\n  accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him\n  as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation\n  of that _very obedience_ which as such he performed to the divine law,\n  that they are justified.\n  _James._ I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ\u2019s\n  righteousness presupposes a _union_ with him; since there is no\n  perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one _for another\u2019s sake_\n  where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not\n  such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF\n  THE OTHER. That \u201cthe scriptures represent believers as _receiving_\n  only the benefits or the effects of Christ\u2019s righteousness in\n  justification,\u201d is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the\n  fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed\n  to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects\n  only are _imparted_, and consequently _received_. I never met with a\n  person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed\n  punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person.\n  Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on\n  the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation\n  _consists_ in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party\n  in such a way as to _impart_ to him their evil or beneficial effects.\n  _Peter._ The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle\n  Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has\n  formerly been by authors of eminence.\n  _James._ It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer\n  who says, that \u201cIn Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be\n  called _a fulfiller of the law_:\u201d but I see not why he might not as\n  well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain,\n  and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be\n  worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be\n  conferred upon him in the world to come.\u2014What do you think of Dr.\n  CRISP\u2019S Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?\n  _Peter._ I cordially agree with WITSIUS, as to the impropriety of\n  calling Christ _a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners_,\n  &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. CRISP, and some others,\n  _meant_ by those exceptionable expressions.\n  _James._ If a Christian may be called _a fulfiller of the law_, on\n  account of Christ\u2019s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why\n  Christ may not be called _a transgressor of the law_, on account of\n  our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things _should be\n  called what they are_. As to the _meaning_ of Dr. CRISP, I am very\n  willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the\n  meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in\n  charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us,\n  as reckoning of things _as they are_. (p. 280.) He contends that\n  Christ was _really_ the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon\n  him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is\n  literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object\n  of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from\n  henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. \u201cHast thou been an\n  idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God\u2019s word, a profaner\n  of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard\u2014If thou hast\n  part in Christ, _all these transgressions of thine become actually the\n  transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest\n  to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the\n  last hour of thy life_: so that now thou art _not_ an idolater, a\n  persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.\u2014thou art not a sinful person. Reckon\n  whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all\n  that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.\u201d\n  If the _meaning_ of this passage be true and good, I see nothing\n  exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the\n  writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate\n  consequences. I believe the principle to be false.\u2014(1.) Because\n  neither sin nor righteousness are _in themselves_ transferable. The\n  act and deed of one person may _affect_ another in many ways, but\n  cannot possibly become his act and deed.\u2014(2.) Because the scriptures\n  uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful\n  creatures.\u2014(3.) Because believers themselves have in all ages\n  _confessed_ their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for\n  _forgiveness_. They never plead such an union as shall render their\n  sins not theirs, but Christ\u2019s; but merely such a one as affords ground\n  to apply for pardon _in his name_, or _for his sake_; not as worthy\n  claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.\n  Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in which\n  _conscience_ will bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of\n  our sins to Christ, _we are actually the sinners_; and I should have\n  thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its\n  testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. \u201cBelievers _think_,\n  says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences,\n  and they _imagine_ that there is a sting of this poison still behind,\n  wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a\n  truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy\n  transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and\n  conscience?\u2014Is thy conscience Christ?\u201d p. 269.\n  Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. CRISP in his attempts at\n  consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in\n  a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions.\n  To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that\n  all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in\n  scripture, arose from their being under the _mistake_ which he labours\n  to rectify; that is, _thinking_ sin did not cease to be theirs, even\n  when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to\n  them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.\u2014\u2014\n  _John._ I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our\n  conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied the\n  _substitution of Christ_, as well as the proper imputation of sin and\n  righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably\n  tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the\n  former.\n  _Peter._ I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider\n  our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I\n  still understand to be his views on this important subject.\n  _John._ It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of\n  brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too\n  far.\n  _Peter._ I shall be glad to hear brother James\u2019s statement on\n  _substitution_, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his\n  undertaking as having sustained the character of a _Head_, or\n  _Representative_; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a\n  substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.\n  _James._ I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably\n  at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine\n  of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation\n  rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel,\n  consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my\n  Saviour as laying down his life _for, or instead of_ sinners, as was\n  said of Jerusalem by the captives\u2014_If I forget_ THEE, _let my right\n  hand forget: If I do not remember_ THEE, _let my tongue cleave to the\n  roof of my mouth_!\n  I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the\n  essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person\n  whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself\n  but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him _as if it\n  were his own_, would have been accounted to disown his substitution.\n  But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be,\n  notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this\n  subject, that Christ was so our _head_ and _representative_, as that\n  what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.\u2014If no more were\n  meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is\n  graciously accepted on our behalf _as if it were ours_, I freely, as I\n  have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can\n  hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and\n  sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to\n  have obeyed and suffered.\n  Christ was and is our _head_, and we are his members: the union\n  between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that\n  which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for\n  that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and\n  accountableness on our part.\n  As to the term _representative_, if no more be meant by it than that\n  Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in\n  him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not\n  believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and\n  suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving\n  of the divine favour.\u2014But I feel myself in a wide field, and must\n  entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation.\n  _Peter and John._ Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.\n  _James._ I apprehend then that many important mistakes have arisen\n  from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of\n  _paying a debt_. The blood of Christ is indeed the _price_ of our\n  redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the\n  curse of the law: but this metaphorical language, as well as that of\n  _head and members_, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many\n  errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety\n  undertakes to _represent_ the debtor, from the moment his undertaking\n  is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a\n  matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict\n  justice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet\n  as soon as he knows it, he may demand his discharge, and, it may be,\n  think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after\n  his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will\n  imagine this to be analagous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus\n  Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking,\n  it is a _crime_, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on\n  pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that\n  part of Paul\u2019s offer which respected property, and had placed so much\n  to his account as he considered Onesimus to have \u201cowed\u201d him, he could\n  not have been said to have _remitted_ his debt; nor would Onesimus\n  have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus\n  that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have \u201cwronged\u201d\n  him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or\n  injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the\n  offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would\n  have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in the other of a moral\n  one; that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would\n  annihilate the idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever\n  satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound\n  inflicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it\n  would not supersede the necessity of pardon being sought by the\n  offender, and freely bestowed by the offended.\n  The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are\n  transferable; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one;\n  but he can only obliterate the _effects_ of the other; the _desert_ of\n  the criminal remains. The _debtor_ is accountable to his creditor as a\n  _private_ individual, who has power to accept of a surety, or if he\n  please, to remit the whole, without any satisfaction. In the one case\n  he would be just; in the other merciful: but no place is afforded by\n  either of them for the _combination_ of justice and mercy in the same\n  proceeding. The _criminal_, on the other hand, is amenable to the\n  magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a _public_ person, and who,\n  especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment\n  without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his\n  office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In\n  extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted\n  to. A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to the _spirit_\n  of them, while the _letter_ is dispensed with. The well-known story of\n  Zaleucus, the Grecian law-giver, who consented to lose one of his eyes\n  to spare one of his son\u2019s eyes, who by transgressing the law had\n  subjected himself to the loss of both, is an example. Here, as far as\n  it went, _justice and mercy were combined_ in the same act: and had\n  the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the\n  authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been\n  abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had been _perfectly\n  consistent with free forgiveness_.\n  Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted,\n  justice _requires_ his complete discharge: but in that of the\n  criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law,\n  and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though it _admits_ of his\n  discharge, yet no otherwise _requires_ it than as it may have been\n  matter of promise to the substitute.\n  I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent\n  representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only\n  ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it\n  is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals\n  infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some\n  idea of the _principle_ on which it proceeds.\n  If the following passage in our admired _Milton_ were considered as\n  the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate\u2014\n                  He with his whole posterity must die:\n                  Die he, or justice must; unless for him\n                  Some other able, and as willing, pay\n                  The rigid satisfaction, death for death.\u201d\n  Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of\n  what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such\n  condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the law-giver who\n  should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of\n  the law to the transgressor was not _thou shalt die, or some one on\n  thy behalf_; but simply _thou shalt die_: and had it literally taken\n  its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of\n  Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the\n  ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary\n  interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather\n  above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the\n  spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them,\n  are my views of the substitution of Christ.\n  _Peter._ The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ,\n  as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by\n  those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really\n  consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the\n  ground of a sinner\u2019s hope, to employ the objection against us, is very\n  extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency.\n  _James._ If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the\n  objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to\n  state them.\n  FULLER\nFootnote 40:\n  \u05d7\u05e9\u05d1; \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\nFootnote 41:\nFootnote 42:\nFootnote 43:\n  Num. xviii. 27-30. Job xiii. 24. Rom. ii. 26. Philem. 18.\nFootnote 44:\n  Expository Discourses on Gen. xv. 1-6. Also Calvin\u2019s Inst. bk. iii.\nFootnote 45:\n  Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. \u00a7 2.\nFootnote 46:\nFootnote 47:\n  Lev. xvi. 21.\nFootnote 48:\n    QUEST. LXXII. _What is justifying Faith?_\n    ANSW. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a\n    sinner, by the Spirit and word of God; whereby he, being convinced\n    of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself, and all\n    other creatures, to recover him out of his lost condition, not only\n    assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth\n    and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth,\n    for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his\n    person, righteous in the sight of God for salvation.\n    QUEST. LXXIII. _How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of\n    ANSW. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God; not because of\n    those graces which do always accompany it, or of those good works\n    that are the fruits of it; nor as if the grace of faith, or any act\n    thereof, were imputed to him for justification; but only as it is an\n    instrument, by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his\n    righteousness.\nWe choose first to speak to the latter of these two answers, in which\nfaith is considered as that whereby a sinner is justified, before the\nformer of them, inasmuch as it seems better connected with what has been\nbefore insisted on, in explaining the doctrine of justification. And in\nconsidering the account we have of justifying faith, there are two\nthings, which may be taken notice of, in this answer.\nI. It is observed, that though there are other graces which always\naccompany faith and good works, that flow from it; yet none of these are\nsaid to justify a sinner in the sight of God.\nII. How faith justifies, or what it is to be justified by faith.[49]\nI. That though there are other graces which always accompany faith, and\ngood works that flow from it; yet none of these are said to justify a\nsinner in the sight of God. There is an inseparable connexion between\nfaith, and all other graces; which, though it be distinguished, is never\nseparate from them. They are all considered as _fruits of the Spirit_,\nGal. v. 22, 23. thus the apostle reckons up several other graces that\nare connected with faith, and proceed from the same Spirit, such as\n_love_, _peace_, _joy_, _long-suffering_, _gentleness_, _goodness_,\n_meekness_, _temperance_: and the same apostle commends the church at\nThessalonica for their _work of faith; and_ considers this as connected\nwith a _labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ_,\n1 Thess. i. 3. And the apostle Peter exhorts the church, to which he\nwrites, to _add to their faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, to\nknowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to\ngodliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity_, 2 Pet.\ni. 5, 6, 7. which supposes that all these graces ought to be connected\ntogether. And the apostle James calls it a _dead faith_, James ii. 17.\nwhich has not other works or graces joined with it; and, indeed, these\ngraces are not only connected with it, but flow from it, or are the\nfruits thereof: thus we read of the _heart\u2019s being purified by faith_,\nActs xv. 9. that is, this grace, when acted in a right manner, will have\na tendency, in some degree, to purge the soul from that moral impurity,\nwhich proceeds out of the heart of man, and is inconsistent with saving\nfaith: and elsewhere we read of _faith as working by love_, Gal. v. 6.\nthat is, exciting those acts of love, both to God and man, which contain\na summary of practical religion. It is also said to _overcome the\nworld_, 1 John v. 4. and it enables Christians to do or suffer great\nthings for Christ\u2019s sake, of which the apostle gives various instances\nin the Old Testament saints, Heb. xi. But, notwithstanding the connexion\nof other graces with faith, and those works which flow from it, we are\nnever said, in scripture, to be justified thereby; not by love to God;\nnor by any act of obedience to him, which can be called no other than\nworks: whereas, when the apostle speaks of our justification by faith,\nhe puts it in opposition to works, when he says, that _a man is\njustified by faith, without the deeds of the law_, Rom. ii. 28.\n_Object._ To this it is objected, that the apostle here speaks\nconcerning the ceremonial law, which he excludes from being the matter\nof our justification, and not the moral law, or any evangelical duty,\nsuch as love and sincere obedience, which, together with faith is the\nmatter of our justification.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That when the apostle speaks of our\njustification by faith, without the deeds of the law, he does not hereby\nintend the ceremonial law; for those whom he describes as justified\npersons, are said to be, in a following verse, not only Jews, but\nGentiles, that were converted to the Christian faith; the former,\nindeed, were under a temptation to seek to be justified by the\nceremonial law, and so to conclude that they had a right to eternal\nlife; because of their being distinguished from the world, by the\nexternal privileges of the covenant which they were under, many of which\nwere contained in, or signified by that law: but the Gentiles had\nnothing to do with it, and therefore never expected to be justified by\nthe ceremonial law; accordingly, when the apostle speaks of\njustification by faith without the deeds of the law, he cannot hereby be\nsupposed to intend the ceremonial law. And if we look a little farther\ninto the context, we shall find, by his method of reasoning, that he\nexcludes all works in general, and opposes faith to them; for he argues,\nthat we are justified in such a way, as tends to exclude boasting; but\nhe that insists on any works performed by himself, as the matter of his\njustification, cannot do this any otherwise than in a boasting way,\nvaluing himself, and founding his right to eternal life, upon them. We\nare not therefore justified by them, but by faith; that is, we are\njustified in such a way as that, while we lay claim to the greatest\nprivileges from Christ, we are disposed to give him all the glory, or to\nrenounce our own righteousness at the same time that we have recourse to\nhis righteousness for justification, by faith.\nBut that it may farther appear, that our justification by faith, is\nopposed to justification by works, either those that accompany or flow\nfrom it, we may apply what has been before suggested, in considering the\nmatter of our justification to this argument. If we consider the demands\nof justice, or what it may in honour reckon a sufficient compensation\nfor the dishonour that has been brought to the divine name by sin, or\nwhat may be deemed a satisfactory payment of the outstanding debt of\nperfect obedience, which was due from us, or punishment, which we were\nliable to, according to the sanction of the divine law; we may easily\ninfer, that no obedience, performed by us, though including in it the\nutmost perfection, that a fallen creature is capable of attaining, is a\nsufficient satisfaction; and if there can be no justification without\nsatisfaction, then we cannot be justified thereby. Therefore it is a\nvain thing for persons to distinguish in this case, between works done\nbefore and after faith, as though the former only were excluded from\nbeing the matter of our justification; or to say, as some do, that we\nare not indeed justified by obedience to the moral law, but by our\nobeying the precepts which our Saviour has laid down in the gospel, such\nas faith, and repentance, _&c._ which they call obedience to the gospel\nas a new law: but let it be considered, that these evangelical duties\nare supposed to be performed as the result of a divine command, which\nhas the formal nature of a law, whether they be contained in the moral\nlaw or no; therefore, when we are justified by faith in opposition to\nthe works of the law, this must be opposed to obedience of any kind\nperformed by us.\nAnd this also appears from the nature of faith, to which justification,\nby the works of the law, is opposed; for faith is a soul-humbling grace,\nand includes in it a renouncing of all merit, or inducement taken from\nourselves, as a reason why God should bestow on us the blessings we\nstand in need of; it trusts in Christ for righteousness, and in him\nalone, and therefore turns itself from any thing that may have the least\ntendency to eclipse his glory, as the only foundation of our\njustification: therefore, when we are said to be justified by faith, and\nnot by the works of the law, the meaning is, we are justified in such a\nway as tends to set the crown upon Christ\u2019s head, acknowledging him to\nbe the only fountain from whence this privilege is derived.\nIt follows from hence that our justification cannot be founded on our\nrepentance; though this is often maintained by those who are on the\nother side of the question, who suppose, that justification contains in\nit nothing else but forgiveness of sin; and if offences are to be\nforgiven by men, upon their repentance, or confessing their fault, then\nforgiveness may be expected from God, on our repentance: and some use a\nvery unsavoury way of speaking, when they say, that our tears have a\nvirtue to wash away our sins; and that they may give farther countenance\nto this opinion, they refer to that scripture, in which it is said,\n_Repent, that your sins may be blotted out_, Acts iii. 19. and others of\nthe like nature; by which we are not to suppose, that the apostle means,\nthat forgiveness of sin is founded on our repentance, as the matter of\nour justification in the sight of God; but that there is an inseparable\nconnexion between our claim to forgiveness of sin, (together with all\nthe fruits and effects of the death of Christ, whereby this blessing was\nprocured) and repentance; so that one is not to be expected without the\nother; and though men are to forgive injuries in case the offender\nacknowledges his fault, and makes sufficient restitution; this they may\ndo, inasmuch as the offence is only committed against a creature; and\nespecially if the offence be of a private nature. But supposing this\nshould be applied to juridical and forensick cases, will any one say,\nthat the prince is obliged to forgive the criminal who is under a\nsentence of condemnation, because he is sorry for what he has done, or\nconfesses his fault? Would this secure his honour as a law-giver? And if\nhereupon the offender were to be discharged from his guilt, would not\nthis be a defect in the administration of the legislature? How then can\nthis be applied to forgiveness, expected at the hand of God; in which\njustice, as well as mercy, is to have the glory that is due to it; and\nwe are not only to be acquitted, but justified, or pronounced guiltless,\nsince our acknowledgment of our offence cannot be reckoned a sufficient\nsatisfaction to the justice of God?\n_Object._ It is objected, by those on the other side of the question,\nthat though repentance be not in itself a sufficient compensation to the\njustice of God for the crimes which we have committed; yet God may, by\nan act of grace, accept of it, as though it had been sufficient[50].\nThis they illustrate by a similitude taken from a person\u2019s selling an\nestate of a considerable value, to one who has no money to buy it,\nprovided he will pay a pepper-corn of acknowledgment. Thus, how\ninsignificant soever, repentance, or any other grace, which is deemed\nthe matter of our justification, be in itself, it is by an act of\nfavour, deemed a sufficient price.\n_Answ._ In answer to this I would observe, that the objection, which was\nbefore brought against the doctrine we have been maintaining, concerning\nthe imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness, namely, that it was a putative\nrighteousness, a not judging of things according to truth, and the like,\nseems to be of no weight when it affects their own cause; otherwise we\nmight turn their argument against themselves, and ask them; whether this\nbe for God to judge according to truth, when that is accepted as a\nsufficient payment, by his justice, which is in itself of no value? But\npassing this by, we may farther observe, that this is wholly to set\naside the necessity of satisfaction, as the Socinians do; and therefore\nit is no wonder that they make use of this method of reasoning. As for\nothers who do not altogether deny this doctrine, yet think that a small\nprice may be deemed satisfactory for sin committed. That which may be\nreplied to it, is, that if justification, as tending to advance the\nglory of divine justice, in taking away the guilt of sin, depends upon a\nprice paid that is equivalent to the debt contracted; and nothing short\nof a price of infinite value can be reckoned an equivalent thereunto,\nthen certainly that which is performed by men, cannot be deemed a\nsufficient payment, or accepted of as such.\nIt is a vain thing for persons to pretend that there is a difference\nbetween satisfying God, and satisfying his justice; or, that to satisfy\nGod is to pay a price, be it never so small, that he demands; whereas,\nsatisfying justice is paying a price equal to the thing purchased; since\nwe must conclude, that God cannot deem any thing satisfactory to\nhimself, that is not so to his justice. Therefore, this distinction will\nnot avail, to free their argument from the absurdity that attends it.\nWe might here observe, that as some speak of pardon of sin\u2019s being\nfounded on our repentance; others speak of our justification as being by\nthe act of faith, or by faith considered as a work, and in defending\njustification by works, as though it were not opposed to justification\nby faith (the contrary to which has been before proved) they argue, that\nwe are often said, in scripture, to be justified by faith; but this\nfaith is a work; therefore it cannot be denied but that we are justified\nby works. To which it may be replied, that it is one thing to say, that\nwe are justified by faith, that is, a work, and another thing to say,\nthat we are justified by it as a work; or, it is one thing to say, that\nwe are justified for our faith, and another thing to say, that we are\njustified by it; which will more evidently appear under the following\nhead, which we proceed to consider; namely,\nII. What it is for us to be justified by faith, or how faith justifies.\nNone can, with the least shadow of reason, deny, that justification by\nfaith, is a scripture-mode of speaking, though some have questioned,\nwhether the apostle\u2019s words, _being justified by faith, we have peace\nwith God through our Lord Jesus Christ_, gives countenance to the\ndoctrine of justification by faith; for they observe, that by putting a\nstop immediately after the word _justified_, the sense would be, that\nthey who are justified by Christ\u2019s righteousness, have peace with God by\nfaith, through the Lord Jesus Christ: but though this will a little\nalter the reading of the text; yet it will not overthrow the doctrine of\njustification by faith, as contained therein. For if we understand our\n_having peace with God_, as importing, that peace which they have a\nright to, who are interested in Christ\u2019s righteousness, and not barely\npeace of conscience: then it will follow, that to have this peace by\nfaith, is, in effect, the same as to be justified by faith; and this\nfarther appears, from the following words, _by whom also we have access\nby faith into this grace, wherein we stand_. The _grace wherein we\nstand_, is that grace which is the foundation of our justification, and\nnot barely peace of conscience: when we are therefore said to have\naccess by faith unto this grace, it is the same as for us to be\njustified by faith.\nMoreover, this is not the only place in which we are said to be\njustified by faith; for the apostle says elsewhere, _We are justified by\nthe faith of Jesus Christ_, Gal. ii. 16. or by faith in Jesus Christ,\nand again, _the just shall live by faith_, Rom. i. 17. which, agreeably\nto the context, must be understood of their being justified by faith; in\nwhich sense the apostle particularly explains it elsewhere, Gal. iii.\n11. and in another place he speaks of _the righteousness of God which is\nby faith of Jesus Christ_, Rom. iii. 22. and also of a believer\u2019s\n_waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith_, Gal. v. 5. We must not\ntherefore deny that justification is by faith; but rather explain the\nsense of those scriptures that establish this doctrine, agreeably to the\nmind of the Holy Ghost therein.\nThere are various methods taken to explain the doctrine of justification\nby faith; particularly one that we think subversive of justification by\nChrist\u2019s righteousness: the other, that which is contained in the answer\nwhich we are explaining.\n1. As to the former of these, namely, that which is inconsistent with\nthe doctrine of justification by Christ\u2019s righteousness. This is\nmaintained by those who plead for justification by works; and\nconsequently, they say, that we are justified by faith, and all other\ngraces; which they call the conditions of our justification in the sight\nof God; and indeed to be justified by faith, according to them, is\nlittle other than to be justified for faith: whether they reckon it a\nmeritorious condition or no, they must own it to be a pleadable\ncondition; otherwise it would have no reference to justification; and if\nit be taken in this sense, our justification depends as much upon it, as\nthough it had been meritorious. This is the account which some give of\njustification; and to prepare the way for this opinion, they suppose,\nthat the terms of salvation, in the gospel, which are substituted in the\nroom of those which were required under the first covenant made with\nAdam, are faith, repentance and sincere obedience, instead of perfect;\nand that God in justifying a penitent, believing sinner, pursuant to the\nperformance of these conditions, declares his willingness, that there\nshould be a relaxation of that law which man was at first obliged to\nobey; and accordingly, that sincerity is demanded by him instead of\nperfection, or substituted in the room of it; this they call the new\nlaw, or others style it a remedial law: so that instead of being\njustified by Christ\u2019s yielding perfect obedience, or paying the\nout-standing debt, which we were obliged, by reason of the violation of\nthe first covenant, to pay, we are to be justified by our own imperfect\nobedience.\nBut that which may be objected to this method of reasoning, is, that it\nis inconsistent with the holiness of the divine nature, and the glory of\nthe justice of God, detracts from the honour of his law, and is, in\neffect, to maintain that we are justified without satisfaction given.\nFor though these terms of our justification, and acceptance in the sight\nof God, may be falsely styled a valuable consideration; yet none will\npretend to assert, that they are an infinite price; and nothing short of\nthat (which is no other than Christ\u2019s righteousness) is sufficient to\nanswer this end. I am sensible, that they who lay down this plan of\njustification, allege in defence thereof; that though these terms of\nacceptance are of small value in themselves; yet God, by an act of\ngrace, reckons the payment of a small debt equivalent to that of a\ngreater, as has been before observed. And they speak of faith and\nrepentance as having a value set upon them by their reference to the\nblood of Christ[51], who merited this privilege for us, that we should\nbe justified in such a way, or upon these conditions performed: they\ncall them indeed easier terms, or conditions, and include them all in\nthe general word sincerity, instead of perfection. But they are\nnevertheless somewhat divided in their method of explaining themselves,\ninasmuch as some suppose these conditions to be wholly in our own power,\nwithout the aids of divine grace, as much as perfect obedience was in\nthe power of our first parents; whereas others ascribe a little more to\nthe grace of God, according as they explain the doctrine of effectual\ncalling; though they do not suppose, that these conditions are\naltogether out of our own power; and they so far lay a foundation for\nthe sinner\u2019s glorying herein, as that, they suppose, our right to\njustification and eternal life is founded on them.\nI cannot but think this method of explaining the doctrine of\njustification to be subversive of the gospel, and that it is highly\nderogatory to the glory of God to assert that he can dispense with the\ndemand of perfect obedience, and justify a person on easier terms; which\nis little better than what the apostle calls _make void the law_: this,\nsays he, we are far from doing _by faith_, or by our asserting the\ndoctrine of justification by faith in Christ\u2019s righteousness; _but we\nrather establish it_ hereby: and to say that God sets such a value on\nour performing these conditions of the new covenant, as that they are\ndeemed equivalent to Christ\u2019s performing perfect obedience for us, this\nreflects on his glory, as set forth, to be a propitiation for sin, to\ndeclare God\u2019s righteousness in the remission thereof; and detracts from\nthe obligation which we are laid under to him, for what he did and\nsuffered in our behalf, for our justification.\nMoreover, to assert that God sets this value on our performances,\npursuant to Christ\u2019s merit; or that they are highly esteemed by him,\nbecause they are tinctured with his blood; this is contrary to the\ndesign of his death, which was, not that such an estimate might be set\non what is done by us; but rather, that the iniquities that attend our\nbest performances may be forgiven; and that (though, when we have done\nall, we are unprofitable servants,) we may be made accepted in the\nBeloved; and having no justifying righteousness of our own, may be\njustified, and glory in that which he hath wrought out for us.\nAnd as for the supposition, that faith, repentance, and new obedience,\nare not only conditions of justification, but easy to be performed: this\nplainly discovers, that they who maintain it, either think too lightly\nof man\u2019s impotency and averseness to what is good, and his alienation\nfrom the life of God, or are strangers to their own hearts, and are not\nduly sensible that it is God that works in his people both to will and\nto do, of his own good pleasure.\nThe only thing that I shall add, in opposition to the doctrine of\njustification by works, is, that whatever is the matter or ground of our\njustification in the sight of God, must be pleadable at his bar; for we\ncannot be justified without a plea, and if any plea, taken from our own\nworks, be thought sufficient, how much soever the proud and deluded\nheart of man may set too great a value upon them; yet God will not\nreckon the plea valid, so as to discharge us from guilt, and give us a\nright and title to eternal life on the account thereof; which leads us\nto consider,\n2. The method taken to explain this doctrine in the answer before us,\nwhich we think agreeable to the divine perfections, and contains a true\nstate of the doctrine of justification by faith. We before considered\njustification as a forensic act, that we might understand what is meant\nby our sins being imputed to Christ our Head and Surety, and his\nrighteousness imputed to us, or placed to our account. And we are now to\nspeak of this righteousness as pleaded by, or applied to us, as the\nfoundation of our claim to all the blessings that were purchased by it.\nHere we must consider a sinner as bringing in his plea, in order to his\ndischarge; and this is twofold.\n(1.) If he be charged by men, or by Satan, with crimes not committed, he\npleads his own innocency; if charged with hypocrisy, he pleads his own\nsincerity. Thus we are to understand several expressions in scripture to\nthis purpose; as for instance, when a charge of the like nature was\nbrought in against Job, Satan having suggested that he did not serve God\nfor nought; and that if God would touch his bone and his flesh, he would\ncurse him to his face: and his friends having often applied the\ncharacter they give of the hypocrite to him, and so concluding him to be\na wicked person, he says, _God forbid that I should justify you_; that\nis, that I should acknowledge your charge to be just; _till I die, I\nwill not remove mine integrity from me: my righteousness I hold fast,\nand will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I\nlive_, Job xxvii. 5, 6. that is, I never will own what you insinuate,\nthat my heart is not right with God. And David, when complaining of the\nill-treatment which he met with from his enemies and persecutors, who\ndesired not only to _tread down his life upon the earth_, but to _lay\nhis honour in the dust_; to murder his name as well as his person, he\nprays, _Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according\nto mine integrity that is in me_, Psal. vii. 8. What could he plead\nagainst maliciousness and false insinuations, but his righteousness or\nhis integrity? And elsewhere, when he says, _The Lord rewarded me\naccording to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands\nhath he recompensed me: For I have kept the ways of the Lord; his\njudgments were before me. I was also upright before him, and have kept\nmyself from mine iniquity_, 2 Sam. xxii. 21, _&c. seq._ it is nothing\nelse but an intimation, that how much soever he might be charged with\nthe contrary vices, he was, in this respect, innocent: and though God\ndid not justify him at his tribunal, for this righteousness; yet, in the\ncourse of his providence, he seemed to approve of his plea, so far as\nthat whatever the world thought of him, he plainly dealt with him as one\nwho was highly favoured by him; or whom, by his dealings with him, he\nevidently distinguished from those whose hearts were not right with him.\nIt is true, some who plead for justification by our own righteousness,\nallege these scriptures as a proof of it, without distinguishing between\nthe justification of our persons in the sight of God, and the\njustification of our righteous cause; or our being justified when\naccused at God\u2019s tribunal, and our being justified, or vindicated from\nthose charges that are brought against us at man\u2019s.\n(2.) When a person stands at God\u2019s tribunal, as we must suppose the\nsinner to do, when bringing in his plea for justification in his sight;\nthen he has nothing else to plead but Christ\u2019s righteousness; and faith\nis that grace that pleads it: and in that respect we are said to be\njustified by faith, or in a way of believing. Faith doth not justify by\npresenting or pleading itself, or any other grace that accompanies or\nflows from it, as the cause why God should forgive sin, or give us a\nright to eternal life; for they have not sufficient worth or excellency\nin them to procure these blessings. Therefore, when we are said to be\njustified by faith, it is by faith, as apprehending, pleading, or laying\nhold on Christ\u2019s righteousness; and this gives occasion to divines to\ncall it the instrument of our justification. Christ\u2019s righteousness is\nthe thing claimed or apprehended; and faith is that by which it is\nclaimed or apprehended; and, agreeably to the idea of an instrument, we\nare said not to be justified for faith, but by it. Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness is that which procures a discharge from condemnation for\nall for whom it was wrought out; faith is the hand that receives it;\nwhereby a person has a right to conclude, that it was wrought out for\nhim. Christ\u2019s righteousness is that which has a tendency to enrich and\nadorn the soul; and faith is the hand that receives it, whereby it\nbecomes ours, in a way of fiducial application: and as the righteousness\nof Christ is compared, in scripture, to a glorious robe, which renders\nthe soul beautiful, or is its highest and chief ornament; it is by faith\nthat it is put on; and, in this respect, as the prophet speaks, its\nbeauty is rendered _perfect through his comeliness, which is put upon\nhim_, Ezek. xvi. 14. so that Christ\u2019s righteousness justifies, as it is\nthe cause of our discharge; faith justifies as the instrument that\napplies this discharge to us; thus when it is said, _the just shall live\nby faith_, faith is considered as that which seeks to, and finds this\nlife in him; the effect is, by a metonymy, applied to the instrument; as\nwhen the husbandman is said to live or to be maintained by his plough,\nand the artist to live by his hands, or the beggar by his empty hand\nthat receives the donative. If a person was in a dungeon, like the\nprophet Jeremiah, and a rope is let down to draw him out of it, his\nlaying hold on it is the instrument, but the hand that draws him out, is\nthe principal cause of his release from thence; or, that we may make use\nof a similitude that more directly illustrates the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, suppose a condemned malefactor had a pardon procured for\nhim, which gives him a right to liberty, or a discharge from the place\nof his confinement, this must be pleaded, and his claim be rendered\nvisible; and after that he is no longer deemed a guilty person, but\ndischarged, in open court, from the sentence that he was under. Thus\nChrist procures forgiveness by his blood; the gospel holds it forth, and\ndescribes those who have a right to claim it as belonging to him in\nparticular: and hence arises a visible discharge from condemnation, and\na right to claim the benefits that attend it. If we understand\njustification by faith, in this sense, we do not attribute too much to\nfaith on the one hand, nor too little to Christ\u2019s righteousness on the\nother.\nAnd we rather choose to call faith an instrument, than a condition of\nour justification, being sensible, that the word _condition_ is\ngenerally used to signify that for the sake whereof, a benefit is\nconferred, rather than the instrument by which it is applied; not but\nthat it may be explained in such a way, as is consistent with the\ndoctrine of justification by faith, as before considered. We do not deny\nthat faith is the condition of our claim to Christ\u2019s righteousness; or\nthat it is God\u2019s ordinance, without which we have no ground to conclude\nour interest in it. We must therefore distinguish between its being a\ncondition of forgiveness, and its being a condition of our visible and\napparent right hereunto. This cannot be said to belong to us, unless we\nreceive it; neither can we conclude that we have an interest in Christ\u2019s\nredemption, any more than they for whom he did not lay down his life,\nbut by this medium. We must first consider Christ\u2019s righteousness as\nwrought out for all them that were given him by the Father; and faith is\nthat which gives us ground to conclude, that this privilege, in\nparticular, belongs to us.\nThis account of the use of faith in justification, we cannot but think\nsufficient to obviate the most material objections that are brought\nagainst our way of maintaining the doctrine of justification, _viz._ by\nChrist\u2019s righteousness, in one respect, and by faith in another. It is\nan injurious suggestion to suppose that we deny the necessity of faith\nin any sense, or conclude, that we may lay claim to this privilege\nwithout it; since we strenuously assert the necessity, on the one hand,\nof Christ\u2019s righteousness being wrought out for us, and forgiveness\nprocured thereby; and, on the other hand, the necessity of our receiving\nit, each of which is true in its respective place. Christ must have the\nglory that is due to him, and faith the work, or office that belongs to\nit.\nThus we have considered Christ\u2019s righteousness as applied by faith; and\nit may be also observed, that there is one scripture, in which it is\nsaid to be _imputed by faith_, as the apostle Paul, when speaking\nconcerning Abraham\u2019s justification by faith, in this righteousness,\nsays, _It was imputed to him for righteousness_; and adds, that _it was\nnot written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us\nalso, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe_, Rom. iv. 22, 23, 24.\nin which scripture, I conceive, that imputation is taken for\napplication; and accordingly the meaning is, the righteousness of Christ\nis so imputed, as that we have ground to place it to our own account, if\nwe believe; which is the same with applying it by faith.[52]\nAnd whereas the apostle speaks elsewhere of _faith\u2019s being counted for\nrighteousness_, ver. 5. it must be allowed, that there is a great deal\nof difficulty in the mode of expression. If we assert that the act of\nbelieving is imputed for righteousness, as they who establish the\ndoctrine of justification by works, or by faith as a work, we overthrow\nthat which we have been maintaining: and if, on the other hand, we\nunderstand faith, for the object of faith, _viz._ what was wrought out\nby Christ, which faith is conversant about, and conclude, (as I conceive\nwe ought to do,) that this, is imputed for righteousness, this is\nsupposed, by some, to deviate too much from the common sense of words,\nto be allowed of: but if there be such a figurative way of speaking used\nin other scriptures, why may we not suppose that it is used in this text\nunder our present consideration? If other graces are sometimes taken for\nthe object thereof, why may not faith be taken, by a metonymy, for its\nobject? Thus the apostle calls those whom he writes to, _his joy_, that\nis, the object, or matter thereof, Phil. iv. 1. And in the book of\nCanticles, the church calls Christ _her love_, Cant. iv. 8. that is, the\nobject thereof. And elsewhere, hope is plainly taken for the object of\nit, when the apostle says, _Hope that is seen, is not hope: for what a\nman seeth, why doth he yet hope for?_ Rom. viii. 24. By which he plainly\nintends, that whatever is the object of hope, cannot be in our present\npossession: and Christ is farther styled, _The blessed hope_, Tit. ii.\n13. that is, the person whose appearance we hope for. And Jacob speaks\nof God as _the fear of his father Isaac_, Gen. xxxi. 53. that is, the\nperson whom he worshipped with reverential fear; in all which cases the\nphraseology is equally difficult with that of the text, under our\npresent consideration. Thus concerning Christ\u2019s righteousness, as\nwrought out for us, and applied by faith; which is the foundation of all\nour peace and comfort, both in life and death; and therefore cannot but\nbe reckoned a doctrine of the highest importance: we shall now consider\nsome things that may be inferred from it. And,\n[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in\nChrist\u2019s suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done\nand suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value\nthereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is\nunited, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions,\nnamely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the\nessential righteousness of Christ as God[57]; and that of others, who\npretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only\nas man: therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no\nreference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what\nthey mean when they say, that we are justified by Christ\u2019s righteousness\nas man, in opposition to our being justified by his essential\nrighteousness as God[58]: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a _medium_\nbetween both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppose, that\nChrist\u2019s engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room\nand stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the\njustice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature;\nfor the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling\nit, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we\ncannot be justified by Christ\u2019s essential righteousness, as God; and, on\nthe other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been\nsufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put\nupon it, arising from the union of the nature that suffered with the\ndivine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle\u2019s expression, when he\nsays, _God purchased the church with his own blood_, Acts, xx. 28.\n[2.] From what has been said, concerning the fruits and effects of\njustification, as by virtue hereof our sins are pardoned, and we made\naccepted in the beloved, we infer; that it is not only an unscriptural\nway of speaking, but has a tendency to overthrow the doctrine we have\nbeen maintaining, to assert, as some do, that God is only rendered\nreconcileable by what was done and suffered by Christ. This seems to be\nmaintained by those who treat on this subject, with a different view.\nSome speak of God\u2019s being rendered reconcileable by Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness that they might make way for what they have farther to\nadvance, namely, that God\u2019s being reconciled to a sinner, is the result\nof his own repentance, or the amendment of his life, whereby he makes\nhis peace with him; which is to make repentance or reformation the\nmatter of our justification, and substitute it in the room of Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness: therefore, they who speak of God\u2019s being made\nreconcileable in this sense, by his blood, are so far from giving a true\naccount of the doctrine of justification, that, in reality, they\noverthrow it.\nBut there are others, who speak of God\u2019s being reconcileable as the\nconsequence of Christ\u2019s satisfaction, that they might not be thought to\nassert that God is actually reconciled by the blood of Christ, to those\nwho are in an unconverted state, which is inconsistent therewith;\ntherefore they use this mode of expression, lest they should be thought\nto give countenance to the doctrine of actual justification before\nfaith; but certainly we are under no necessity of advancing one\nabsurdity to avoid another: therefore, let it be here considered, that\nthe scripture speaks expressly of God\u2019s being reconciled by the death of\nChrist; and accordingly he is said to have _brought_ him _again from the\ndead_, as a _God of peace_, Heb. xiii. 20. And elsewhere, he speaks of\n_God\u2019s having reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ_, 2 Cor. v. 18.\nand not becoming reconcilable to us. Again, _When we were enemies we\nwere reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being\nreconciled, we shall be saved_, Rom. v. 10. that is, shall obtain the\nsaving effects of this reconciliation _by his life_. And again, _Having\nmade peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all\nthings to himself: and you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in\nyour mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of\nhis flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and\nunreprovable in his sight_, Col. i. 21, 22. Where he describes those who\nwere reconciled as once enemies, and speaks of this privilege as being\nprocured by the death of Christ, and of holiness here, and salvation\nhereafter, as the consequence of it; therefore it is such a\nreconciliation as is contained in our justification.\nBut though this appears very agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, in\nscripture, yet it must be understood in consistency with those other\nscriptures, that represent persons in an unconverted state, as _children\nof wrath_, Eph. ii. 3. and being _hateful_, Tit. iii. 3. that is, not\nonly deserving to be hated by God, but actually hated, as appears by the\nmany threatnings that are denounced against them, and their being in a\ncondemned state, that we may not give countenance to the doctrine of\nsome, who, not distinguishing between God\u2019s secret and revealed will,\nmaintain that we are not only virtually, but actually justified before\nwe believe; as though we had a right to claim Christ\u2019s righteousness\nbefore we have any ground to conclude, that it was wrought out for us:\nbut what has been already suggested concerning justification by faith,\nwill, I think, sufficiently remove this difficulty.\nThe only thing that remains to be explained is; how God may be said to\nbe reconciled by the blood of Christ, to a person who is in an\nunconverted state, and as such, represented as a child of wrath? for the\nunderstanding of which, let us consider, that so long as a person is an\nunbeliever, he has no ground to conclude, according to the tenor of\nGod\u2019s revealed will, that he is reconciled to him, or that he is any\nother than a child of wrath. Nevertheless, when we speak of God\u2019s being\nreconciled to his elect, according to the tenor of his secret will,\nbefore they believe, that is in effect to say, that justification, as it\nis an immanent act in God, is antecedent to faith, which is a certain\ntruth, inasmuch as faith is a fruit and consequence thereof: whereas,\nGod does not declare that he is reconciled to us, or give us ground to\nconclude it; whereby we appear no longer to be children of wrath, till\nwe believe. If this be duly considered, we have no reason to assert,\nthat God is reconcileable, rather than reconciled by the death of\nChrist, lest we should be thought to maintain the doctrine of\njustification, or deliverance from wrath, as a declared act, before we\nbelieve. And to this we may add, that God was reconcileable to his\nelect, that is, willing to be reconciled to them before Christ died for\nthem; otherwise he would never have sent him into the world to make\nreconciliation for the sins of his people: he was reconcileable, and\ntherefore designed to turn from the fierceness of his wrath; and in\norder thereunto, he appointed Christ to make satisfaction for sin, and\nprocure peace for them.\n[3.] There is not the least inconsistency between those scriptures\nwhich speak of justification as being an act of God\u2019s free grace, and\nothers, which speak of it as being, by faith, founded on Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness; or between God\u2019s pardoning sin freely, without regard\nto any thing done by us to procure it; and yet insisting on, and\nreceiving a full satisfaction, as the meritorious and procuring cause\nof it. This is sometimes objected against what we have advanced in\nexplaining the doctrine of justification, as being, in some respects,\nan act of justice, and in others, of grace; as though it were\ninconsistent with itself, and our method of explaining it were liable\nto an absurdity, which is contrary to reason; as though two\ncontradictory propositions could be both true; namely, that\njustification should be an act of the strictest justice, without any\nabatement of the debt demanded, and yet of free grace, without\ninsisting on the payment of the debt: but this seeming contradiction\nmay be easily reconciled, if we consider that the debt was not paid by\nus in our own persons; which had it been done, it would have been\ninconsistent with forgiveness\u2019s being an act of grace; but by our\nsurety, and in that respect there was no abatement of the debt, nor\ndid he receive a discharge by an act of grace, but was justified as\nour head or surety, by his own righteousness, or works performed by\nhim; whereas, we are justified by his suretyship-righteousness,\nwithout works performed by us; and this surety was provided for us; as\nhas been before observed; and therefore, when we speak of\njustification, as being an act of grace, we distinguish between the\njustification of our surety, after he had given full satisfaction for\nthe debt which we had contracted; and this payment\u2019s being placed to\nour account by God\u2019s gracious imputation thereof to us, and our\nobtaining forgiveness as the result thereof, which can be no other\nthan an act of the highest grace.\n[4.] From what has been said concerning justification by faith, we\ninfer, the method, order and time, in which God justifies his people.\nThere are some who not only speak of justification before faith, but\nfrom eternity; and consider it as an immanent act in God in the same\nsense as election is said to be. I will not deny eternal justification,\nprovided it be considered as contained in God\u2019s secret will, and not\nmade the rule by which we are to determine ourselves to be in a\njustified state, and as such to have a right and title to eternal life,\nbefore it is revealed or apprehended by faith: if we take it in this\nsense, it is beyond dispute, that justification is not by faith; but\ninasmuch as the most known, yea, the only sense in which justification\nis spoken of, as applied to particular persons, is, that it is by faith:\ntherefore, we must suppose,\n_1st_, That it is a declared act. That which is hid in God, and not\ndeclared, cannot be said to be applied; and that which is not applied,\ncannot be the rule by which particular persons may judge of their state.\nThus, if we speak of eternal election, and say, That God has\nperemptorily determined the state of those that shall be saved, that\nthey shall not perish; this is nothing to particular persons, unless\nthey have ground to conclude themselves elected. So if we say that God\nhas, from all eternity, given his elect into Christ\u2019s hands; that he has\nundertaken before the foundation of the world, to redeem them; and that,\npursuant hereunto, God promised that he would give eternal life unto\nthem; or, if we consider Christ as having fulfilled what he undertook\nfrom all eternity, finished transgression, brought in everlasting\nrighteousness, and fully paid the debt which he undertook; consider him\nas being discharged, and receiving an acquittance, when raised from the\ndead; and all this as done in the name of the elect, as their head and\nrepresentative; and if you farther consider them, as it is often\nexpressed, as virtually justified in him; all this is nothing to them,\nwith respect to their peace and comfort; they have no more a right to\nclaim an interest in this privilege or relation, than if he had not paid\na price for them. Therefore, we suppose that justification, as it is the\nfoundation of our claim to eternal life, is a declared act.\n_2d._ If justification be a declared act, there must be some method\nwhich God uses, whereby he declares, or makes it known. Now it is\ncertain, that he, no where in scripture, tells an unbeliever that he has\nan interest in Christ\u2019s righteousness, or that his sins are pardoned, or\ngives him any warrant to take comfort from any such conclusion; but, on\nthe other hand, such an one has no ground to conclude any other,\nconcerning himself, but that he is a child of wrath; for he is to judge\nof things according to the tenor of God\u2019s revealed will. Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness is nothing to him in point of application; he is guilty of\nbold presumption if he lays claim to it, or takes comfort from it, as\nmuch as he would be were he to say, some are elected, therefore I am.\nNevertheless,\n_3d_, When a person believes, he has a right to conclude, that he is\njustified, or to claim all the privileges that result from it; and this\nis what we call justification by faith, which therefore cannot be before\nfaith; for that which gives a person a right to claim a privilege, must\nbe antecedent to this claim; or, that which is the foundation of a\nperson\u2019s concluding himself to be justified, must be antecedent to his\nmaking this conclusion; and in this respect, all who duly consider what\nthey affirm, must conclude that justification is not before faith.\n[5.] From what has been said concerning the office or use of faith in\njustification, as it is an instrument that applies Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness to ourselves, we infer; that it is more than an evidence\nof our justification: we do not indeed deny it to be an evidence that we\nwere virtually justified in Christ as our head and representative, when\nhe was raised from the dead, in the same sense as it is an evidence of\nour eternal election: but this is equally applicable to all other\ngraces, and therefore cannot be a true description of justifying faith.\nIf we are justified by faith, only as it is an evidence of our right to\nChrist\u2019s righteousness, we are as much justified by love, patience, and\nsubmission to the divine will, or any other grace that accompanies\nsalvation; but they who speak of faith as only an evidence, will not say\nthat we are justified by all other graces, in the same sense as we are\njustified by faith; and indeed, the scripture gives us no warrant so to\ndo.\n[6.] From what has been said concerning faith as giving us a right to\nclaim Christ\u2019s righteousness, we infer; that a person is justified\nbefore he has what we call, the faith of assurance; of which more\nhereafter: therefore we consider the grace of faith, as justifying or\ngiving us a right to claim Christ\u2019s righteousness, whether we have an\nactual claim or no. This must be allowed, otherwise the loss of this\nassurance would infer the suspension or loss of our justification, and\nconsequently would render our state as uncertain as our frames, or our\npeace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as liable to be lost as\nthat peace and joy which we sometimes have in believing, and at other\ntimes are destitute of.\n[7.] From what has been said concerning justifying faith\u2019s being\naccompanied with all other graces, we infer; that that faith which is\njustifying, is also a saving grace, or a grace which accompanies\nsalvation; but yet there is this difference between saving faith, as we\ngenerally call it, and justifying, in that the former respects Christ in\nall his offices, the latter considers him only in his Priestly office,\nor as set forth to be a propitiation for sin. And this leads us to\nconsider the grace of faith in its larger extent, both with respect to\nits acts and objects, as contained in the former of the answers we are\nexplaining: and therefore,\nWe are now to consider the nature of faith in general, or of that faith,\nwhich, as before explained, we call justifying. There are some things in\nthis grace which are common to it with other graces; particularly, it is\nstyled a saving grace, not as being the cause of our salvation, but as\nit accompanies, or is connected with it. Again, it is said to be wrought\nin the heart of a sinner, to distinguish it from other habits of a lower\nnature, which are acquired by us; and it is said to be wrought by the\nSpirit and Word of God; by his Spirit, as the principal efficient, who,\nin order thereunto, exerts his divine power; and by the word, as the\ninstrument which he makes use of. The Word presents to us the object of\nfaith; and it is God\u2019s ordinance, in attending to which, he works and\nexcites it.\nMoreover, there are several things supposed or contained in this grace\nof faith, which are common to it, with other graces. As when a believer\nis said to be first convinced of sin and misery, and of his being unable\nto recover himself out of the lost condition in which he is, by nature;\nand the impossibility of his being recovered out of it by any other\ncreature; in all these respects, faith contains in it several things in\ncommon with other graces; particularly with conversion, effectual\ncalling, and repentance unto life. These things, therefore, we shall\npass over as being considered elsewhere, and confine ourselves to what\nis peculiar to this grace mentioned in this answer; only some few things\nmay be observed concerning it, as it is styled a saving grace, and\nwrought in the heart of man, by the Spirit and Word of God; and we shall\nadd some other things, of which we have no particular account in this\nanswer; which may contain a more full explication of this grace: in\nspeaking to which, we shall observe the following method;\nI. We shall consider the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more\ngeneral idea of it.\nII. We shall speak particularly concerning the various kinds of _faith_.\nAnd,\nIII. The various objects and acts of saving faith; especially as it\nassents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, and receives, and\nrests upon, Christ and his righteousness, held forth therein.\nIV. We shall consider it as a grace that accompanies salvation, and\nwrought in the heart by the power of the Spirit, and instrumentality of\nthe word.\nV. We shall consider it as strong or weak, increasing or declining, with\nthe various marks and evidences thereof.\nVI. We shall speak of the use of faith in the whole conduct of our\nlives; as every thing we do in an acceptable manner, is said to be done\nby it.\nVII. We shall shew how it is to be attained or increased, and what are\nthe means conducive thereunto.\nI. Concerning the meaning of the word _faith_, in the more general idea\nthereof. It is either an assent to a truth, founded on sufficient\nevidence; or a confiding or relying on the word or power of one, who is\nable and willing to afford us sufficient help or relief.[59]\n1. As to the former of these, as it contains an assent to a truth\nproposed and supported by sufficient evidence. This is more especially\nan act of the understanding; and it is necessary, in order hereunto,\nthat something be discovered to us, as the matter of our belief, which\ndemands or calls for our assent; and that is considered either only as\ntrue, or else, as true and good: if it be considered only as true, the\nfaith, or assent that is required thereunto is speculative; but if we\nconsider it not only as true, but good, or, as containing something\nredounding to our advantage; then the faith resulting from it is\npractical, and seated partly in the understanding, and partly in the\nwill; or, at least, the will is influenced and inclined to embrace what\nthe understanding not only assents to as true, but proposes to us as\nthat which if enjoyed would tend very much to our advantage.\nAs to this general description of faith, as an assent to what is\nreported, founded upon sufficient evidence, we may farther consider;[60]\nthat it is not in our power to believe a thing, unless the judgment be\nconvinced, and we have ground to conclude it to be true, and accordingly\nthere must be something which has a tendency to give this conviction;\nand that it is what we call evidence: every thing that is reported is\nnot to be credited; since it has very often no appearance of truth in\nit: and it is reasonable for the understanding, to demand a proof before\nit yields an assent; and if it be a matter of report, then we are to\nconsider the nature of the evidence, whether it be sufficient, or\ninsufficient to persuade us to believe what is reported; and according\nto the strength or credibility thereof, we believe, hesitate about it,\nor utterly reject it. If, according to our present view of things, it\nmay be true or false, we hardly call it the object of faith; we can only\nsay concerning it, that it is probable; if it be, on the other hand,\nattested by such evidence, as cannot, without scepticism be denied;\nhence arises what we call certainty, or an assurance of faith, supported\nby the strongest evidence.\nMoreover, according to the nature of the evidence, or testimony, on\nwhich it is founded, it is distinguished into human and divine; both of\nthese are contained in the apostle\u2019s words, _If we receive the witness\nof men, the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 9. As for human\ntestimony, though it may not be termed false, yet it can hardly be\ndeemed any other than fallible, since it cannot be said concerning\nsinful man, that it is impossible for him to lie or deceive, or be\ndeceived himself; but when we believe a thing on the divine testimony,\nour faith is infallible: it is as impossible for us to be deceived as it\nis for God to impart that to us, which is contrary to his infinite\nholiness and veracity. It is in this latter sense that we consider the\nword _faith_, when we speak of it as an act of religious worship, or\nincluded or supposed in our idea of saving faith; and so we style it a\nfirm assent to every thing that God has revealed as founded on the\ndivine veracity.\nLet us now consider faith as it contains an assent to a thing, not only\nas true, but as good; upon which account we call it a practical assent,\nfirst seated in the understanding; and then the will embraces what the\nunderstanding discovers to be conducive to our happiness; we first\nbelieve the truth of it, and then regulate our conduct agreeably\nthereunto. As when a criminal hears a report of an act of grace being\nissued forth by the king, he does not rest in a bare assent to the truth\nthereof, but puts in his claim to it. Or, as when a merchant is credibly\ninformed, that there are great advantages to be obtained by trading into\nforeign countries; he receives the report with a design to use all\nproper methods to partake of the advantage; as our Saviour illustrates\nit, when he compares _the kingdom of heaven unto a merchant man seeking\ngoodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and\nsold all that he had, and bought_, Matt. xiii. 45. We have sufficient\nevidence to support our faith, that there is forgiveness of sin, through\nthe blood of Christ; and that all spiritual blessings are treasured up\nin him, for the heirs of salvation: in this respect faith does not\ncontain a bare speculative assent to the truth of this proposition; but\nit excites in us an endeavour to obtain these blessings in that way\nwhich is prescribed by him, who is the giver thereof.\n2. Faith may be farther considered, as denoting an act of trust or\ndependence on him, who is the object thereof. This is very distinct from\nthe former sense of the word: for though it supposes indeed an assent of\nthe understanding to some truth proposed; yet this truth is of such a\nnature, as that it produces in us a resting or reliance on one who is\nable, and has expressed a willingness to do us good; and whose promise\nrelating hereunto, is such, as we have ground to depend on. This\nsupposes in him, who is the subject thereof, a sense of his own weakness\nor indigence, and in him that is the object of it, a fitness to be the\nobject of trust, for his attaining relief: thus the sick man depends\nupon the skill and faithfulness of the physician, and determines to look\nno farther for help, but relies on his prescriptions, and uses the means\nthat he appoints for the restoring of his health; or, as when a person\nis assaulted by one who threatens to ruin him, and is able to do it, as\nbeing an over-match for him, he has recourse to, and depends on the\nassistance of one that is able to secure and defend him, and thereby\nprevent the danger that he feared. Thus Jehoshaphat, when his country\nwas invaded by a great multitude of foreign troops, being apprehensive\nthat he was not able to withstand them; he exercises this faith of\nreliance on the divine power, when he says, _We have no might against\nthis great company, that come against us; neither know we what to do,\nbut our eyes are upon thee_, 2 Chron. xx. 12. And God is very often, in\nscripture, represented as the object of trust: so the church says, _I\nwill trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength_; and\nelsewhere, _he that walketh in darkness and hath no light_, Isa. xii. 2.\nthat is, knows not which way to turn, is helpless and destitute of all\ncomfort, is encouraged to _trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon\nhis God_, chap. l. 10. This is truly and properly a divine faith, and\naccordingly an act of religious worship; and is opposed to a _trusting\nin man, and making flesh his arm_, Jer. xvii. 5. and it supposes a firm\npersuasion, that God is able to do all that for us which we stand in\nneed of; and that he has promised that he will do us good, and that he\nwill never fail nor forsake them that repose their trust or confidence\nin him: with this view the soul relies on his perfections, seeks to him\nfor comfort, and lays the whole stress of his hope of salvation on him,\nnot doubting concerning the event hereof, but concluding himself safe,\nif he can say, that _the eternal God is his refuge, and underneath are\nthe everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 27. This leads us,\nII. To consider the various kinds of faith, as mentioned in scripture.\nThus we read of a faith that was adapted to that extraordinary\ndispensation of providence, in which God was pleased to confirm some\ngreat and important truths by miracles; which is therefore styled a\nfaith of miracles. There is also a faith that has no reference to a\nsupernatural event, or confined to any particular age or state of the\nchurch, in which miracles are expected, but is founded on the\ngospel-revelation, which, how much soever it may resemble saving faith,\nyet falls short of it; and there is a faith which is inseparably\nconnected with salvation.\n1. Concerning the faith of miracles. This is what our Saviour intends,\nwhen he tells his disciples, That _if they had faith as a grain of\nmustard-seed, they should say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder\nplace, and it should remove; and nothing should be impossible unto\nthem_, Matt. xvii. 20. This is such a faith that many had, who were not\nin a state of salvation; as is plain from what our Saviour says, that\n_many will say to him in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in\nthy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name have\ndone many wonderful works? to whom he will profess I never knew you_;\nand his commanding them to _depart from him_ as having _wrought\niniquity_, chap. vii. 22, 23. And the apostle Paul supposes, that a\nperson might have _all faith_, that is, this kind of faith; _so that he\nmight remove mountains_, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. which is a proverbial\nexpression, denoting, that extraordinary and miraculous events might\nattend it; and yet, at the same time, be destitute of _charity_, or love\nto God, and consequently without saving grace; and so appear, in the\nend, to _be nothing_.\nSome have questioned whether this faith of miracles was peculiar to the\ngospel-dispensation, in the time of our Saviour and the apostles, and so\nwas not required in those who wrought miracles under the Old Testament\ndispensation; though others suppose, that, from the nature of the thing,\nit was always necessary that faith should be exercised, when a miracle\nwas wrought; though it is true, we have little or no account of this\nfaith, as exercised by those that wrought miracles before our Saviour\u2019s\ntime; and therefore, we cannot so peremptorily determine this matter;\nbut according to the account we have thereof in the New Testament, there\nwere several things necessary to, or included in this faith of miracles.\n(1.) Some important article of revealed religion must be proposed to be\nbelieved; and in order thereunto, an explicit appeal made to God, in\nexpectation of his immediate interposure in working a miracle for that\nend: every thing that was the object of faith, was not, indeed, to be\nproved true by a miracle, but only those things which could not be\nsufficiently evinced without it, so as to beget a divine faith in those\nwho were the subjects of conviction. We never read that miracles were\nwrought to convince the world that there was a God, or a providence; or,\nto persuade men concerning the truth of those things that might be\nsufficiently proved by rational arguments: but when there could not be\nsuch a proof given without the finger of God being rendered visible by a\nmiracle wrought, then they depended on such an instance of divine\ncondescension; and the people who were to receive conviction, were to\nexpect such an extraordinary event.\n(2.) It was necessary that there should be a firm persuasion of the\ntruth of the doctrine, to be confirmed by a miracle in him that wrought\nit, together with an explicit appeal to it for the conviction of those\nwhose faith was to be confirmed thereby: and sometimes we read, that\nwhen miracles were to be wrought in favour of them, who before had a\nsufficient proof that our Saviour was the Messiah, it was necessary that\nthey should have a strong persuasion concerning this matter, and that he\nwas able to work a miracle; otherwise they had no ground to expect that\nthe miracle should be wrought: in the former instance we read of\nChrist\u2019s disciples working miracles for the conviction of the Jews, and\nexercising, at the same time, this faith of miracles; and in the latter\na general faith was demanded, that our Saviour was the Messiah, before\nthe miracle was wrought; in which sense we are to understand his reply\nto the man who desired that he would cast the Devil out of his son; _If\nthou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth_, Mark\nix. 23. _q. d._ Thou hast had sufficient conviction that I am the\nMessiah, by other miracles, and consequently hast no reason to doubt but\nthat I can cast the Devil out of thy son; therefore, if thou hast a\nstrong persuasion of the truth hereof, the thing that thou desirest\nshall be granted: and elsewhere it is said, _He did not many mighty\nworks because of their unbelief_, Matt. xiii. 58.\n(3.) How much soever a person might exercise this strong persuasion,\nthat a miracle should be wrought, which we generally call a faith of\nmiracles; yet I cannot think that this event always ensued without\nexception. For sometimes God might refuse to work a miracle, that he\nmight hereby cast contempt on some vile persons, who pretended to this\nfaith of miracles; who, though they professed their faith in Christ as\nthe Messiah, yet their conversation contradicted their profession, and\ntherefore God would not put that honour upon them so as to work a\nmiracle at their desire; much less are we to suppose, that he would work\na miracle at any one\u2019s pleasure, if they were persuaded that he would do\nso. Again, sometimes God might refuse to exert his divine power, in\nworking a miracle, in judgment, when persons had had sufficient means\nfor their conviction by other miracles, but believed not. And finally,\nwhen the truth of the Christian religion had been sufficiently confirmed\nby miracles, they were less common; and then we read nothing more of\nthat faith which took its denomination from thence.\n2. There is another kind of faith, which has some things in common with\nsaving faith, and is sometimes mistaken for it, but is vastly different\nfrom it. This, in some, is called an historical faith; and in others, by\nreason of the short continuance thereof, a temporary faith. An\nhistorical faith is that whereby persons are convinced of the truth of\nwhat is revealed in the gospel, though this has very little influence on\ntheir conversation: such have right notions of divine things, but do not\nentertain a suitable regard to them; religion with them is little more\nthan a matter of speculation; they do not doubt concerning any of the\nimportant doctrines of the gospel, but are able and ready to defend them\nby proper arguments: nevertheless, though, in words, they profess their\nfaith in Christ, in works they deny him: such as these the apostle\nintends when he says; _Thou believest that there is one God, thou dost\nwell: the devils also believe and tremble_, James ii. 19. And he charges\nthem with a vain presumption, in that they expected to be justified\nhereby; whereas their faith was without works, or those fruits which\nwere necessary to justify, or evince its sincerity; or to prove that it\nwas such a grace as accompanies salvation; and therefore he gives it no\nbetter a character than that of a dead faith.\nAs for that which is called a temporary faith, this differs little from\nthe former, unless we consider it, as having a tendency, in some\nmeasure, to excite the affections; and so far to regulate the\nconversation, as that which is attended with a form of godliness, which\ncontinues as long as this comports with, or is subservient to their\nsecular interest: but it is not such a faith as will enable them to pass\nthrough fiery trials, or part with all things for Christ\u2019s sake, or to\nrejoice in him, as their portion, when they meet with little but\ntribulation and persecution, in the world, for the sake of the gospel.\nThis will evidently discover the insincerity thereof; for it will wither\nlike a plant that is without a root: our Saviour speaks of it in the\nparable, of the _seed that fell upon stony places, where they had not\nmuch earth, and forthwith they sprang up, because they had no deepness\nof earth; and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they\nhad no root they withered away_; which he explains of him, _who heareth\nthe word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in\nhimself, but endureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecution\nariseth, because of thy word, by and by he is offended_, Matt. xiii. 5,\n6. compared with ver. 20, 21. This parable had a particular relation to\nthe Jews, who heard John the Baptist gladly, rejoicing in his light for\na season; and seemed to be convinced, by his doctrine, concerning the\nMessiah, who was shortly to appear; but when they apprehended that his\nkingdom, instead of advancing them to great honours in the world, was\nlike to expose them to tribulations and persecutions they were offended\nin him; and this is also applicable to all those who think themselves\nsomething, and are thought so by others, as to the profession they make\nof Christ and his gospel; but afterwards appear to be nothing, deceiving\ntheir own souls. This leads us,\n3. To consider faith as a grace that is inseparably connected with\nsalvation, which is called justifying faith, and also a saving grace, in\nthis answer, in which the nature thereof is explained; and what may be\nfarther said concerning it will be considered under the following heads,\nwhich we proposed to insist on in the general method before laid down;\nand therefore we shall proceed,\nIII. To speak concerning the various objects and acts of saving faith.\n1. Concerning its objects. Every thing that is the object thereof, must\ntake its rise from God; for we are now speaking concerning a divine\nfaith; and inasmuch as saving faith supposes and includes in it an\nassent to the truth of divine revelation, we are bound to believe\nwhatever God has revealed in his word; so that as all scripture is the\nrule of faith, the matter thereof is the object of faith: and as\nscripture contains an historical relation of things, these are the\nobjects of faith, and we are to yield an assent to what God reveals, as\nbeing of infallible verity. As it is a rule of duty and obedience, we\nare bound to believe so as to adore the sovereignty of God, commanding\nto submit to his authority therein, as having a right to give laws to\nour consciences, and acknowledge ourselves his subjects and servants,\nunder an indispensable obligation to yield the obedience of faith to\nhim: as it contains many great and precious promises, these are the\nobjects of faith, as we are to desire, hope for, and depend on the\nfaithfulness of God for the accomplishment of them; and more\nparticularly considering them as they are all, yea and amen, in Christ\nto the glory of God. As for the threatnings which relate to the wrath of\nGod, due to sin, and warnings to fence the soul against it, and induce\nus to abhor and hate it; these are objects of faith, so far as that we\nmust believe and tremble, and see the need we stand in of grace, which\nwe receive by faith to enable us to improve them, that through the\nvirtue of Christ\u2019s righteousness we may hope to escape his wrath; and by\nhis strength be fortified against the prevalency of corruption, that has\nproved destructive to multitudes.\nBut the principal object of faith is God in Christ, our great\nMediator:[61] thus our Saviour says, _Ye believe in God, believe also in\nme_, John xiv. 1. This is sometimes styled coming to the Father by him;\nas it is elsewhere said, _No man cometh unto the Father but by me_: or\nelse, coming to him as Mediator immediately, that in him we may obtain\nwhatever he has purchased for us, and thereby may have access to God, as\nto our reconciled God and Father; and in so doing, obtain eternal life,\nas he expresses it; _He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he\nthat believeth on me shall never thirst_, chap. vi. 35. Which leads us\nto consider,\n2. Those particular acts of saving faith, in which we have to do with\nChrist as Mediator, whereby we have access to God, through him: there\nare several expressions in scripture, by which these acts of saving\nfaith are set forth, some of which are metaphorical; more particularly\nit is called a looking to him; thus he is represented, by the prophet,\nas saying, _Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth_,\nIsa. xlv. 22. Sometimes by coming to him, pursuant to the invitation he\ngives, _Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will\ngive you rest_, Mat. xi. 25. which coming is elsewhere explained, as in\nthe scripture before-mentioned, by _believing in him_, John vi. 35. And\nas we hope for refreshment and comfort in so doing, it is set forth by\nthat, metaphorical expression, of _coming to the waters_ and _buying\nwine and milk without money and without price_, Isa. lv. 1. that is,\nreceiving from him those blessings which tend to satisfy and exhilirate\nthe soul, which are given to such as have nothing to offer for them; and\nsometimes it is represented by flying to him; or, as the apostle\nexpresses it, _flying for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before\nus_, Heb. vi. 18. as alluding to that eminent type thereof, contained in\nthe man-slayer\u2019s flying to the city of refuge, from the avenger of\nblood, and therein finding protection and safety: this is a description\nmore especially of faith as justifying; in which respect it is elsewhere\ndescribed, as _a putting on the Lord Jesus Christ_, Rom. xiii. 14. or\nthe glorious robe of his righteousness, on which account we are said to\nbe _clothed with the garments of salvation, and covered with the robe of\nrighteousness_, Isa. lxi. 10. And when we are enabled to apprehend our\ninterest in him by faith, together with the blessings that are the\nresult hereof, we are said to rejoice in Christ Jesus. There are many\nother expressions by which this grace is set forth in scripture; but\nthose acts thereof, which we shall more especially consider, are our\nreceiving Christ, giving up ourselves to him, and trusting in, or\nrelying on him.\n(1.) Faith is that grace whereby we receive Christ. Thus it is said, _as\nmany as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,\neven to them that believe on his name_, John i. 12. This contains in it\nthe application of an overture made by him; not barely of something that\nhe has to bestow, which might contribute to our happiness, but of\nhimself. Christ has many things to bestow upon his people; but he first\ngives himself; that is, he expresses a willingness to be their Prince\nand Saviour, their Prophet, Priest, and King; that being thus related,\nand adhering to him, they may be made partakers of his benefits, which\nare the result thereof; and accordingly the soul, by faith applies\nitself to him, and embraces the overture. Hereupon he is said to be\nours; and, as the consequence thereof, we lay claim to those benefits\nwhich he has purchased for us, as our Redeemer. Christ is considered as\nthe first promised blessing in the covenant of grace; and _with him_ God\n_freely gives_ his people _all things_ that they stand in need of, which\nrespect their everlasting salvation, Rom. viii. 32.\nThis supposes the person receiving him to be indigent and destitute of\nevery thing that may tend to make him happy, brought into the greatest\nstraits and difficulties, and standing in need of one who is able to\nafford relief to him. He has heard in the gospel, that Christ is able to\nsupply his wants; and that he is willing to come and take up his abode\nwith him; accordingly the heart is open to embrace him, esteeming him to\nbe altogether lovely and desirable, beholding that excellency and glory\nin his person, that renders him the object of his delight, as he is said\nto be _precious to them that believe_, 1 Pet. ii. 7. looking upon him as\nGod-man Mediator, he concludes, that he is able to save, to the\nuttermost, all that come unto God by him; and that all the treasures of\ngrace and glory are purchased by him, and given into his hand to apply\nto those who have an interest in him: he expects to find them all in\nChrist, as the result of his being made partaker of him; and accordingly\nhe adheres to him by this which is called an appropriating act of faith;\nwhereby he that was before represented in the gospel, as the Saviour and\nRedeemer of his people, the fountain of all they enjoy or hope for, and\nby whom they have access to God, as their reconciled God and Father, is\napplied by the soul, to itself, as the spring of all its present and\nfuture comfort and happiness.[62]\n(2.) Another act of faith is giving up ourselves to Christ. As, in the\ncovenant of grace, God says, _I will be to them a God, and they shall be\nto me a people_, faith builds on this foundation; it first apprehends\nthat he is able and willing to do them good, and make them happy in the\nenjoyment of himself; and with this encouragement the soul receives him,\nas has been but now observed; and pursuant hereunto devotes itself to\nhim, as desiring to be amongst the number of his faithful Servants and\nfollowers. God sanctifies or separates them to himself as the objects of\nhis discriminating grace and love; and they desire, as the consequence\nhereof, to give up themselves to him. Two things are supposed in this\nact of self-dedication.\n_1st_, A firm persuasion and acknowledgment of his right to us; not only\nas the possessor of all things, which he has an undoubted right to as\nGod, as the potter has a right to his clay, the Creator to the work of\nhis hands; but that he has a right to us by purchase, as Mediator, in\nwhich respect faith, and in particular, that which we call saving, of\nwhich we are now speaking, has more especially an eye to him; _Ye are\nnot your own_, says the apostle, _for ye are bought with a price_, 1\nCor. vi. 20. and therefore this act of faith is an ascribing to him that\nglory which he lays claim to by right of redemption: and as God has\nconstituted him heir of all things, more especially of those who are\ncalled his peculiar treasure: so the believer gives up himself to him.\nBefore this, the matter in dispute was, who is Lord over us? Whether we\nought to be at our own disposal or his? Whether it be expedient to serve\ndivers lusts and pleasures, or be subject to him as our supreme Lord and\nLawgiver? But the soul is thoroughly convinced, by the internal\nefficacious work of the Spirit, that our great Mediator is made of God,\nboth Lord and Christ; and that no one has a right to stand in\ncompetition with him; and that we owe not only what we can do, but even\nourselves unto him; and as the result hereof, devotes itself to him by\nfaith.\n_2d_, This also supposes that we are sensible of the many blessings that\nhe has in store for his people; and therefore we give up ourselves to\nhim in hope of his doing all that for us, and working all that grace in\nus which is necessary to our salvation; but more of this will be\ninsisted on, when we consider him as the object of trust. All that I\nshall add at present, under this head, is, that having this view of the\nperson of Christ, as one who demands obedience, love and gratitude from\nus, we give up ourselves entirely, and without reserve, to him: thus the\napostle says, _They first gave their own selves to the Lord_, 2 Cor.\nviii. 5. and exhorts the church to _yield themselves unto God, as those\nthat were alive from the dead_, Rom. vi. 13. and, to _present their\nbodies_, that is, themselves, and not barely the lower or meaner part of\nthemselves, _a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is\ntheir reasonable service_, chap. xii. 1. and as the result hereof, we\nsay by faith, Lord, truly I am thy servant, and desire to be so for\never; work in me what thou requirest, and then command what thou\npleasest: I am entirely at thy disposal, do with me as seemeth good in\nthy sight; only let all the dispensations of thy providence be instances\nof thy love, and made subservient to my salvation.\nThis is represented as our solemn act and deed; whereby, with the most\nmature deliberation, we make a surrender of ourselves to him: the\nprophet speaks of it as though it were done by an instrument or deed of\nconveyance; and our consent to be his, is represented by a giving up our\nnames to him; _One shall say, I am the Lord\u2019s, and another shall call\nhimself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand\nunto the Lord, and sirname himself by the name of Israel_, Isa. xliv. 5.\nThis is done with the highest veneration, as an act of religious\nworship, and with the greatest humility, as being sensible that we give\nhim nothing more than his own; that he is not profited hereby, but the\nadvantage redounds entirely to us. We do it with judgment; as faith\nalways supposes a conviction of the judgment, it considers those\nrelations which Christ stands in to his people, and endeavours to behave\nitself in conformity thereunto: we are desirous hereby to give up\nourselves to him as a Prophet, to be led and guided by him in the way of\nsalvation; as a Priest, to give us a right to eternal life, as the\npurchase of his blood; as an Advocate to plead our cause; and as a King\nto give laws to us, and defend us from the insults of our spiritual\nenemies, and advance us to those honours which he has laid up for his\nfaithful subjects. We give up ourselves to him to worship him in all his\nordinances, in hope of his presence and blessing to attend them, in\norder to our spiritual and eternal advantage; and we do all this without\nthe least reserve or desire to have any will separate from, or contrary\nto his.\n(3.) Another act of faith consists in a fixed, unshaken trust and\nreliance upon him. This, as was before observed, is a very common and\nknown acceptation of the word _faith_. As we depend on his promise, as a\nGod that cannot lie, and give up ourselves to him, as one that has a\nright to us; so we trust him, as one whom we can safely confide in, and\nlay the whole stress of our salvation upon. This act of faith is more\nfrequently insisted on in scripture than any other, it being a main\ningredient in all other graces that accompany salvation; and there is\nnothing by which God is more glorified: it is not one single perfection\nof the divine nature that is the object thereof; but every thing which\nhe has made known concerning himself, as conducive to our blessedness;\nwe trust him with all we have, and for all that we want or hope for.\nThis implies in it a sense of our own insufficiency and nothingness, and\nof his all-sufficient fulness. The former of these is what is sometimes\nstyled a soul emptying act of faith; it is that whereby we see ourselves\nto be nothing, not only as we cannot be profitable to God, or lay him\nunder any obligations to us, as those who pretend to merit any good at\nhis hand, but as unable to perform any good action without his\nassistance; in this respect it says, _surely, in the Lord have I\nrighteousness and strength_, Isa. xlv. 24. and there is nothing tends\nmore to humble and abase the soul before him than this.\nAnd hereby we are led to another act, which more immediately contains\nthe formal nature of faith; in which it depends on the all-sufficiency\nof God, and his faithfulness to supply our wants, and bestow the\nblessings which he has promised: God the Father is the object of this\ntrust or dependence, as the divine All-sufficiency is glorified, grace\nimparted, and the promises thereof fulfilled by him, through a Mediator;\nand Christ is the object thereof, as the soul apprehends him to be full\nof grace and truth; sees the infinite value of his merit, and his\nability to make good all the promises of the covenant of grace, and\nthereby to render him completely blessed. When we trust Christ with all\nwe have, or hope for, this supposes that there is something valuable\nwhich we either enjoy or expect; and that we are in danger of losing it,\nunless it be maintained by him, who has undertaken to _keep_ his people\n_by his power through faith unto salvation_, 1 Pet. i. 5. and to perfect\nwhat concerns them. We have souls more valuable than the whole world,\nand we _commit the keeping of our souls to him in well-doing as unto a\nfaithful Creator_, chap. iv. 19. and merciful Redeemer; being assured\nthat _none shall_ be able to _pluck them out of his hand_, John x. 28.\nand we also commit all the graces which he has wrought in us to him, to\nmaintain and carry on to perfection. And since we are assured, that all\nthe promises are in his hand, and that he has engaged to make them good\nto us, we are encouraged to trust him for all that we expect, namely,\nthat he will conduct us safely and comfortably through this world, and\nat last receive us to glory; and in so doing, we have the highest\nsatisfaction; or, as the apostle expresses it, _We know whom we have\nbelieved_, or trusted, _and are persuaded that he is able to keep what\nwe have committed unto him against that day_, 2 Tim. i. 12. or the day\nof his second coming, when grace shall be consummate in glory.\nThese acts of faith are generally styled, by divines, _direct_; in which\nwe have more immediately to do with Christ, as our great Mediator, or\nGod the Father in him; and being, properly speaking, acts of religious\nworship, the object thereof must be a divine person. But there is\nanother sense of the word _faith_; which, as it does not contain in it\nany act of trust or dependence, as the former does, so it has not God\nfor its immediate object, as that has; and this is what we call the\n_reflex_ act of faith, or the soul\u2019s being persuaded that it believes;\nthat those acts of faith which have God or Christ for their object, are\ntrue and genuine. This every one cannot conclude at all times, who is\nreally enabled to put forth those direct acts of faith, that we have\nbeen speaking of; and it is the result of self-examination, accompanied\nwith the testimony of the Holy Spirit to his own work.\nSome indeed have questioned the propriety of the expression, when this\nis styled an act of faith; as supposing that nothing can be so called,\nbut what hath a divine person for its object: but we have before\nconsidered that faith, in a sense different from that in which we have\nnow explained it, may be conversant about divine things; therefore, as\nwe may be said, by a direct act of faith, to trust in Christ; we may be\npersuaded, by this reflex act, that we do so: and this is more\nimmediately necessary to assurance, together with that joy and peace\nwhich we are said to have in believing. But this we shall have occasion\nto insist on under a following answer.[63]\nIV. We are now to consider this grace of faith as that which accompanies\nsalvation, upon which account it is called a _saving grace_; and also,\nthat it is wrought in the heart by the power of the Spirit, and by the\ninstrumentality of the word. We do not suppose that every act of faith\ndenominates a person to be in a state of salvation; for there is a bare\nassent to the truth of divine revelation, that may, in a proper sense,\nbe styled _faith_; and there may be an external dedication to God, a\nprofessed subjection to him, which falls short of that faith which has\nbeen before described, as it does not proceed from a renewed nature, or\na principle of spiritual life implanted in the soul. There may be a\nwillingness and a desire to be saved, when the heart is not purified by\nfaith; a hearing the word with gladness, rejoicing in the light that is\nimparted thereby, for a season, and doing many things pursuant\nthereunto, in some, who shall not be saved: but faith is often-times\ndescribed as referring to and ending in salvation; thus we are said to\n_believe to the saving of the soul_, Heb. x. 39. and, to _receive the\nend of our faith, even the salvation of our souls_, 1 Pet. i. 9. This\nconsists, more especially, in those acts of faith, that contain in them\nan entire subjection of all the powers and faculties of the soul to\nChrist, arising from the views which it has of his glory, and its\nexperience of his almighty power, which is not only the way to, but the\nfirst fruits of everlasting salvation. This is such a receiving and\nresting on Christ for salvation, as has been before described.\nAnd this grace is farther said to be wrought in the heart of a sinner,\nby the Spirit. We have before considered effectual calling, as a work of\ndivine power, and proved, that the Spirit is the author of it;[64] and\nthat they, who are effectually called, are enabled to accept of, and\nembrace the grace offered in the gospel; from whence it is evident, that\nfaith is the fruit and consequence of our effectual calling; and\ntherefore it must be a work of the almighty power and grace of the Holy\nSpirit. And, this it farther appears to be, from that account which we\nhave thereof in several scriptures: thus the apostle Peter, describing\nthose he writes to, as having _obtained like precious faith, through the\nrighteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ_; and also as having\n_all things that pertain unto godliness_, in which faith is certainly\nincluded, he ascribes this to the _divine power_, 2 Pet. i. 1. compared\nwith the 3rd verse. And elsewhere we read _of the exceeding greatness of\nthe power_ of God exerted _in them that believe_, Eph. i. 19. And when\nthe work of faith is carried on, or fulfilled in the souls of those in\nwhom it was begun, it is considered as an effect of the same power, 2\nThess. i. 11. And, as all that grace, which is the effect of divine\npower, is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, when he is said hereby, as acting\nin subserviency to the Father and Son, to demonstrate his Personal\nglory: so the work of faith, in this respect, is represented as his\nwork; upon which account he is called the _Spirit of faith_, 2 Cor, iv.\nBut that which we shall more particularly consider is, that this grace\nof faith is wrought by the instrumentality of the word. We have before\nobserved, that the principle of grace, implanted in regeneration, is the\nimmediate effect of the divine power, without the instrumentality of the\nword; but when the Spirit works faith, and all other graces, which\nproceed from that principle, then he makes use of the word: thus the\napostle says, _Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God_,\nRom. x. 17. As it is necessary, in order to our seeing any object, that\nthe eye be rightly disposed and fitted for sight, and the object\npresented to it: so there are two things necessary to faith, namely, the\nsoul\u2019s being changed, renewed, quickened, and so prepared to act this\ngrace; and the objects being presented to it, about which it is to be\nconversant; which latter is done by the word of God: so that the soul is\nfirst internally disposed to receive what God is pleased to reveal\nrelating to the way of salvation by Jesus Christ before it believes; and\nthis revelation is contained in the gospel, which is adapted to the\nvarious acts of faith, as before described.\n1. As faith implies a coming to Christ, or receiving him; the word of\nGod reveals him to us as giving an invitation to sinners, encouraging\nthem thereunto; thus our Saviour says, _If any man thirst, let him come\nunto me, and drink_, John vii. 37. And, as a farther inducement to this,\nit sets forth the advantages that will attend it, to wit, that he will\nnot reject them, how unworthy soever they be; as, he says, _Him that\ncometh to me, I will in no wise cast out_, John vi. 37. And there are\nmany other privileges which he will bestow on them, namely, the\nblessings of both worlds, grace here, and glory hereafter, all which\ncontain the very sum and substance of the gospel.\n2. If we consider faith as including in it a giving up ourselves to\nChrist, to be intirely his; the word of God represents him as having an\nundoubted right to all who do so, inasmuch as they are bought with the\nprice of his blood, given to him as his own, by the Father. And as they\ndevote themselves to him, to be his servants, it sets before them the\nprivileges which attend his service, as they are delivered from the\ndominion of sin, and a servile fear and dread of his wrath; lets them\nknow the ease, pleasure, and delight that there is in bearing his yoke,\nand the blessed consequences thereof, in that as they _have their fruit\nunto holiness, the end thereof shall be life everlasting_, Rom. vi. 22.\n3. As faith looks to Christ for forgiveness of sin, in which respect it\nis called justifying faith; so the word of God represents him to us, as\nhaving made atonement for sin; as set forth to be a propitiation to\nsecure us from the guilt which we were liable to, and the condemning\nsentence of the law; as bearing the curse, and, as the consequence\nthereof, giving us a right to all the privileges of his children. It\nalso represents this forgiveness as full, free, and irreversible; and\nthe soul, by faith rejoices in its freedom from condemnation, and that\nright and title to eternal life, which is inseparably connected with it.\n4. As faith includes in it a trusting or relying on Christ, the gospel\nrepresents him as an all-sufficient Saviour, _able to save to the\nuttermost all that come unto God by him_, Heb. vii. 25. and as faith\ntrusts him for the accomplishment of all the promises, it considers him\nas having engaged to make them good, inasmuch as _they are yea and amen\nin him, unto the glory of God_, 2 Cor. i. 20. And therefore, he runs no\nrisque, or is at no uncertainty as to this matter; for Christ\u2019s\nMediatorial glory lies at stake. If there be the least failure in the\naccomplishment of any promise; or any blessing made over to his people\nin the covenant of grace, which shall not be conferred upon them, he is\ncontent to bear the blame for ever: but this is altogether impossible,\nsince he that has undertaken to apply the blessings promised, is\nfaithful and true, as well as the Father that gave them; and this\naffords them _strong consolation, who are fled for refuge, to lay hold\non the hope set before them_ in the gospel, Heb. vi. 18. Thus Christ is\nset forth; and agreeably to this discovery made of him, faith takes up\nits rest in him, and therein finds safety and peace.\nV. We shall now consider faith as strong or weak, increasing or\ndeclining, with the various marks and signs thereof. As habits of sin\nare stronger or weaker, the same may be said concerning habits of grace.\nIt is one thing for them to be entirely lost; and another thing to be in\na declining state: their strength and vigour may be much abated, and\ntheir energy frequently interrupted; nevertheless God will maintain the\nprinciple of grace, as we shall endeavour to prove under a following\nanswer.[65] Grace is not always equally strong and lively; the prophet\nsupposes it to be a declining, when he says, _Revive thy work, O Lord,\nin the midst of the years_, Heb. iii. 2. and our Saviour\u2019s advice to the\nchurch at Sardis, implies as much, when he exhorts them _to strengthen\nthe things which remain, that are ready to die_, Rev. iii. 2. and when\nhe bids the church at Ephesus to _remember from whence they were fallen,\nand repent and do their first works_, chap. ii. 5. Some are said, as\nAbraham, to be _strong in faith, giving glory to God_, Rom. iv. 20. and\nothers are reproved, as our Saviour does his disciples, at some times,\nwhen he says, _O ye of little faith_, Matt. vi. 30. As our natural\nconstitution is not always equally healthy and vigorous, nor our\ncondition in the world equally prosperous, the same may be said\nconcerning the habits of grace; sometimes they are strong, and then, as\nthe apostle says concerning his beloved Gaius, 3 John ver. 2. _the soul\nprospereth_, and we _go from strength to strength_, Psal. lxxxiv. 7.\nfrom one degree of grace to another; but, at other times, we are ready\nto _faint in the day of adversity_, and our _strength is small_, Prov.\nxxiv. 10. This cannot but be observed by all who are not strangers to\nthemselves, or who take notice of the various frame of spirit, which are\nvisible in those whom they converse with.\nBut if it be enquired; by what marks or evidences we may discern the\nstrength or weakness of faith? though this will more evidently appear\nfrom what will be said under a following answer,[66] when we are led to\nspeak concerning the reason of the imperfection of sanctification in\nbelievers; yet we shall not wholly pass it over in this place; and\ntherefore, it may be observed, that the strength or weakness of faith,\nis to be judged of by that degree of esteem and value which the soul has\nfor Christ, and the steadiness, or abatement of its dependence on him.\nThe greater diffidence or distrust we have of self, and the more we see\nof our own emptiness and nothingness, the stronger is our faith; on the\nother hand, self-confidence, or relying on our own strength is a certain\nsign of the weakness thereof.\nAgain, strong faith is that which carries the soul through difficult\nduties; as the apostle says, _I can do all things through Christ which\nstrengtheneth me_, Phil. iv. 13. Whereas weak faith is ready to sink\nunder the discouragements that it meets with; the former is _stedfast,\nunmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord_, 1 Cor. xv. 58.\nthe latter is like a reed shaken with the wind. Strong faith, as it is\nsaid of Job, Job i. 21. blesses God when he strips him of all earthly\nenjoyments, and rejoices that the soul is _counted worthy to suffer\nshame for his name_, Acts v. 41. and this carries him above those fears\nwhich have a tendency to deject and dishearten him: _He shall not be\nafraid of evil tidings, his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord_, Psal.\ncxii. 7. Whereas, weak faith is borne down, with discouragements; he\nfinds it hard to hold on in the performance of his duty, and sees\nmountains of difficulties in his way; whereby the soul is ready to\nconclude, that he shall not be able to get safely to his journey\u2019s end.\nHe does not rightly improve the consideration of the almighty power of\nGod, and his faithfulness to his promise, in which he has engaged, that\n_the righteous shall hold on his way; and he that hath clean hands shall\nwax stronger and stronger_, Job xvii. 9. And when we sustain losses and\ndisappointments in the world, or things go contrary to our expectation,\nthen we are ready to say with the Psalmist, _Hath God forgotten to be\ngracious? hath he, in anger, shut up his tender mercies?_ Psal. lxxvii.\n9. and sometimes conclude, that we have no interest in the love of God,\nbecause the dispensations of his providence are afflictive, and fill us\nwith great uneasiness. In this case fear looks upon every adverse\nprovidence, as it were, through a magnifying glass, and apprehends this\nto be but the beginning of sorrows; for it cannot say with the prophet,\n_I will trust and not be afraid_, chap. xii. 2. _for in the Lord Jehovah\nis everlasting strength_, chap. xxvii. 4.\nMoreover, the strength or weakness of faith may farther be discerned by\nour enjoying, or being destitute of communion with God; our conversing\nwith him in ordinances, or being deprived of this privilege. We may\nconclude our faith to be strong, when we can say as the apostle does,\n_Our conversation is in heaven_, or we live above: but when, on the\nother hand, we have too great an anxiety or solicitude about earthly\nthings, and an immoderate love to this present world, this argues the\nweakness thereof. The difference between these two may also be\ndiscerned, by the frame of our spirit in prayer. When faith is strong,\nthe soul has a great degree of boldness or liberty of access to the\nthrone of grace; a greater measure of importunity and fervency,\naccompanied with an expectation of the blessings prayed for, by a secret\nand powerful intimation from the Spirit, as a Spirit of grace and\nsupplication; from whence it infers, that he that excites this grace\nwill encourage it, as he _says not to the seed of Jacob, seek ye me in\nvain_, chap. xlv. 19.\nWe might also add, in the last place, that strong faith may likewise be\ndiscerned, when it is accompanied with an assurance of an interest in\nChrist\u2019s righteousness, and our right and title to eternal life founded\nthereon, or that God will guide us by his counsel, and afterwards\nreceive us to glory, and a persuasion wrought in the soul by the Spirit,\nthat nothing shall separate us from his love: whereas weak faith is\nattended with many doubts concerning our interest in Christ; sometimes\nfearing that our former hope was no other than a delusion, our present\nexperiences not real, the ground we stand on sinks under us; and we are\nready to conclude, that we shall one day fall by the hands of our\nspiritual enemies. When I speak of these doubts and fears, as an\ninstance of weak faith, I do not say that they are ingredients in faith;\nfor they are rather to be considered as a burden and incumbrance that\nattends it, so that though there be some good thing in us towards the\nLord our God, or a small degree of faith, like a grain of mustard seed,\nthese doubts proceed from the weakness thereof, as opposed to that which\nis strong, and would denote the soul to be in a happy and flourishing\ncondition; which leads us,\nVI. To speak concerning the use of faith in the whole conduct of our\nlives; as every thing that we do in an acceptable manner, is said to be\ndone by it. It is one thing occasionally to put forth some acts of\nfaith, and another thing to live by faith; which, as it is the most\nnoble and excellent life, so nothing short of it can, properly speaking,\nbe called a good life, how much soever many are styled good livers, who\nare wholly strangers to this grace. The apostle Paul speaks of this way\nof living, and considers it as exemplified in himself, when he says,\n_The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son\nof God_, Gal. ii. 20. He speaks of it as his constant work, or that\nwhich ran through the whole business of life. Whether we are engaged in\ncivil or religious duties, they are all to be performed by faith. Here\nwe shall consider the life of faith;\n1. As it discovers itself in all the common actions of life; in these we\nact as men: but that faith, which is the principal ingredient in them,\nand their chief ornament, denotes us to walk as Christians; and this we\nare said to do,\n(1.) When we receive every outward mercy, as the purchase of the blood\nof Christ, as well as the gift of his grace; and consider it as a\nblessing bestowed by a covenant-God, who, together with outward things,\nis pleased to give himself to us; which infinitely enhances the value of\nthe blessing, and induces us to receive it with a proportionable degree\nof thankfulness.\n(2.) When we set loose from all the enjoyments of this world, not taking\nup our rest in them, as though they were our portion or chief good; and\ntherefore, the esteem and value we have for them is very much below that\nwhich we have for things divine and heavenly. When we use them to the\nglory of God; and account the best outward enjoyments nothing, if\ncompared with Christ; as the apostle says, _I count all things but loss\nfor the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, and do count them but\ndung, that I may win Christ_, Phil. iii. 8. This act of faith will quiet\nour spirits under afflictions, and induce us to submit to the disposing\nprovidence of God; when our best outward enjoyments are removed, or we\ncalled to suffer the loss of all things for Christ\u2019s sake, or by his\nsovereign will.\n(3.) When all the success which we hope for in our secular employments,\nis considered as an instance of that care which Christ takes of his\npeople, in which he over-rules and orders all things for his own glory,\nand their welfare; and therefore, we are persuaded that he will cause\nwhatever we take in hand, to prosper, provided he sees that it is best\nfor us; and if not, we are disposed to acquiesce in his will. This is\nsuch an instance of faith as will put us upon doing every thing in the\nname and to the glory of Christ, and fortify us against any\ndisappointment that may attend our expectation, in every employment\nwherein we are engaged.\n(4.) When outward blessings, instead of proving a snare and temptation,\nto draw off our hearts from Christ, are a means to bring us nearer to\nhim, so that if our circumstances are easy and comfortable in the world,\nand we have more frequent opportunities offered to us, to engage in\nreligious duties than others, we are accordingly inclined to embrace\nthem; and when every thing we enjoy, as an instance of distinguishing\nfavour from God, above what many in the world do, excites in us a due\nsense of gratitude, and an earnest desire and endeavour to use the world\nto his glory.\n(5.) When adverse providences, which sometimes have a tendency to drive\nthe soul from Christ, and occasion repining thoughts, as though the\ndivine distributions were not equal, are made of use to bring us nearer\nto him, so that whatever we lose in the creature, we look for, and\nendeavour to find in him. And when, with a submissive spirit, we can\nsay, that he does all things well for us, as we hope and trust that he\nwill make even those things that run counter to our secular interests,\nsubservient to our eternal welfare; and as the result hereof, endeavour\nto keep up a becoming frame of spirit, in such a condition of life, as\nhas in itself a tendency to cast down the soul and fill it with great\ndisquietude.\n(6.) When we devote and consecrate all we have in the world to God,\nconsidering, that as we are not our own but his; so all we have is his;\nand when hereupon we are endowed with a public spirit, desirous to\napprove ourselves blessings to mankind in general, to the utmost of our\npower; and when we have done all, not only say with David, _Of thine own\nwe have given thee_, 1 Chron. xxix. 14. but as our Saviour taught his\ndisciples to say, _We are unprofitable servants_.\n(7.) The life of faith discovers itself in the government of our\naffections, namely, as they are kept within due bounds, set upon right\nobjects, and rendered subservient to promote Christ\u2019s glory and\ninterest. Hereby are we prevented from setting our affections\nimmoderately on things of this world, when faith shews us that there are\nfar better things to draw them forth, which deserve our highest love: it\nalso prevents our being worldly and carnal, as though we were swallowed\nup with the things of sense, and had nothing else to mind, and religion\nwere only to be occasionally engaged in; or, as though an holy, humble,\nself-denying frame of spirit were inconsistent with worldly business.\nFaith suggests the contrary; puts us upon making religion our great\nbusiness, and engaging in secular affairs, rather as a necessary\navocation from it, than that which is the chief end of living. It also\nputs us upon glorifying Christ in our secular concerns, as we manage\nthem in such a way as he ordains; and hereby the soul is kept in a\nspiritual frame, while abiding with God in the calling whereunto he is\ncalled. This we attribute more especially to the grace of faith, not\nonly as it is connected with, and (as will be observed under our next\nhead) excites other graces; but as it has its eye constantly fixed on\nChrist as its object, and by this steers its course, and takes an\nestimate of the valuableness and importance of all the affairs of this\nlife, by their subserviency to our salvation, and the advancement of his\nglory therein.\n2. Faith discovers itself in the performance of all religious duties,\nand the exercise of all other graces therein. Thus we read of the prayer\nof faith, whereby a soul hath access to God as a father, in the name of\nChrist; firmly relies on the promises which are established in him, and\nhas a liberty to plead with him, and hope of acceptance in his sight.\nMoreover, when we wait on God to hear what he has to impart to us in his\nword, faith having experienced some degree of communion with him\nalready, and had some displays of his love, puts the soul upon desiring\nmore, as the Psalmist says, _My soul thirsteth for thee; my flesh\nlongeth for thee, to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee\nin the sanctuary_, Psal. lxiii. 1, 2. And whatever other ordinances of\ndivine appointment, we are engaged in, we are hereby encouraged to hope\nfor his presence, and draw nigh unto him herein, with a reverential fear\nand delight, in him: and it puts us upon the exercise of those graces\nwhich are necessary for the right performance of gospel worship in\ngeneral.\nThese are not only joined with it, but may be said to be excited\nthereby; so that faith is, as it were, the principal of all other\ngraces. Thus when the heart is drawn forth in love to Christ, it may be\nsaid, that _faith worketh by love_, Gal. v. 6. and when this love is\naccompanied with _joy unspeakable and full of glory_; this we have in a\nway of believing, and that which tends to excite the grace of love, is\nthe view that faith takes of Christ\u2019s mediatorial glory and\nexcellencies, and the obligations we are under to love him, from his\ngrace of love to us; and this is a strong motive, inducing us to express\nour love to him, by universal obedience, which is called, _the obedience\nof faith_, Rom. xvi. 26.\nWhen we exercise the grace of repentance, and thereby hate and turn from\nall sin, and are, in a peculiar manner, sensible, as we ought to be, of\nthe sin of unbelief; it is faith that gives us this sense thereof, as it\nis best able to see its own defects. When we confess sin, or humble\nourselves before God for it, faith views it not only as a violation of\nthe divine law, but as an instance of the highest ingratitude; and when\nwe desire, in the exercise of repentance, to forsake sin, faith makes us\nsensible of our own weakness, and puts us upon a firm and stedfast\ndependence on Christ, to enable us thereunto; and when, in the exercise\nof this grace, our consciences are burdened with a sense of guilt and\nunbelief is ready to suggest, that our sins are so heinously aggravated,\nthat there is no room to hope for pardoning mercy, faith relieves us\nagainst these despairing thoughts, and encourages us to wait for the\nmercy of God, who will _abundantly pardon_, Isa. lv. 7. and with whom\nthere is _forgiveness, that he may be feared_, Psal. cxxx. 4.\nAnd when we use endeavours to mortify sin, this is to be done by a\nfiducial view of Christ crucified; and when we encourage ourselves to\nhope that the indictment brought against us for it, was nailed to the\ncross of Christ; and that there is _no condemnation to us_, as being in\nhim, Rom. viii. 1. and that, as the apostle says, _Our old man is\ncrucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed: that\nhenceforth we should no longer serve sin_, chap. vi. 6. all this is to\nbe done by faith.\nWe might also observe, that the grace of patience is connected with, and\nwe excited, thereunto by faith. The apostle, Heb. vi. 12. joins both\nthese together, as supposing that faith affords a motive to patience;\nand elsewhere we read, not only of what faith enables us to do, but\nbear, in the account which we have, of the great things which the Old\nTestament saints did, and suffered by this grace: and therefore,\nwhatever graces are exercised under the afflictions of this present\nlife; faith excites in us a resignation to the will of God, and consider\nthem as the chastisements of a merciful Father, and as _bringing forth\nthe peaceful fruit of righteousness unto them that are exercised\nthereby_, chap. xii. 11. and we are encouraged to bear them with such a\ncomposed frame of spirit that they seem light, and not worthy to be\ncompared with the glory that shall be revealed. This, faith has\nconstantly in view, setting one against the other; whereby that which\nwould otherwise be an hindrance to us in our way, is improved, by us, to\nour spiritual advantage; and we enabled, not only to go on safely, but\ncomfortably, till we arrive at the full fruition of what we now behold\nat a distance, and rejoice in the fiducial expectation thereof: which\nleads us to the last thing proposed to be considered, concerning faith,\nnamely,\nVII. How it is to be attained or increased, and what are the means\nconducive thereunto. Though faith, in common with all other graces, be\nwrought in us by the power of God, yet we are far from asserting, that\nthere is no duty incumbent on us, in the performing whereof, we are to\nhope and wait for the divine blessing, upon which all the success\nthereof depends. To deny this would give just occasion to charge the\ndoctrine of efficacious grace, as though it led to security, or\nlicentiousness; which many do without ground. Though grace and duty are\nvery distinct, yet they are not inconsistent with each other; the former\nis God\u2019s work, the latter our act.\nAs for those duties which are required of us, considered as expecting\nthe divine grace and blessing to attend them; these are, a diligent\nwaiting on God in all his ordinances; looking into the state of our\nsouls, by impartial self-examination; calling to mind our past\nmiscarriages, and what matter of humiliation we have for them in the\nsight of God, as also, our natural aversion and inability to do what is\ngood; our need of Christ\u2019s righteousness, to take away the guilt we have\ncontracted, and of his strength, to subdue our corruptions, and enable\nus to plead earnestly with him for these privileges.\nAs for the unregenerate, they must pray and wait on him, for the first\ngrace, and say, with Ephraim, _Turn thou me, and I shall be turned_,\nJer. xxxi. 18. They must be earnest with him, that he would bestow upon\nthem the grace of faith; which is styled, his gift; that he would remove\nevery thing that is, at present, an obstacle, or hindrance to this\ngrace, all the prejudices which corrupt nature has entertained against\nChrist, and the way of salvation by him; and that he would shine into\ntheir souls, to give them the knowledge of his glory in the face of\nChrist; reveal his arm, and incline them, by the internal working of his\npower, to receive the grace which is held forth in the gospel. These are\nduties incumbent on persons who are not called effectually, being\ndestitute of regenerating grace.\nBut, on the other hand, they who have ground to conclude that they have\nexperienced this grace, though, at present, they apprehend that their\nfaith is weak, and on the decline; they must be found waiting on God, in\nhis own way; and be importunate with him in prayer for the revival of\nhis work, that so they may recover their former experiences; they must\nbless him for the privileges they once enjoyed, and be humbled for their\npast backslidings, whereby they have provoked him to withdraw from them,\nand say with the church, _I will go and return to my first husband; for\nthen was it better with me than now_, Hos. ii. 7. and, as it says\nelsewhere, _Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will\nwe render the calves of our lips_, chap. xiv. 2. They must lament the\ndishonour that they have brought to God; and consider how, by this\nmeans, they have grieved the Holy Spirit, wounded their own consciences,\nand made work for a bitter repentance and humiliation before God. They\nmust be sensible, that it is the same hand which wrought grace in them\nat first, that must now recover them from their fallen state, and, by\nexciting the principle of grace implanted, bring them into a lively\nframe; and when he has done this, they must still depend upon him to\nmaintain this frame of spirit, as considering that as the beginning so\nthe progress of grace, is owing to him who is the author and finisher of\nfaith; who worketh in us that which is pleasing in his sight, and\ncarries on his own work unto perfection.\nFootnote 49:\n  That faith is a holy duty is evident, because it never obtains, except\n  where the bent, or bias of the mind has been changed by the Holy\n  Spirit; yet it is like all the other works of man, imperfect, and\n  might be stronger. That it is necessary in every action is clear, for\n  whatsoever is not of faith is sin; both because it is the work of an\n  enemy, and because it cannot be accepted, having no reference to\n  Christ. Faith is always accompanied by other holy traits of character,\n  as repentance, love, patience, humility, and the like. The reason of\n  which is evident; for faith is an act of the renewed man, and all the\n  other graces must accompany. But it is even less holy than love; \u201cnow\n  abideth faith, hope, charity, (love)\u2014the greatest of these is\n  charity.\u201d It is incapable of procuring by its righteousness our\n  justification, because imperfect. If it were the holiness of the duty\n  of faith, which justifies the man before God, we should read of a\n  justification by love, patience, humility, or holiness in general. No\n  such declaration occurs in the scriptures, but the reverse; \u201cfor by\n  the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified,\u201d which is manifestly\n  spoken not merely of the corporal energy, but of the action taken with\n  the intention.\n  If the righteousness of the duty of faith justifies, there could be no\n  propriety in saying that we are \u201cjustified by Christ,\u201d or his\n  righteousness; there would have been no need of a Saviour, and all the\n  sacrifices of former days were useless.\n  If we are to depend upon the righteousness of our believing for our\n  justification, the believing in Christ will be of no importance,\n  because Christ is then not our Saviour; in proportion as our hopes are\n  founded upon our own holiness, they are withdrawn from Christ.\u2014This\n  will also destroy the righteousness of faith, for if it be useless\n  there can be no holiness in believing.\n  If the holiness consist not in the act of believing, but in the\n  disposition of the believer, and if it is for this, that he is\n  justified; salvation is then a debt, not grace; we have whereof to\n  boast; we are justified by the deeds of the law; the offence of the\n  cross has ceased; and Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, and Deists are\n  seeking justification also in the same way.\n  That repentance, and holiness are necessary to _salvation_ is true,\n  because every man who is justified is also sanctified; and that faith,\n  considered as a holy duty, is necessary in the same manner, is equally\n  true; but faith is also useful in our _justification_, and in a\n  manner, in which, it does not appear, that repentance and holiness can\n  be.\n  To say that they are conditions of salvation is to speak ambiguously;\n  that we cannot be saved without them, is as certain as that we cannot\n  be justified, without being also sanctified; but to say, that by\n  performing them a title to happiness is vested in us, is to rob Christ\n  of his glory, and to put the crown on man\u2019s head. Besides, the\n  condition of holiness is not accomplished till death, and as the\n  condition of our justification is not performed till then, we are\n  never justified in life, which is plainly contrary to the scriptures.\nFootnote 50:\n  _This is what is generally styled, by a diminutive word_, Acceptilatio\n  gratiosa, _which is an accepting a small part of a debt, instead of\n  the whole; a sort of composition, in which, though the payment be\n  inconsiderable, yet the debtor\u2019s discharge is founded thereon, by an\n  act of favour in the creditor, as though the whole sum had been paid._\nFootnote 51:\n  _These works they speak of as_ Tincta sanguine Christi.\nFootnote 52:\n  \u201cAbraham believed God and it was imputed or counted to him for\n  righteousness.\u201d This passage of Scripture is found with little\n  variation also in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii. 6.) and in the\n  Epistle of James (ii. 23.) and in each of the places it seems to have\n  been introduced in support of its context from the first book of\n  Moses. (xv. 6.)\n  Moses is giving at that place a visionary (as we suppose)\n  correspondence between Jehovah and Abraham; in which the Lord promises\n  to the patriarch to be his \u201cshield and exceeding great reward,\u201d and\n  upon Abraham\u2019s complaining that he was childless, his attention is\n  directed to the stars, and he is told that it will be equally\n  impracticable to number his posterity, and then follow the words\n  \u201cAbraham believed _in_[53] the Lord, and he counted it to him for\n  righteousness.\u201d\n  Here it is given as an old-testament proof of that which has been a\n  little before asserted \u201cthat a man is justified by faith without the\n  deeds of the law,\u201d but because this doctrine would seem to make void\n  the law, the apostle states this objection, then denies it with\n  abhorrence, and introduces for his support Abraham\u2019s justification\n  before God, \u201cif Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to\n  glory, but not before God; for what saith the scriptures? Abraham\n  believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.\u201d\n  In the letter to the christians of Galatia he aims to bring them back\n  from depending on their obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, to\n  a reliance upon Christ for salvation, he declares that \u201cby the works\n  of the law no flesh shall be justified\u201d in the sight of God; and that\n  christians are \u201cdead to the law,\u201d \u201cseek to be justified by Christ,\u201d\n  and \u201clive by the faith of the Son of God.\u201d He asserts \u201cif\n  righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain.\u201d He charges\n  the Galatians with folly. After having heard, seen, and experienced\n  the doctrines of the Gospel, its extraordinary and ordinary spiritual\n  powers, to go back to dead works would argue something like\n  fascination. And then to show that the Gospel mode of justification by\n  faith was not peculiar to the Gospel he quotes from the book of\n  Genesis these words; \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was accounted to\n  him for righteousness.\u201d\n  The apostle James reprehends such as profess to be believers and yet\n  are not careful to maintain good works; such professions of faith are\n  less credible than the fruits of holiness; \u201cshow _me_ thy faith\n  without thy works, and I will show _thee_ my faith by my works.\u201d Faith\n  without works he pronounces to be dead, not merely inoperative, but\n  destitute of a living principle. He then introduces Abraham\u2019s example\n  of offering up Isaac as a proof of his faith; this work being a\n  manifest effect of his faith in God, justifies, in the sight of all\n  men, his character as a believer, \u201cand the scripture\u201d he says \u201cwas\n  _fulfilled_ which saith Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto\n  him for righteousness.\u201d The offering up of Isaac, having taken place\n  several years after it had been said that \u201cAbraham believed God,\u201d was\n  an undeniable evidence of the truth, and a fulfilment, of that\n  scripture.\n  Abraham\u2019s faith here mentioned has been understood as implying both\n  the act of believing God\u2019s promises and his yielding to the call of\n  God by emigrating, &c.[54] which faith, and its fruits, though an\n  imperfect righteousness, was, it is alleged, by the favour of God\n  accepted as a justifying righteousness.\n  But the apostle here contrasts faith with works, and denies a\n  justification before God to be attainable by our obedience,\n  consequently his introduction of Abraham\u2019s justification by his good\n  deeds would have destroyed his own argument.\n  Others[55] understand Abraham to have been justified on the account of\n  the mere act of believing: and this has been confined to his faith in\n  the one promise of a numerous posterity.\n  That the Lord[56] \u201cin judging Abraham will place on one side of the\n  account his duties, and on the other his _performances_, and on the\n  side of his performances he will place _his faith_, and by mere favour\n  value it equal to a complete performance of his duty, and reward him\n  as if he were a perfectly righteous person.\u201d\n  Faith is the mind\u2019s assent to external evidence; faith thus strictly\n  considered as an act, is man\u2019s act, as much so as any can be, and as\n  the understanding at least in its application to the evidence must be\n  accompanied by the consent of the will, here is every thing that is\n  necessary to constitute a work, and accordingly it is commanded as a\n  duty, the neglect of which is criminal. If it be thus that faith\n  justifies the believer in the sight of God, then there is no propriety\n  in saying we are not justified by works, and if it were possible still\n  less in adducing the example of Abraham\u2019s justification by that which\n  was no more than a duty to prove that we cannot be justified by works,\n  \u201cChrist being the end of the law for righteousness to every one who\n  believeth.\u201d If man can be so justified boasting is not excluded he has\n  whereof to glory.\n  But the design of the apostle was to show that Abraham himself one of\n  the holiest of men with all his good deeds, and implicit obedience to\n  divine commands was not justified for his own holiness or godliness,\n  for that is the opinion he is combating, but by what he calls faith.\n  When the things which we are required to believe are of a spiritual\n  nature, the \u201ccarnal mind\u201d requires to be freed from its prejudices\n  before it will \u201creceive them,\u201d and because supernatural aid is\n  necessary to such minds and all naturally possess them, such \u201cfaith\u201d\n  must unquestionably be \u201cthe gift of God\u201d in a sense higher than that\n  of every other species of faith exercised under the support of Divine\n  Providence. If faith is a gift of God it merits nothing for us, can\n  never create an obligation on Divine justice for remuneration, and so\n  can never be a _justifying_ righteousness.\n  In his epistle to the Galatians that which he terms a being \u201cjustified\n  by faith\u201d he also denominates a being \u201cjustified by faith in Christ\u201d\n  so that his justifying faith is not merely a belief of the truth of\n  what God has spoken, but is connected in some manner with Christ, and\n  that it is not the mere act of believing in Christ which is the ground\n  of such justification is plain from this, that he expresses the same\n  thing by the words, \u201cbeing justified by Christ.\u201d If it is true that we\n  are justified by faith, and also justified by Christ, it must be meant\n  in different senses, and to give effect to these words thus\n  differently connected, it seems necessary to suppose the righteousness\n  of Christ as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, and\n  faith the instrumental. \u201cTo as many as received him to them gave he\n  power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his\n  name,\u201d or at least as the concomitant of it, where all other\n  requisites exist as well as grace for its production.\n  It is not the _holiness of his faith_ that is accounted for\n  righteousness to him: faith is a holy duty but not more so than some\n  others, and not so much so as love, \u201cnow abide faith, hope, love, and\n  the greatest of these is love;\u201d nor are christians ever said to be\n  justified by love, joy, peace, patience, or by any other grace, except\n  by faith. From whence it follows that it is not the holiness of faith\n  for which the believer is justified, and yet that there is some\n  property not common to any other grace or duty, which must be\n  concerned in our justification; and no doubt it is because faith lays\n  hold on him for whose sake alone we can be justified.\n  Or faith may be put for its object, as the words fear, hope, joy, and\n  love are; God is our fear, our hope, &c. \u201cThy faith hath saved thee,\u201d\n  it was not her faith, but its object, Christ\u2019s power, that healed her.\n  The seed which was promised embraced Christ, whose day Abraham saw\n  afar off; so this faith had the Redeemer for its object. In the\n  epistle to the Galatians there follow the quotation these words, \u201cas\n  many as are of faith are the children of Abraham,\u201d these are called\n  his spiritual seed, and believe in Christ, now if all who believe in\n  Christ are thereby the children of Abraham, and Abraham their father\n  or pattern of faith, his faith must have been of the same kind. There\n  could have been little propriety in giving a faith of any other kind\n  as a pattern to those who are to believe in Christ that they may be\n  \u201cjustified by his blood.\u201d\nFootnote 53:\n  The quotations of Paul and James follow the lxx. in omitting the _in_.\nFootnote 54:\n  Hammond.\nFootnote 55:\n  Whitby. Macknight.\nFootnote 56:\n  Macknight.\nFootnote 57:\n  _This opinion was propagated soon after the reformation, by Andr.\n  Osiander, who lived a little before the middle of the sixteenth\n  century._\nFootnote 58:\n  _This opinion was propagated soon after by Stancarus, in opposition to\n  Osiander, whom Du Pin reckons amongst the Socinians, or, at least,\n  that after he had advanced this notion, he denied the doctrine of the\n  Trinity._ [_See Du Pin\u2019s eccl. hist. sixteenth century, book_ iv.\nFootnote 59:\n  _This is commonly called_ fiducia, _and as such, distinguished from_\n  fides, _by which the former is generally expressed._\nFootnote 60:\n  _In this respect_ faith _is contra-distinguished from_ science;\n  _accordingly we are said to know a thing that is contained in an\n  axiom, that no one, who has the exercise of his understanding, can\n  doubt of_, viz. _that the whole is greater than the part; or, that a\n  thing cannot be, and not be at the same time, &c. And every thing that\n  is founded on a mathematical demonstration, is included in the word_\n  science; _to which we may add occular demonstration. Now these things\n  are not properly the object of faith, or the assent we give to the\n  truth hereof, is not founded barely upon evidence, in which respect\n  faith is distinguished from it; for which reason we call it an assent\n  to a truth, founded on evidence._\nFootnote 61:\n  Truth in the abstract is not the object of faith, but that which is\n  true. The word of God when represented as the object of faith is not\n  to be understood of words and letters, nor even of axioms and\n  propositions, nor is the Divine veracity, though certainly confided\n  in, the object of faith, or that which is assented unto. The promises\n  which the old testament-believers had, and reposed in, were not the\n  objects of faith, but the things which they saw afar off, and which\n  were the ground of their rejoicing. When we are required to believe\n  _on_ Jesus Christ, it is not his human, not his Divine nature, not his\n  person, nor even his mediatorial character which is the object of our\n  faith; for any of these alone could be no ground of confidence of\n  salvation, or hope, much less produce joy in the believer. Every thing\n  essential to our salvation must be considered, as the object of our\n  faith; the mercy of God, the love of Christ, the purpose and the act\n  of offering, and accepting the sacrifice to Justice of our sins, and\n  the warrant to us to fix our hope and trust in this atonement; the\n  firm conviction of the truth of these things may be denominated faith.\n  Yet this conviction, or free assent of the understanding is not the\n  faith, which accompanies salvation; if we can suppose it possible,\n  that there should not be a corresponding impression made upon the will\n  and affections. _With the heart man believeth unto salvation._ In this\n  expression the heart is not put for the intellectual, but moral\n  powers, and must not be understood as if the will assumed the office,\n  peculiar to the understanding, of judging of evidence; but only that\n  the assent of the understanding must be of such a kind, and to such a\n  degree, as to produce a decisive co-operation of all the powers of the\n  man, both of soul and body, to be saved in the way, and by the means\n  discovered.\n  Such an effort for salvation supposes the bent, or bias of the mind to\n  be inclined towards God, and his glory. And certain it is, that the\n  work, or act of believing, depends so much upon the moral state of the\n  man, that although he may assent to every article of faith, and desire\n  an interest in the advantages of religion, he never believes with the\n  heart in the sense above mentioned, until this charge has been wrought\n  in him. On this account faith may well be denominated the work or gift\n  of God, for he only, according to the scriptures can effect this\n  change.\n  Yet it is not because there is any defect in the evidence of these\n  important truths; nor because of any natural, that is physical, defect\n  of the intellectual powers of man, that he does not believe the Divine\n  revelation; but because his affections are pre-occupied, and his\n  inclinations directed into another channel, whereby he is unwilling to\n  apply himself unto these truths, and is prejudiced against the\n  holiness, which is required, and the self denial that is necessary to\n  attain the blessings of salvation.\nFootnote 62:\n  Faith, according to the beloved disciple John, and the great St. Paul,\n  is the _belief of the truth_; the _believing that Jesus is the\n  Christ_; or a giving _credit to the record that God gave of his Son_.\n  These definitions are all of the same import, and are all divine.\n  Being dictated by the Spirit of God, they cannot be contradicted by\n  any, although some have glossed upon them, till they have brought in a\n  sense diverse from the inspired writers. This faith, when it is\n  _real_, as distinguished from that uninfluential assent to the gospel,\n  which crowds, who hear it, profess to have, is an effect of the\n  _divine influence in us_; hence it is said to be _of the operation of\n  God_; and that it is _with the heart_ man believeth unto\n  righteousness. As the righteousness by which the sinner is justified,\n  is the sole work of Christ _for him_, so this is the work of the Holy\n  Ghost _in him_, and no less necessary in its proper place; it being\n  that, without which a sinner cannot apprehend, receive, and rest upon\n  Christ for eternal life. By faith, as before observed, he becomes\n  acquainted with the glories of the character of Jesus, the fulness of\n  grace in him, and the suitableness and perfection of his\n  righteousness; in consequence of this faith, he admires the Saviour\u2019s\n  personal excellencies, flies to him, ventures all upon him, and\n  rejoices in him. These, to speak plainly, are all so many effects of\n  faith. The sinner must have a view of the Saviour\u2019s excellency,\n  _before_ he will admire it. He must be persuaded, that Christ is the\n  only safe refuge, _before_ he will _fly_ to him. He must know that\n  there is in Christ sufficient matter of consolation, _before_ he will\n  _rejoice_ in him. Of all these he is entirely satisfied _by faith_ in\n  the testimony of God: subsequent to which is his _coming_, or _flying_\n  to him, _trusting_ in, or _venturing_ all upon him, _rejoicing_ in\n  him, &c. e. g. Joseph\u2019s brethren heard that there was corn enough in\n  Egypt; they believed the report: this was faith; upon this they went\n  down for a supply. Doubtless this was an _effect_ of their faith; for\n  had they not believed the tidings, they would never have gone. So a\n  sinner must _believe_ that Christ is a full and complete Saviour,\n  _before_ he will _run_ or _fly_ to him. Sense of misery, and faith in\n  his sufficiency, are the main stimulus. Or, I am sick, I hear of an\n  able physician, I believe him to be so, upon which I apply to him: my\n  _application_ to him, and my _belief_ of his character, are as\n  distinct as any two things can be: my _trusting_ my life in his hands,\n  is an effect of my _believing_ him to be an able physician. This\n  distinction is obvious in the sacred writings, as well as in the\n  nature of things. _He that_ cometh _to God, must_ believe _that he\n  is_. Here is a manifest distinction between _coming_ and _believing_.\n  I apprehend that the same distinction should be observed, between\n  _believing_ in Christ, and _receiving_ him. If so, it will follow,\n  that \u201cto receive Christ in all his offices, as a prophet, a priest,\n  and a king,\u201d is not properly _faith_, but an _effect_ of it, and\n  inseparably connected with it. It is certain that a man must believe\n  that Jesus is the Christ, and that he sustains these offices, before\n  he can or will receive him in this light. Christ _came unto his own_\n  (meaning the Jews) _but his own received him not_. This refusing to\n  _receive_ him was not unbelief, but an effect of it. Hence should you\n  be asked, why they did not receive him? The answer is ready, _because_\n  they did not believe him to be the Christ. Nothing is more plain than\n  that unbelief was the grand _cause_ why they rejected him. On the\n  other hand, nothing is more evident, than that _receiving_ Christ, is\n  an effect of _believing_ in him. And should you ask the man who\n  defines faith, \u201ca receiving Christ in all his offices,\u201d why he thus\n  receives him? he himself will be obliged to observe this distinction;\n  for the only just answer he can give you is, \u201c_because I believe_ he\n  sustains them.\u201d\n  Thus we see that faith is entirely distinct from the righteousness\n  which justifies; at the same time it is indispensably necessary,\n  answering great and good purposes. Under its influence the sinner\n  _flies_ to Jesus, the hope set before him, and trusts his immortal\n  interest in his hands, being perfectly satisfied with his adorable\n  character. Faith is also the medium of peace and consolation. You may\n  with equal propriety attempt to separate light and heat from the sun,\n  as peace of conscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost, _from the faith of\n  God\u2019s elect_. The degree of Christian consolation may be greater or\n  less, according to the strength and influence of faith. At one time\n  the believer may have an inward peace and tranquility, which is\n  exceedingly agreeable. At another time he may be favoured with what\n  St. Paul calls _joy unspeakable and full of glory_. At another, guilt\n  may rob him of his comfort, and separate between him and his God. Such\n  are his exercises in the present state of things. But he is far from\n  making a righteousness of his _frames_, _feelings_, or _experiences_.\n  The distinction between these he well understands. The _righteousness_\n  by which he expects to be justified, is the work of Christ alone; the\n  _faith_ by which he is enabled to receive it, is _of the operation of\n  God_; the consolations that he enjoys are from this glorious Christ,\n  in believing, or through faith: all as different as A, B, and C. His\n  dependence for acceptance with God is neither on his faith nor\n  experiences, but on Christ _alone_. At the same time he cannot\n  conceive it possible, for a poor, wretched, undone sinner to be\n  enabled to believe in Christ for eternal life, and not _rejoice_. A\n  view of the glories of his person, and the fulness and freeness of his\n  grace, cannot fail of introducing _strong consolation_.\n  STILLMAN\u2019S SERMONS.\nFootnote 63:\n  _See Quest._ lxxx.\nFootnote 64:\n  _See page 39, ante._\nFootnote 65:\n  _See Quest._ lxxix.\nFootnote 66:\n  _See Quest._ lxxviii.\n    QUEST. LXXIV. _What is adoption?_\n    ANSW. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for his\n    only Son Jesus Christ; whereby all those that are justified, are\n    received into the number of his children, have his name put upon\n    them, the Spirit of his Son given to them, are under his fatherly\n    care and dispensations, admitted to all the liberties and privileges\n    of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs\n    with Christ in glory.\nIn speaking to this answer we shall consider,\nI. The various senses in which persons are the sons of God; and\nparticularly, how they are so called by adoption.\nII. The difference between adoption as used by men, and as it is applied\nin this answer to God\u2019s taking persons into this relation, as his\nchildren; from whence it will appear to be an act of his free grace.\nIII. We shall consider the reference the sonship of believers has to the\nsuperior and more glorious Sonship of Jesus Christ; and how it is said\nto be for his sake.\nIV. The privileges conferred on, or reserved for them, who are the sons\nof God by adoption.\nI. We shall consider the various senses in which persons are called the\nsons of God.\n1. Some are called the sons of God, as they are invested with many\nhonours or prerogatives from God, as a branch of his image: thus\nmagistrates are called the _children of the Most High_, Psal. lxxxii. 6.\n2. Others are called God\u2019s children, by an external federal relation, as\nmembers of the visible church; in which sense we are to understand that\nscripture; wherein it is said, _The sons of God saw the daughters of\nmen_, &c. Gen. vi. 2. And when Moses went into Pharaoh, to demand\nliberty for the Israelites, he was ordered to say, _Israel is my son,\neven my first-born_, Exod. iv. 22. This privilege, though it be high and\nhonourable, by which the church is distinguished from the world; yet it\nis not inseparably connected with salvation; for God says, concerning\nIsrael, when revolting, and backsliding from him, _I have nourished and\nbrought up children; and they have rebelled against me_, Isa. i. 2. and\nmany of those who are called the _children of the kingdom shall be cast\ninto utter darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth_,\nMatt. viii. 12.\n3. The word is sometimes taken in a more large sense, as applicable to\nall mankind: thus the prophet says, _Have we not all one father, hath\nnot God created us?_ Mal. ii. 10. And the apostle Paul, when disputing\nwith the Athenians, speaks in their own language, and quotes a saying\ntaken from one of their poets, which he applies to the great God, as\n_giving to all life and breath, and all things_; upon which account men\nare called his _off-spring_, Acts xvii. 25. compared with 28.\n4. They are called the sons of God, who are endowed with his\nsupernatural image, and admitted to the highest honours and privileges\nconferred upon creatures: thus the angels are called the _sons of God_,\nJob xxxviii. 7.\n5. Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the Son of God, in a sense not\napplicable to any other; as his Sonship includes in it his deity, and\nhis having, in his human nature, received a commission from the Father,\nto engage in the great work of our redemption, as becoming surety for\nus; which is the foundation of all those saving blessings which we enjoy\nor hope for.\n6. Believers are called the sons of God, by a special adoption; which is\nfarther to be considered, as being the subject-matter of this answer.\nAdoption is a word taken from the civil law; and it was much in use\namong the Romans, in the apostles time, in which it was a custom for\npersons, who had no children of their own, and were possessed of an\nestate, to prevent its being divided or descending to strangers, to make\nchoice of such who were agreeable to them, and beloved by them, whom\nthey took into this political relation of children; obliging them to\ntake their name upon them, and to pay respect to them, as though they\nwere their natural parents; and engaging to deal with them as though\nthey had been so; and accordingly to give them a right to their estates,\nas an inheritance. This new relation, founded in a mutual consent, is a\nbond of affection; and the privilege arising from thence is, that he who\nis, in this sense, a father, takes care of, and provides for the person\nwhom he adopts, as though he were his son by nature; and therefore\nCivilians calls it an act of legitimation, imitating nature, or\nsupplying the place of it: and this leads us to consider,\nII. The difference between adoption, as used by men, and as it is\napplied in this answer, to God\u2019s taking persons into this relation, as\nhis children.\n1. When men adopt, or take persons into the relation of children, they\ndo it because they are destitute of children of their own to possess\ntheir estates; and therefore they fix their love on strangers: but God\nwas under no obligation to do this: for if he designed to manifest his\nglory to any creatures, the holy angels were subjects capable of\nreceiving the displays thereof; and his own Son, who had all the\nperfections of the divine nature, was infinitely the object of his\ndelight, and, in all respects, fitted to be as he is styled, _Heir of\nall things_, Heb. i. 2.\n2. When men adopt, they are generally inclined to do it by seeing some\nexcellency or amiableness in the persons whom they fix their love upon.\nThus Pharaoh\u2019s daughter took up Moses, and nourished him for her own\nson, because he was _exceeding fair_, Acts vii. 20, 21. or, it may be,\nshe was moved hereunto, by a natural compassion she had for him, besides\nthe motive of his beauty; as it is said, _The babe wept, and she had\ncompassion on him_, Exod. ii. 6. And Mordecai adopted Esther, or took\nher for his own daughter; _for she was his uncle\u2019s daughter, and was\nfair and beautiful_, and an orphan, _having neither father nor mother_,\nEsther ii. 7. But when God takes any into this relation of children,\nthey have no beauty or comeliness, and might justly have been for ever\nthe objects of his abhorrance. Thus he says concerning the church of\nIsrael, when he first took them into this relation to him, _None eye\npitied thee, but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the loathing\nof thy person: and when I passed by thee and saw thee polluted in thine\nown blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live_, &c.\nEzek. xvi. 5. It might indeed be said concerning man, when admitted to\nthis favour and privilege, that he was miserable; but misery, how much\nsoever it may render the soul an object of pity, it could not, properly\nspeaking, be said to be a motive or inducement from whence the divine\ncompassion took its first rise, as appears from the account we have of\nthe mercy of God, as founded only on his sovereign will or pleasure; as\nhe says, _I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have\ncompassion on whom I will have compassion_, Rom. ix. 15. and also, from\nthe consideration of man\u2019s being exposed to misery by sin, which\nrendered him rather an object of vindictive justice than mercy. This\ntherefore cannot be the ground of God\u2019s giving him a right to an\ninheritance; and consequently adoption is truly said, in this answer, to\nbe an act of the free grace of God.\n3. When men adopt, their taking persons into the relation of children,\nis not necessarily attended with any change of disposition or temper in\nthe persons adopted. A person may be admitted to this privilege, and yet\nremain the same, in that respect, as he was before: but when God takes\nhis people into the relation of children, he gives them, not only those\nother privileges which arise from thence, but also that temper and\ndisposition that becomes those who are thus related to him. This leads\nus to consider,\nIII. The reference which the sonship of believers has to the superior\nand more glorious Sonship of Jesus Christ; and how it is said to be for\nhis sake. Here we must suppose that there is a sense in which Christ is\nsaid to be the Son of God, as the result of the divine decree, which\ncontains in it an idea very distinct from his being a divine person; for\nthat was not the result of the will of the Father; whereas it is said\nconcerning him, _I will declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me,\nThou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_, Psal. ii. 7. And\nelsewhere, _he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name\nthan_ the angels; and this is the consequence of God\u2019s saying to him,\n_thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_: and, _I will be to him\na Father, and he shall be to me a Son_, Heb. i. 4, 5. which plainly\nrefers to Christ as Mediator. Now when we consider this mediatorial\nSonship of Christ, if I may so express it, we are far from asserting,\nthat Christ\u2019s Sonship, and that of believers, is of the same kind; for,\nas much as he exceeds them as Mediator, as to the glory of his person\nand office, so much is his Sonship superior to theirs. This being\npremised, we may better understand the reference which the sonship of\nbelievers has to Christ\u2019s being the Son of God as Mediator; and\ntherefore let it be farther considered,[67]\n1. That it is a prerogative and glory of Christ, as the Son of God, that\nhe has all things which relate to the salvation of his elect, put into\nhis hand; and therefore, whatever the saints enjoy or hope for, which is\nsometimes called in scripture their inheritance, agreeably to their\ncharacter, as the children of God by adoption; this is considered as\nfirst purchased by Christ, and then put into his hand; in which respect\nit is styled his inheritance, he being constituted, pursuant to his\nhaving accomplished the work of redemption, heir of all things; and as\nsuch, has not only a right to his people, but is put in possession of\nall those spiritual blessings in heavenly places, wherewith they are\n_blessed in him_, Eph. i. 3.\n2. From hence it follows, that the sonship of believers, and their right\nto that inheritance, which God has reserved for them, depends upon the\nsonship of Christ, which is infinitely more glorious and excellent. As\nGod\u2019s adopted sons, they have the honour conferred upon them, of being\n_made kings and priests_ to him, Rev. i. 6. These honours are conferred\nby Christ; and, in order thereunto, they are first given to him to\nbestow upon them: thus he says, _I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my\nFather hath appointed unto me_, Luke xxii. 29. Christ is first appointed\nheir of all things, as Mediator; and then his people, or his children,\nare considered as _heirs of God_, as the apostle expresses it; _and\njoint heirs with Christ_, Rom. viii. 17. Not that they have any share in\nhis personal or mediatorial glory; but when they are styled\n_joint-heirs_ with him, we must consider them as having a right to that\ninheritance, which he is possessed of in their name as Mediator: and in\nthis sense we are to understand those scriptures that speak of God\u2019s\nbeing first the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and then, to wit, in\nhim our Father; accordingly he says, _I ascend unto my Father, and your\nFather, and to my God, and your God_, John xx. 17. And elsewhere, God is\nstyled _the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ_, and then _the Father of\nmercies_, or, our merciful Father, 2 Cor. i. 3. And elsewhere the\napostle says, _Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;\nwho hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places, in\nChrist; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus\nChrist, to himself_, Eph. i. 3. compared with 5. and inasmuch as he\ndesigned to _bring many sons to glory_, as being _made meet to be\npartakers of the inheritance of the saints in light_; he first _made the\ncaptain of their salvation perfect through sufferings_, Heb. ii. 10.\ncompared with Col. i. 12. In this respect our right to the inheritance\nof children, is founded in the eternal purpose of God, relating\nhereunto, and the purchase of Christ, as having obtained this\ninheritance for us.\nIV. We are now to consider the privileges conferred on, or reserved for\nthem who are the sons of God by adoption. These are summed up in a very\ncomprehensive expression, which contains an amazing display of divine\ngrace; as it is said, _He that overcometh, shall inherit all things; and\nI will be his God, and he shall be my son_, Rev. xxi. 7. It is a very\nlarge grant that God is pleased to make to them; they shall inherit all\nthings. God is not ashamed to be called their God; and in having him,\nthey are said to possess all things, which are eminently and\ntranscendently in him; they have a right to all the blessings which he\nhad designed for, and which have a tendency to make them completely\nhappy: in this sense we are to understand our Saviour\u2019s words in the\nparable; _Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine_,\nLuke xv. 31. Nothing greater than this can be desired or enjoyed by\ncreatures, whom the Lord delights to honour. But, that we may be a\nlittle more particular in considering the privileges which God confers\non, or has reserved for his children, it may be farther observed,\n1. That they are all emancipated, or freed from the slavery which they\nwere before under, either to sin or Satan; they who were once the\n_servants of sin, are_ hereby _made free from sin, and become the\nservants of righteousness_, or become _servants to God_, Rom. vi. 17,\n18, 22. _have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life;\nthe Son makes them free_; and therefore _they are free indeed_, John\nviii. 36. Before this they are described as _serving divers lusts and\npleasures_, Tit. iii. 3. and are said to be _of their father the devil_,\nand to _do his works_, or follow his suggestions, John viii. 44.\nensnared, and _taken captive by him at his will_, 2 Tim. ii. 26. and, as\nthe consequence hereof, are in perpetual bondage, arising from a dread\nof the wrath of God, and that _fear of death_ impressed on their\nspirits, by him, who is said to have the _power of death_, Heb. ii. 14.\nthis they are delivered from, which cannot but be reckoned a glorious\nprivilege.\n2. They have God\u2019s name put upon them, and accordingly are described as\n_his people called by his name_, 2 Chron. vii. 14. This is an high and\nhonourable character, denoting their relation to him as a peculiar\npeople; and it is what belongs to them alone. Thus the church says, _We\nare thine; thou never bearest rule over them_, Isa. lxiii. 19. namely,\nthine adversaries; _they were not called by thy name_. They have also\nChrist\u2019s name put on them, _of whom the whole family in heaven and earth\nis named_, Eph. iii. 15. which not only signifies that propriety which\nhe has in them as Mediator, but their relation to him as the ransomed of\nthe Lord, his sheep, whom he leads and feeds like a shepherd; and they\nare also styled his children, _Behold I and the children which God hath\ngiven me_, Heb. ii. 13. and indeed, when he is called a surety, or an\nadvocate, or said to execute certain offices as a Saviour or Redeemer;\nthese are all relative terms; and whatever he does therein, is in their\nname, and for their advantage; as it is said, _of him are ye in Christ\nJesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification,\nand redemption_, 1 Cor. i. 31.\n3. They are taken into God\u2019s family, and dealt with as members thereof;\nand accordingly are styled _fellow citizens with the saints, and of the\nhousehold of God_, Eph. ii. 19. And as the consequence hereof, they have\nprotection, provision, and communion with him.\n(1.) They have safe protection; as the master of a family thinks himself\nobliged to secure and defend from danger, all that are under his roof,\nwhose house is, as it were, their castle; so Christ is his people\u2019s\ndefence, concerning whom it is said, _A man shall be as an hiding place\nfrom the wind, and a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a\ndry place, and as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land_, Isa.\nxxxii. 2. and, as the consequence hereof, it is added, _My people shall\ndwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet\nresting places_, ver. 18. _They dwell on high; their place of defence is\nthe munition of rocks_, chap. xxxii. 16. He who has subdued their\nenemies, and will in his own time, bruise them under their feet, will\ntake care that they shall not meet with that disturbance from them,\nwhich may hinder their repose or rest in him, or render their state\nunsafe, so as to endanger their perishing or falling from it.\n(2.) They enjoy the plentiful provisions of God\u2019s house, and therefore\nChrist is called their _shepherd_, Psal. xxiii. 1. not only as leading\nand defending them, but as providing for them; _He shall feed his flock\nlike a shepherd_, Isa. xl. 11. As all grace is treasured up in him, and\nthere is a fulness thereof, which he has to impart to the heirs of\nsalvation, that is sufficient to supply all their wants; so they shall\nnever have a reason to complain that they are straitened in him; the\nblessings of his house are not only exhilirating, but satisfying, and\nsuch as have a tendency to make them completely happy.\n(3.) They are admitted to the greatest intimacy, and have sweet\ncommunion with Christ; _the secret of the Lord is with them that fear\nhim_, Psal. xxv. 14. he deals with them as with friends, and in this\ninstance in particular, (as he tells his disciples,) that _all that he\nhas heard of the Father_, John xv. 15. that is, whatever he had a\ncommission to impart for their direction and comfort, he _makes known\nunto them_, which must needs be reckoned a very great privilege. As the\nqueen of Sheba, when beholding the advantages that they who were in\nSolomon\u2019s presence enjoyed, could not but with an extasy of admiration,\nsay, _Happy are thy men; happy are thy servants, which stand continually\nbefore thee, that hear thy wisdom_, 1 Kings x. 8. much more may they be\nhappy who are admitted into his presence, in whom _are hid all the\ntreasures of wisdom and knowledge_, Col. ii. 3.\n(4.) Another privilege which they enjoy, is access to God, as a\nreconciled Father, through Christ; they have a liberty to _come boldly\nto the throne of grace, that they obtain mercy, and find grace to help\nin time of need_, Heb. iv. 18. Whatever their straits and difficulties\nare, God holds forth his golden sceptre, invites them to come to him,\nasks, What is thy petition? and gives them ground to hope that it shall\nbe granted, so far as it may redound to his glory and their good. And,\ninasmuch as they are often straitened in their spirits, and unprepared\nto draw nigh to him; they have the promise of the Spirit to assist them\nherein; upon which account he is called the _Spirit of adoption, whereby\nthey cry Abba Father_, Rom. viii. 15. This privilege is said to be a\nconsequence of their being sons; _Because ye are sons, God hath sent\nforth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father_, Gal.\niv. 6. By this means they have becoming conceptions of the Divine\nMajesty, a reverential fear of, and a love to him, earnest desires of\ncommunion with him, and of being made partakers of what he has to\nimpart. They have a right to plead the promises; and in so doing, are\nencouraged to hope for the blessings contained therein.\n(5.) As God\u2019s children are prone to backslide from him, and so have need\nof restoring grace, he will recover and humble them, and thereby prevent\ntheir total apostacy: this he sometimes does by afflictions, which the\napostle calls fatherly chastisements, and reckons them not only\nconsistent with, but evidences of his love: _Whom the Lord loveth, he\nchasteneth; and if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are\npartakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons_, Heb. xii. 6, 8, 11. The\napostle does not here speak of afflictions as considered absolutely in\nthemselves, but as proceeding from the love of God, the design whereof\nis to do them good; and as they are adapted to this present state, in\nwhich they are training up for the glorious inheritance reserved for\nthem in heaven, and need some trying dispensations, which may put them\nin mind of that state of perfect blessedness which is laid up for them:\nand they are rendered subservient to their present and future advantage,\nas the afflictions of this present time _bring forth the peaceable\nfruits of righteousness_ to them; and when they are, in the end,\nperfectly freed from them, will tend to enhance their joy and praise;\nwhich leads us to consider another privilege, which is so great that it\ncrowns all those that they are now possessed of, namely,\n(6.) They shall, at last, be brought into God\u2019s immediate presence, and\nsatisfied with his likeness. The apostle calls the perfect blessedness\nof the saints, when raised from the dead, and so delivered from the\nbondage of corruption, and made partakers of the glorious liberty of the\nSons of God, by way of eminency, _the adoption, to wit, the redemption\nof their bodies_; which signifies not only the full manifestation of\ntheir adoption, but their taking possession of their inheritance, which\nthey are now waiting and hoping for, which is too great for the heart of\nman to conceive of in this present state; for the apostle says, _Now are\nwe the sons of God; and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we\nknow, that when he shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see\nhim as he is_, 1 John iii. 2. So that all the blessings which we have,\neither in hand or hope, the blessings of both worlds, which are\nconferred upon us from our first conversion to our glorification: these\nare privileges which God bestows on those who are his adopted children.\nFrom what has been said concerning adoption, we may take occasion to\nobserve, how, in some respects it agrees with, or may indeed, be\nreckoned a branch of justification, and in other respects it includes in\nit something that is an ingredient in sanctification. We have before\nobserved, in treating on the former of these, _viz._ justification, that\nwhen God forgives sin, he confers on his people a right to life, or to\nall the blessings of the covenant of grace, in which are contained the\npromises that belong to the life that now is, and that which is to come.\nThese are the privileges which God\u2019s adopted children are made partakers\nof; and in this respect some divines suppose, that adoption is included\nin our justification.[68]\nAnd if justification be explained, as has been before observed, as\ndenoting an immanent act in God, whereby the elect are considered, in\nthe covenant between the Father and the Son, as in Christ, their federal\nhead; so they are considered as the adopted children of God, in Christ,\nand accordingly as they are described as chosen in Christ, unto eternal\nlife, they are said to be _predestinated unto the adoption of children_,\nEph. i. 6. which is a privilege to be obtained by Jesus Christ: in this\nrespect all the elect are called Christ\u2019s _seed, that shall serve him_,\nPsal. xxii. 30. whom he had a special regard to, when he made his soul\nan offering for sin, and concerning whom he had this promise made to him\nin the covenant, that passed between the Father and him, _that he should\nsee them, and the pleasure of the Lord_, with respect to their\neverlasting salvation, _should prosper in his hand_, Isa. liii. 10. Now\nwhen Christ is considered as the head of the elect, who are in this\nsense called his sons, whom he has engaged to bring to glory, faith is\nthe fruit and consequence of adoption; accordingly the apostle says,\n_Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into\nyour hearts, crying, Abba, Father_, Gal. iv. 6.\nBut as justification is a declared act, and is said to be by faith, so\nadoption agreeing with it, is of the same nature; and accordingly we are\nsaid to be the _children of God by faith_, chap. iii. 26. that is, it is\nby faith that we have a right to claim this relation, together with the\nprivileges which are the result thereof.\nMoreover, as adoption includes in it a person\u2019s being made meet for the\ninheritance, which God has reserved for him, and so is endowed with the\ntemper and disposition of his children, consisting in humility,\nheavenly-mindedness, love to him, dependence upon him, and a zeal for\nhis glory, a likeness to Christ; as the same mind is said to be in us,\nin some measure as was in him; in this respect adoption agrees with\nsanctification, which is what we are next to consider.\nFootnote 67:\n  Vide Vol. I. page 279, in note.\nFootnote 68:\n  _Vid. Turrett. Theol. Elenct. Tom. 2. Loc. 16. \u00a7 7._\n    QUEST. LXXV. _What is sanctification?_\n    ANSW. Sanctification is a work of God\u2019s grace, whereby they whom God\n    hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in\n    time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit, applying the\n    death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole\n    man, after the image of God, having the seeds of repentance unto\n    life, and of all other saving graces put into their hearts; and\n    those graces so stirred up, increased and strengthened, as that they\n    more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.\n1. We shall shew what we are to understand by the word _sanctify_. This\nis sometimes considered as what has God for its object: thus he is said\nto _sanctify himself_, when he appears in the glory of his holiness, and\ngives occasion to the world to adore that perfection, which he is\nsometimes represented as doing, when he punishes sin in a visible and\nexemplary manner. Thus when God threatens to call for _a sword_, and\n_plead against_ a rebellious people, _with pestilence and with blood_,\nhe is said, by this means, to _magnify and sanctify himself_, so as to\nbe _known_, to wit, as an holy God, _in the eyes of many nations_. And\nwhen he fulfils his promises, and thereby advances his holiness, as when\nhe brought his people out of captivity, and gathered them out of the\ncountries, wherein they had been scattered, he is said to be _sanctified\nin them_, Ezek. xxxviii. 21-23. And he is sanctified by his people, when\nthey give him the glory that is due to his perfection, as thus displayed\nand magnified by him: thus God\u2019s people are said to _sanctify the Lord\nof hosts_, when they make him the object of their _fear and of their\ndread_, Isa. viii. 13.\nHowever, this is not the sense in which we are here to understand it,\nbut as applied to men; in which respect it is taken in various senses,\nnamely, for their consecration, or separation unto God; thus our Saviour\nsays, when devoting and applying himself to the work, for which he came\ninto the world; _for their sakes I sanctify myself_, John xvii. 19. But\nthis is not the sense in which it is to be understood in this answer.\nMoreover, it is often taken, in scripture, for persons being devoted to\nGod, to minister in holy things: thus Aaron and his sons were\n_sanctified, that they might minister unto him in the priest\u2019s office_,\nExod. xxviii. 41. And it is sometimes taken for an external federal\ndedication to God, to walk before him as a peculiar people in observance\nof his holy institutions. Thus when Israel consented to be God\u2019s people\nthey are styled, _holiness unto the Lord_, Jer. ii. 3. _the holy seed_,\nEzra ix. 2. and _an holy nation_, 1 Pet. ii. 9. And the church, under\nthe gospel-dispensation, as consecrated, and professing subjection, to\nChrist, or separated to his service, and waiting for his presence, while\nengaged in all those ordinances, which he has appointed in the gospel,\nis described as _called to be saints_, Rom. i. 7. and they are hereby\nrelated to him, in an external and visible way. Neither is this the\nsense in which the word is taken in this answer; in which we are to\nunderstand sanctification as a special discriminating grace, whereby\npersons are not barely externally, but really devoted to Christ by\nfaith: it is the internal beauty of the soul, whereby all the faculties\nbeing renewed, and a powerful, effectual change wrought therein; they\nare enabled to turn from sin unto God, and exercise all those graces,\nwhereby _they walk in holiness and righteousness before him, all the\ndays of their lives_, Luke i. 75. till this work, which is gradually\ncarried on here, shall be brought to perfection hereafter.\n2. It may farther be observed, that sanctification as described in this\nanswer, may be considered as including in it several other graces, some\nof which have been already insisted on, namely, regeneration, effectual\ncalling, and faith; and there is another grace connected with it, which\nwill be particularly insisted on under the next answer, namely,\nrepentance unto life; all which graces are said to be wrought by the\npowerful operation of the Spirit, in those who were, before the\nfoundation of the world, chosen to be holy. Regeneration is styled, by\nsome, initial sanctification, as all graces take their first rise from\nthe principle which is therein implanted. Effectual calling, or\nconversion, is that whereby we are brought into the way of holiness, and\ninternally disposed to walk therein. Faith is that grace whereby this\nwork is promoted, as all holy actions proceed from it, as deriving\nstrength from Christ, to perform them. And repentance is that whereby\nthe work of sanctification discovers itself, in the soul\u2019s abhorring,\nand flying from, every thing that tends to defile it; approves itself to\nGod as one, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity without the\ngreatest detestation. But inasmuch as these graces either have been, or\nwill be particularly insisted on, in their proper place, we shall more\nespecially consider sanctification as a progressive work, whereby it is\ndistinguished from them, by which we daily consecrate, or devote\nourselves to God; and our actions have all a tendency to advance his\nglory; and, by the Spirit, we are enabled more and more to die unto sin,\nand to live unto righteousness; so that it is not barely one single act\nof grace, but it contains in it the whole progress of the work of grace,\nas gradually carried on till perfected in glory: this is what we are to\nspeak particularly to. And,\nI. It includes in it a continual devotedness to God. As the first act of\nfaith consists in a making a surrender of ourselves to Christ, depending\non his assistance in beginning the work of obedience in the exercise of\nall Christian graces; so sanctification is the continuance thereof. When\nwe are first converted, we receive Christ Jesus the Lord; and in\nsanctification we walk in him, and exercise a daily dependence on him in\nthe execution of all his offices; make his word our rule, and delight in\nit after the inward man. How difficult soever the duties are that he\ncommands, we take pleasure in the performance of them, make religion our\ngreat business, and in order thereunto conclude, that every thing we\nreceive from him is to be improved to his glory. And as every duty is to\nbe performed by faith; so what has been before observed concerning the\nlife of faith, is to be considered as an expedient to promote the work\nof sanctification.\nII. In the carrying on of this work we are to endeavour, to our utmost,\nto fence against the prevailing power of sin, by all those methods which\nare prescribed in the gospel, that so it may not have dominion over us;\nthis is generally styled the work of mortification. The apostle speaks\nof _our old man being crucified with Christ, and the body of sin\ndestroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin_, Rom. vi. 6. and of\nour crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts, and of our\n_mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit_, Gal. v. 24. that\nis, by his assistance and grace, which is necessary in order thereunto,\nRom. viii. 13.\nThis is a very difficult work, especially considering the prevalency of\ncorruption, and the multitude of temptations that we are exposed to; the\nsubtilty and watchfulness of Satan, who walks about like a roaring lion,\nseeking whom he may devour; the treachery of our own hearts, that are so\nprone to depart from God; the fickleness and instability of our\nresolutions; the irregularity of our affections, and the constant\nefforts made by corrupt nature, to gain the ascendant over them, and\nturn them aside from God: this it does sometimes by presenting things in\na false view, calling evil good, and good evil; representing some things\nas harmless and not displeasing to God, that are most pernicious and\noffensive, endeavouring to lead us into mistakes, as to the matter of\nsin or duty, and to persuade us, that those things will issue well which\nare like to prove bitterness in the end; and attempting to impose upon\nus, as though we were in a right and safe way, when, at the same time,\nwe are walking contrary to God, and corrupt nature is gaining strength\nthereby. But this will be farther considered, when we speak concerning\nthe imperfection of sanctification in believers[69]. Now this renders it\nnecessary for us to make use of those methods which God has prescribed\nfor the mortification of sin; and in order thereunto,\n1. We must endeavour to maintain a constant sense of the heinous nature\nof sin, as it is contrary to the holiness of God, a stain that cannot be\nwashed away, but by the blood of Jesus, the highest instance of\ningratitude for all the benefits which we have received, a bitter and an\nonly evil, the abominable thing that God hates; it is not only to be\nconsidered as condemning, but defiling, that hereby we may maintain a\nconstant abhorrence of it; and that not only of those sins that expose\nus to scorn and reproach in the eye of the world, but every thing that\nis in itself sinful, as contrary to the law of God.\n2. We must be watchful against the breakings forth of corrupt nature,\nobserve the frame and disposition of our spirits, and the deceitfulness\nof sin, which has a tendency to harden us, and avoid all occasions of,\nor incentives to it, _hating even the garment spotted by the flesh_,\nJude, ver. 23. _abstaining from all appearance of evil_, 2 Thess. v. 22.\nAnd to this we may add, that we are frequently to examine ourselves with\nrespect to our behaviour in every state of life; whether sin be gaining\nor losing ground in us; whether we make conscience of performing every\nduty, both personal and relative? what guilt we contract by sins of\nomission, or the want of that fervency of spirit which has a tendency to\nbeget a formal, dead, and stupid frame and temper of mind, and thereby\nhinder the progress of the work of sanctification? but that which is the\nprincipal, if not the only expedient that will prove effectual for the\nmortifying of sin is, our seeking help against it from him who is able\nto give us the victory over it. Therefore,\n3. Whatever attempts we use against the prevailing power of sin, in\norder to the mortifying of it, these must be performed by faith; seeking\nand deriving that help from Christ, which is necessary in order\nthereunto. And therefore,\n(1.) As the dominion of sin consists in its rendering us guilty in the\nsight of God, whereby the conscience is burdened, by reason of the dread\nthat it has of that punishment which is due to us, and the condemning\nsentence of the law, which we are liable to; and as its mortification,\nin this respect, consists in our deliverance from that which makes us so\nuneasy, no expedient can be used to mortify it, but our looking by faith\nto Christ, as a propitiation for sin, whereby we are enabled to behold\nthe debt which we had contracted, cancelled, the indictment superseded,\nand the condemning sentence repealed; from whence the soul concludes,\nthat iniquity shall not be its ruin. This is the only method we are to\ntake when oppressed with a sense of the guilt of sin, which is daily\ncommitted by us. It was shadowed forth by the Israelites looking to the\nbrazen serpent, a type of Christ crucified, when stung with fiery\nserpents, which occasioned exquisite pain, and would, without this\nexpedient, have brought immediate death: thus the deadly wound of sin is\nhealed by the sovereign balm of Christ\u2019s blood, applied by faith; and\nwe, by his having fulfilled the law, may be said to be dead to it, as\nfreed from the curse thereof, and all the sad consequences that would\nensue thereupon.\n(2.) As sin is said to have dominion over us, in that all the powers and\nfaculties of our souls are enslaved by it, whereby, as the apostle\nexpresses it, _we are carnal, sold under sin_, Rom. vii. 14. when we are\nweak and unable to perform what is good, and the corruption of nature is\nso predominant, that we are, as it were, carried down the stream, which\nwe strive against, but in vain: in this respect sin is to be mortified,\nby a fiducial application to Christ, for help against it; and herein we\nare to consider him as having undertaken, not only to deliver from the\ncondemning, but the prevailing power of sin; which is a part of the work\nthat he is now engaged in, wherein he applies the redemption he\npurchased, by the powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, and the soul\nseeks to him for them. As it is natural for us, when we are in imminent\ndanger of present ruin, or are assaulted by an enemy, whose superior\nforce we are not able to withstand, to cry out to some kind friend, for\nhelp; or when we are in danger of death, by some disease which nature is\nready to sink under, to apply ourselves to the physician for relief:\nthus the soul is to apply itself to Christ for strength against the\nprevailing power of indwelling sin, and grace to make him more than a\nconqueror over it; and Christ, by his Spirit, in this respect, enables\nus (to use the apostle\u2019s words,) _to mortify the deeds of body_, Rom.\nviii. 13.\nAnd, in order hereunto, we take encouragement, from the promises of God;\nand the connexion that there is between Christ\u2019s having made\nsatisfaction for sin, and his delivering those who are redeemed, from\nthe power of it, as the apostle says, _Sin shall not have dominion over\nyou; for ye are not under the law_, that is, under the condemning\nsentence of it, _but under grace_, chap. vi. 14. as having an interest\nin that grace which has engaged to deliver from sin: in both these\nrespects we consider Christ not only as able, but as having undertaken\nto deliver his people from all their spiritual enemies, to relieve them\nin all their straits and exigences, and to bring them off safe and\nvictorious. This is the method which we are to take to mortify sin; and\nit is a never-failing remedy. What was before observed, under the\nforegoing heads, concerning our endeavouring to see the evil of sin, and\nexercising that watchfulness against the occasions thereof, are\nnecessary duties, without which sin will gain strength: nevertheless the\nvictory over it is principally owing to our deriving righteousness and\nstrength, by faith, from Christ; whereby he has the glory of a conqueror\nover it, and we have the advantage of receiving this privilege as\napplying ourselves to, and relying on him for it.\nHaving considered the way in which sin is to be mortified, agreeably to\nthe gospel-rule; we shall, before we close this head, take notice of\nsome other methods which many rest in, thinking thereby to free\nthemselves from the dominion of sin, which will not answer that end.\nSome have no other notion of sin, but as it discovers itself in those\ngross enormities which are matter of public scandal or reproach in the\neye of the world, who do not duly consider the spirituality of the law\nof God; such-like sentiments of moral evil, the apostle Paul had, before\nhis conversion, as he says, _I was alive without the law once_, chap.\nvii. 9. compared with 7. and _I had not known lust, except the law had\nsaid, thou shalt not covet_. _Sin_ did not _appear to be sin_, ver. 13.\nthat is, nothing was thought sin by him, but that which was openly\nscandalous, and deemed so by universal consent; and therefore he says\nelsewhere, that _touching the righteousness which is in the law, he_ was\n_blameless_, Phil. iii. 6. or, as Ephraim is represented, saying, _In\nall my labour they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin_, Hos.\nxii. 8. These persons think they shall come off well, if they can say,\nthat they are not guilty of some enormous crimes; so that none can\ncharge them with those open debaucheries, or other sins, that are not to\nbe mentioned among Christians; or if, through any change in their\ncondition of life, or being delivered from those temptations that gave\noccasion to them; or if there natural temper be less inclined to them\nthan before, and, as the result hereof, they abstain from them, this\nthey call a mortifying of sin; though the most that can be said of it\nis, that sin is only curbed, confined, and their natural inclinations to\nit abated, while it is far from being dead.\nOthers, who will allow that sin is of a far larger extent, and includes\nin it that which prevails in the heart, as well as renders itself\nvisible in the life, or contains in it the omission of duties, as well\nas the actual commission of known sins; these often take a preposterous\nmethod to mortify it: if they are sensible of the guilt that is\ncontracted hereby, they use no other method to be discharged from it,\nbut by pretending to make atonement, either by confessing their sins,\nusing endeavours to abstain from them, or by the performance of some\nduties of religion, by which they think to make God amends for the\ninjuries they have offered to him thereby: but this is so far from\nmortifying sin, that it increases the guilt thereof, and causes it to\ntake deeper root, and afterwards to break forth in a greater degree; or\nelse tends to stupify the conscience, after which they go on in a way of\nsin, with carnal security, and without remorse.\nOthers think, that to mortify sin, is nothing else but to subdue and\nkeep under their passions, at least, to such a degree that they may not,\nthrough the irregularity and impetuous violence thereof, commit those\nsins which they cannot but reflect upon with shame, when brought into a\nmore calm and considerate temper of mind; and, in order thereunto, they\nsubject themselves to certain rules, which the light of nature will\nsuggest, and the wiser Heathen have laid down to induce persons to lead\na virtuous life; and they argue thus with themselves, that it is below\nthe dignity of the human nature, for men to suffer their passions to\nlead their reason captive, or to do that which betrays a want of wisdom\nas well as temper; and if by this means the exorbitancy of their\npassions is abated, and many sins, which are occasioned thereby,\nprevented, they conclude their lives to be unblemished, and sin subdued;\nwhereas this is nothing else but restraining the fury of their temper,\nor giving a check to some sins, while sin in general remains\nunmortified.\nAs to the methods prescribed by some Popish casuists, of emaciating, or\nkeeping under the body by physic, or a sparing diet, and submitting to\nhard penances, not only to atone for past sins, but prevent them for the\nfuture, these have not a tendency to strike at the root of sin, and\ntherefore are unjustly called a mortifying of it. For though an\nabstemious regular way of living be conducive to answer some valuable\nends, and without it men are led to the commission of many sins; yet\nthis is no expedient to take away the guilt thereof; neither is the\nenslaving, captivating, and prevailing power of indwelling sin, that\ndiscovers itself in various shapes, and attends every condition and\ncircumstance of life, sufficiently subdued hereby.\nAnd those common methods that many others take, which are of a different\nnature, namely, when they resolve, though in their own strength, to\nbreak off their sins by repentance; or, if their resolutions to lead a\nvirtuous life are weak, and not much regarded by them, endeavour to\nstrengthen them, this will not answer their end, sin will be too strong\nfor all their resolutions, and the engagements with which they bind\nthemselves, will be like the cords with which Sampson was bound, which\nwere broken by him like threads. If we rely on our own strength, how\nmuch soever we may be resolved to abstain from sin at present, God will\nmake us sensible of our weakness, by leaving us to ourselves; and then,\nhow much soever we resolve to abstain from sin, it will appear that it\nis far from being mortified, or subdued by us. Therefore we conclude,\nthat this cannot be performed, but by going forth in the name and\nstrength of Christ, who is able to keep us from falling; or, when\nfallen, to recover us; and this will be found, in the end, to be the\nbest expedient for the promoting this branch of our sanctification;\nwhich leads us to consider,\nIII. That, in the farther carrying on of this work of sanctification, we\nare enabled to walk with God, or before him, in holiness and\nrighteousness. We are first made alive in regeneration, and then put\nforth living actions, which some call vivification, as distinguished\nfrom that part of sanctification, which has been already considered,\nnamely, mortification of sin.\nThis is what we may call leading an holy life, whereby we are to\nunderstand much more than many do, who suppose, that it consists only in\nthe performance of some moral duties, that contain the external part of\nreligion, without which there would not be the least shadow of holiness;\nand in performing those duties which we owe to men in the various\nrelations which we stand in to them; or, at least, in keeping ourselves\nclear from those _pollutions which are in the world through lust_, 2\nPet. i. 4. The Pharisee, in the gospel, thought himself an extraordinary\nholy person, because he was no extortioner, nor unjust, nor adulterer;\nbut fasted, paid tithes, and performed several works of charity; and\nmany are great pretenders to it, who have no other than a form of\ngodliness, without the power of it, or who are more than ordinarily\ndiligent in their attendance on the ordinances of God\u2019s appointment;\nthough they are far from doing this in a right way, like those whom the\nprophet speaks of, who are said to _seek God daily, and to delight to\nknow his ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the\nordinance of their God_; though at the same time, they are said to _fast\nfor strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness_, Isa.\nlviii. 2. But, that we may consider several other things, which are\ncontained in a person\u2019s leading an holy life, let it be observed,\n1. That our natures must be changed, and therefore sanctification always\nsupposes and flows from regeneration: there must be grace in the heart,\nor else it can never discover itself in the life; the root must be good,\nor else the tree cannot bring forth good fruit; the spring of action\nmust be cleansed, otherwise the actions themselves will be impure. Some\npersons, who are generally strangers to the internal work of grace, are\nvery apt to insist much on the goodness of their hearts, and this is\nsometimes pleaded in excuse for the badness of their lives; whereas they\nnever had a due sense of the plague and perverseness of their own\nhearts. Good actions must proceed from a good principle, otherwise\npersons are in an unsanctified state; and, as they must be conformable\nto the rule laid down in the word of God, and performed in a right\nmanner, and to the glory of God as to the end designed thereby; so they\nmust be performed by faith, whereby we depend on Christ for assistance\nand acceptance, as being sensible of our constant work and business,\nwhereby we are said to walk with God, as well as live to him.\n2. In order to our leading an holy life, we must make use of those\nmotives and inducements thereunto, that are contained in the gospel; and\nto encourage us herein,\n(1.) We are to have in our view that perfect pattern of holiness which\nChrist has given us; he has _left us an example that we should follow\nhis steps_, 1 Pet. ii. 21. Whatever we find in the life of Christ,\nprescribed for our imitation, should be improved to promote the work of\nsanctification; his humility, meekness, patience, submission to the\ndivine will, his zeal for the glory of God, and the good of mankind, and\nhis unfainting perseverance in pursuing the end for which he came into\nthe world, are all mentioned, in scripture, not barely that we should\nyield an assent to the account we have thereof in the gospel history;\nbut that the _same mind should be in us, which was also in him_, Phil.\nii. 5. or, as the apostle says, _He that saith he abideth in him, ought\nhimself also to walk even as he walked_, 1 John ii. 6. And to this we\nmay add, that we ought to set before us the example of others, and be\nfollowers of them, so far as they followed him: their example, indeed,\nis as much inferior to Christ\u2019s as imperfect holiness is to that which\nis perfect; but yet it is an encouragement to us, that in following the\nfootsteps of the flock, we have many bright examples of those, who\nthrough faith and patience, inherit the promises.\n(2.) Another motive to holiness is the love of Christ, expressed in the\ngreat work of our redemption, and in that care and compassion which he\nhas extended towards us in the application thereof, in all the methods\nhe has used in the beginning and carrying on the work of grace, in which\nwe may say, hitherto he hath helped us: this ought to be improved so as\nto constrain us, 2 Cor. v. 14. as he has hereby laid us under the\nhighest obligation to live to him. And as love to Christ is the main\ningredient in sanctification; so when by faith we behold him as the most\nengaging and desirable object, this will afford a constant inducement to\nholiness.\n(3.) Another motive hereunto is our relation to God, as his children,\nand our professed subjection to him; as we gave up ourselves to him,\nwhen first we believed, avouched him to be our God, and, since then,\nhave experienced many instances of his condescending goodness and\nfaithfulness; as he has been pleased to grant us some degrees of\ncommunion with him, through Christ; and as he has given us many great\nand precious promises, and in various instances, made them good to us;\nand has reserved an inheritance for all that are sanctified in that\nbetter world, to which they shall be brought at last: this should induce\nus to lead a life of holiness, as the apostle says, _Having these\npromises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and\nspirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God_, chap. vii. 1.\nFrom what has been said in explaining the doctrine of sanctification, we\nmay infer,\n[1.] The difference that there is between moral virtue, so far as it may\nbe attained by the light of nature, and the improvement of human reason;\nand that holiness of heart and life, which contains in it all Christian\nvirtues, and is inseparably connected with salvation. All who are\nconversant in the writings of some of the Heathen moralists will find a\ngreat many things that tend to regulate the conduct of life; and those\nprecepts laid down, which, if followed, carry in them a great\nresemblance of the grace of sanctification; and herein some, who have\nbeen destitute of the light of the gospel, have very much excelled many\nwho bear the Christian name: when we find a lively representation of the\nuniversal corruption and degeneracy of human nature, the disorder and\nirregularity of the affections, and man\u2019s natural propensity to vice,\nrules laid down for the attaining of virtue, by which means men are\ndirected how to free themselves from that slavery which they are under\nto their lusts, and advice given to press after a resemblance and\nconformity to God; this carried in it a great shew of holiness.\nA late writer[70] has collected together several passages out of their\nwritings, with a design to prove, that though they were destitute of\ngospel light, yet they might attain salvation; inasmuch as they use many\nexpressions that very much resemble the grace of sanctification: as for\ninstance, when one of them speaking concerning contentment in the\nstation of life in which providence had fixed him, says, \u201cA servant of\nGod should not be solicitous for the morrow. Can any good man fear that\nhe should want food? Doth God so neglect his servants, and his\nwitnesses, as that they should be destitute of his care and providence?\nAnd he adds, Did I ever, Lord, accuse thee, or complain of thy\ngovernment? Was I not always willing to be sick when it was thy pleasure\nthat I should be so? Did I ever, desire to be what thou wouldest not\nhave me to be? Am I not always ready to do what thou commandest? Wilt\nthou have me to continue here, I will freely do as thou willest? Or,\nwouldest thou have me depart hence, I will freely do it at thy command?\nI have always had my will subject to that of God; deal with me according\nto thy pleasure; I am always of the same mind with thee; I refuse\nnothing which thou art pleased to lay upon me; lead me whither thou\nwilt; clothe me as thou pleasest; I will be a magistrate or private\nperson; continue me in my country, or in exile, I will not only submit\nto, but defend thy proceedings in all things.\u201d We might also produce\nquotations out of other writings whereby it appears that some of the\nheathen excelled many Christians in the consistency of their sentiments\nabout religious matters, with the divine perfections; as when they say,\nWhatever endowment of the mind has a tendency to make a man truly great\nand excellent; this is owing to an internal divine influence.[71]\nOthers, speaking of the natural propensity which there is in man to\nvice, have maintained, that to fence against it, there is a necessity of\ntheir having assistance from God, in order to their leading a virtuous\nlife; and that virtue is not attained by instruction, that is, not only\nby that means, but that it is from God; and that this is to be sought\nfor at his hands, by faith and prayer: much to this purpose may be seen\nin the writings of Plato, Maximus Tyrius, Hierocles, and several\nothers.[72]\nThe principal use that I would make hereof is, to observe that this\nshould humble many Christians, who are far from coming up to the Heathen\nin the practice of moral virtue. And, as for the sentiments of those who\ndeny the necessity of our having the divine influence in order to our\nperforming the duties which God requires of us, in a right manner; these\nfall very short of what the light of nature has suggested to those who\nhave duly attended to it, though destitute of divine revelation. When I\nmeet with such expressions, and many other divine things, in the\nwritings of Plato; and what he says of the conversation of his master\nSocrates, both in his life and death: I cannot but apply in this case,\nwhat our Saviour says to the scribe in the gospel, who answered him\ndiscreetly, _Thou art not far from the kingdom of God_, Mark xii. 34.\nThese things, it is true, very much resemble the grace of\nsanctification; yet in many respects, they fall short of it; inasmuch as\nthey had no acts of faith, in a Mediator, whom they were altogether\nstrangers to, as being destitute of divine revelation.\nIt is not my design, at present, to enquire, whether they had any hope\nof salvation? this having been considered under a foregoing answer[73].\nAll that I shall here observe is, that some of the best of them were\ncharged with notorious crimes, which a Christian would hardly reckon\nconsistent with the truth of grace; as Plato, with flattering of\ntyrants, and too much indulging pride and luxury[74]; Socrates, with\npleading for fornication and incest, and practising sodomy, if what some\nhave reported concerning them be true[75]. But, without laying any\nstress on the character of particular persons, who, in other respects,\nhave said and done many excellent things; it is evident, that whatever\nappearance of holiness there may be in the writings or conversation of\nthose that are strangers to Christ and his gospel, this falls short of\nthe grace of sanctification.[76]\nThere is a vast difference between recommending or practising moral\nvirtues, as agreeable to the nature of man, and the dictates of reason;\nand a person\u2019s being led in that way of holiness, which our Saviour has\nprescribed in the gospel. This takes its rise from a change of nature,\nwrought in regeneration, is excited by gospel-motives, encouraged by the\npromises thereof, and proceeds from the grace of faith, without which,\nall pretensions to holiness are vain and defective. What advances soever\nthese may have made in endeavouring to free themselves from the slavery\nof sin, they have been very deficient, as to the mortification thereof;\nfor being ignorant of that great atonement which is made by Christ, as\nthe only expedient to take away the guilt of sin, they could not, by any\nmethod, arrive to a conscience void of offence, or any degree of hope\nconcerning the forgiveness thereof, and the way of acceptance in the\nsight of God: and their using endeavours to stop the current of vice,\nand to subdue their inordinate affections, could not be effectual to\nanswer that end, inasmuch as they were destitute of the Spirit of God,\nwho affords his divine assistance, in order thereunto, in no other way\nthan what is prescribed in the gospel; so that as _without holiness no\none shall see the Lord_, this grace is to be expected in that way which\nGod has prescribed; and every one that is holy is made so by the Spirit,\nwho glorifies himself in rendering men fruitful in every good work,\nbeing raised by him, from the death of sin, to the life of faith in\nChrist; which is a blessing peculiar to the gospel.\n[2.] Since holiness is required of all persons, as what is absolutely\nnecessary to salvation, and is also recommended as that which God works,\nin those in whom the gospel is made effectual thereunto; we may infer,\nthat no gospel-doctrine has the least tendency to lead to\nlicentiousness. The grace of God may indeed be abused; and men, who are\nstrangers to it, take occasion from the abounding thereof, to continue\nin sin, as some did in the apostle\u2019s days, Rom. vi. 1. but this is not\nthe genuine tendency of the gospel, which is to lead men to holiness.\nWhatever duties it engages to, they are all designed to answer this end;\nand whatever privileges are contained therein, they are all of them\ninducements thereunto: are we _delivered out of the hands of our_\nspiritual enemies? it is, _that we should serve him in holiness and\nrighteousness before him, all the days of our lives_, Luke i. 74, 75. As\nfor the promises, they are an inducement to us, as the apostle expresses\nit, to _cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,\nperfecting holiness in the fear of God_, 2 Cor. vii. 1. and every\nordinance and providence should be improved by us, to promote the work\nof sanctification.\n[3.] Let us examine ourselves, whether this work be begun, and the grace\nof God wrought in us, in truth? and if so, whether it be increasing or\ndeclining in our souls?\n_1st_, As to the truth of grace, let us take heed that we do not think\nthat we are something when we are nothing, deceiving our own souls, or\nrest in a form of godliness, while denying the power thereof, or a name\nto live, while we are dead; let us think that it is not enough to\nabstain from grosser enormities, or engage in some external duties of\nreligion, with wrong ends. And if, upon enquiry into ourselves, we find\nthat we are destitute of a principle of spiritual life and grace, let us\nnot think, that because we have escaped some of the pollutions that are\nin the world, or do not run with others in all excess of riot, that\ntherefore we lead holy lives; but rather let us enquire, Whether the\nlife we live in the flesh, be by the faith of the Son of God, under the\ninfluence of his Spirit, with great diffidence of our own righteousness\nand strength, and firm dependence upon Christ? and as the result hereof,\nwhether we are found in the practice of universal holiness, and hate and\navoid all appearance of evil, using all those endeavours that are\nprescribed in the gospel, to glorify him in our spirits, souls, and\nbodies, which are his?\n_2d_, If we have ground to hope that the work of sanctification is\nbegun, let us enquire, whether it be advancing or declining? Whether we\ngo from strength to strength, or make improvements in proportion to the\nprivileges we enjoy? Many have reason to complain that it is not with\nthem as in months past; that grace is languishing, the frame of their\nspirits in holy duties stupid, and they destitute of that communion with\nGod, which they have once enjoyed; such ought to remember from whence\nthey are fallen, and repent, and do their first works; and beg of God,\nfrom whom alone our fruit is derived, that he would revive the work, and\ncause their souls to flourish in the courts of his house, and to bring\nforth much fruit unto holiness, to the glory of his own name, and their\nspiritual peace and comfort.\nAs for those who are frequently complaining of, and bewailing their\ndeclensions in grace, who seem, to others, to be making a very\nconsiderable progress therein; let them not give way to unbelief so far\nas to deny or set aside the experiences which they have had of God\u2019s\npresence with them; for sometimes grace grows, though without our own\nobservation. If they are destitute of the comforts thereof, or the\nfruits of righteousness, which are peace, assurance and joy in the Holy\nGhost, let them consider, that the work of sanctification, in this\npresent state, is, at best, but growing up towards that perfection which\nis not yet arrived to. If it does not spring up and flourish, as to\nthose fruits and effects thereof, which they are pressing after, but\nhave not attained; let them bless God, if grace is taking root downward,\nand is attended with an humble sense of their own weakness and\nimperfection, and an earnest desire of those spiritual blessings which\nthey are labouring after. This ought to afford matter of thankfulness,\nrather than have a tendency to weaken their hands, or induce them to\nconclude that they are in an unsanctified state; because of the many\nhindrances and discouragements which attend their progress in holiness.\nFootnote 69:\n  _See Quest._ lxxviii.\nFootnote 70:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Disc. &c. page 541, in which he quotes Arrian, as giving\n  the sense of Epictetus, Lib. 1. cap. 9. Lib. 3. cap. 5, 24, 26, 36,\nFootnote 71:\n  _Vid. Cic. de natura Deorum, Lib. 2._ Nullus unquam vir magnus fuit,\n  sine aliquo afflatu divino.\nFootnote 72:\n  _See Gale\u2019s court of the Gentiles. Book 3. chap. 1. and chap. 10. and\n  Wits. de Occon. F\u00e6d. 461-463._\nFootnote 73:\n  _See Vol. II. page 489. & seq._\nFootnote 74:\n  _Vid. G. J. Voss. de Hist. Gr\u00e6c. page 22._\nFootnote 75:\n  _See Gale\u2019s court of the Gentiles, Part III. book 1, chap. 1, 2. which\n  learned writer having, in some other parts of that work, mentioned\n  several things that were praise worthy, in some of the philosophers,\n  here takes occasion to speak of some other things, which were great\n  blemishes in them; and, in other parts of this elaborate work, proves\n  that those who lived in the first ages of the church, and were\n  attached to their philosophy, were by this means, as he supposes, led\n  aside from many great and important truths of the gospel; of this\n  number Origen, Justin Martyr, and several others. And he further\n  supposes, that what many of them advanced concerning the liberty of\n  man\u2019s will, as to what respects spiritual things, gave occasion to the\n  Pelagians to propagate those doctrines that were subversive of the\n  grace of God; and that the Arian and Samosatenan heresies took their\n  rise from hence. See Part III. Book 2. chap. 1._\nFootnote 76:\n  The natural knowledge of God and his goodness, gives some\n  encouragement to guilty creatures to repent of their sins, and to\n  return to God by a general hope of acceptance, though they had no\n  promise of pardoning grace. And this was the very principle upon which\n  some of the better sort of the Gentiles set themselves to practise\n  virtue, to worship God, and endeavour to become like him.\n  I do not say, that natural religion can give sinful men a full and\n  satisfying assurance of pardon upon their repentance; for the deepest\n  degrees of penitence cannot oblige a prince to forgive the criminal:\n  but still the overflowing goodness of God, his patience and\n  long-suffering, notwithstanding their sins, may evidently and justly\n  excite in their hearts some hope of forgiving grace: and I think the\n  words of my text cannot intend less than this, that God has not left\n  them without witness, when he gave them rain from heaven, when he\n  satisfied their appetites with food, and filled their hearts with\n  gladness. What was it that these benefits of their Creator bore\n  witness to? Was it not that there was goodness and mercy to be found\n  with him, if they would return to their duty, and abandon their own\n  ways of idolatry and vice. Surely, it can never be supposed, that the\n  apostle here means no more than to say, that the daily instances of\n  divine bounty in the common comforts of life, assured them, that God\n  had some goodness in him, and blessings to bestow on their bodies; but\n  gave them no hope of his acceptance of their souls, if they should\n  return and repent never so sincerely. The Ninevites themselves, when\n  threatened with destruction, repented in sackcloth and ashes; for,\n  said they, Who can tell but God will turn and repent, and turn away\n  from his fierce anger, that we perish not? Nor were they mistaken in\n  their hope, for God saw their works, that they turned from their evil\n  way, and he repented of the evil that he had threatened, Jonah iii.\n  5-10. And there is yet a more express text to this purpose, Rom. ii.\n  4. Despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and\n  long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to\n  repentance? And if God leads us to repentance, by a sense of his\n  goodness, surely he gives hope that our repentance shall not be in\n  vain: and though, perhaps, I could not affirm it with boldness, and\n  certainty by the mere light of reason, yet I may venture to declare,\n  upon the encouragement of these scriptures, that if there should be\n  found any sinner in the heathen world, who should be thus far wrought\n  upon by a sense of the goodness of God, as to be led sincerely to\n  repent of sin, and seek after mercy, God would find a way to make a\n  discovery of so much of the gospel, as was necessary for him to know,\n  rather than such a penitent sinner should be left under condemnation,\n  or that a guilty creature should go on to eternal death in the way of\n  repentance. Cornelius the Centurion, who feared God, who prayed to him\n  daily, and wrought righteousness, according to the light of his\n  conscience, had both an angel and an apostle sent to him, that he\n  might receive more complete instruction in the matters of his\n  salvation. Acts x. 1-6. and from 30-35.\u201c Dr. Watts.\n    QUEST. LXXVI. _What is repentance unto life?_\n    ANSW. Repentance unto life, is a saving grace, wrought in the heart\n    of a sinner, by the Spirit and word of God; whereby, out of the\n    sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filth and\n    odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God\u2019s mercy in\n    Christ, to such as are penitent, he so grieves for, and hates his\n    sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and\n    endeavouring, constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new\n    obedience.\nIn speaking to this answer we shall consider the subject of repentance,\n_viz._ a sinful fallen creature; and that, though this be his condition,\nyet he is naturally averse to the exercise thereof, till God is pleased\nto bring him to it; which will lead us to consider, how the Spirit of\nGod does this; and what are the various acts and effects thereof.[222]\n1. Concerning the subjects of repentance. No one can be said to repent\nbut a sinner; and therefore, whatever other graces might be exercised by\nman in a state of innocency, or shall be exercised by him, when brought\nto a state of perfection; yet there cannot, properly speaking, be any\nroom for repentance: some, indeed, have queried whether there shall be\nrepentance in heaven; but it may easily be determined, that though that\nhatred of sin in general, and opposition to it, which is contained in\ntrue repentance, be not inconsistent with a state of perfect\nblessedness, as it is inseparably connected with perfection of holiness;\nyet a sense of sin, which is afflictive, and is attended with grief and\nsorrow of heart, for the guilt and consequences thereof, is altogether\ninconsistent with a state of perfection; and these are some ingredients\nin that repentance which comes under our present consideration.\nTherefore we must conclude, that the subject of repentance is a sinner:\nbut,\nII. Though all sinners contract guilt, expose themselves to misery, and\nwill sooner or later be filled with distress and sorrow for what they\nhave done against God; yet many have no sense thereof at present, nor\nrepentance, or remorse for it. These are described as _past feeling_,\nEph. iv. 19. and _hardened through the deceitfulness of sin_, Heb. iii.\n13. as obstinate, and having _their neck as an iron sinew, and their\nbrow as brass_, Isa. xlviii. 4. And there are several methods which they\ntake to ward off the force of convictions. Sometimes they are stupid,\nand hardly give themselves the liberty to consider the difference that\nthere is between moral good and evil, or the natural obligation we are\nunder to pursue the one, and avoid the other. They consider not the\nall-seeing eye of God, that observes all their actions, nor the power of\nhis anger, who will take vengeance on impenitent sinners; regard not the\nvarious aggravations of sin, nor consider that God will, for those\nthings, bring them to judgment. So that impenitency is generally\nattended with presumption; whereby the person concludes, though without\nground, that it shall go well with him in the end; such an one is\nrepresented, as blessing himself in his heart, saying, _I shall have\npeace, though I walk in the imagination_; or, as it is in the margin, in\nthe stubbornness _of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst_, Deut.\nxxix. 19. Or if, on the other hand, he cannot but conclude, that with\nGod is terrible majesty, that he is a consuming fire, and that none ever\nhardened themselves against him, and prospered, and if he does not fall\ndown before him with humble confession of sin, and repentance for it, he\nwill certainly be broken with his rod of iron, and dashed in pieces,\nlike the potter\u2019s vessel, broken with a tempest, and utterly destroyed,\nwhen his wrath is kindled; then he resolves, that some time or other he\nwill repent, but still delays and puts it off for a more convenient\nseason, and though God gives him space to do it, repenteth not, Rev. ii.\n21. Thus he goes on in the greatness of his way, till God prevents him\nwith the blessings of his goodness, and brings him to repentance. And\nthis leads us to consider,\nIII. That repentance is God\u2019s work; or, as it is observed in this\nanswer, wrought by the Spirit of God: whether we consider it as a common\nor saving grace, it is the Spirit that convinces or reproves the world\nof sin. If it be of the same kind with that which Pharaoh, Ahab, or\nJudas had; it is a dread of God\u2019s judgments, and his wrath breaking in\nupon conscience, when he reproves for sin, and sets it in order before\ntheir eyes, that excites it. If they are touched with a sense of guilt,\nand hereby, for the present, stopped, or obliged to make a retreat, and\ndesist from pursuing their former methods, it is God, in the course of\nhis providence, that gives a check to them. But this comes short of that\nrepentance which is said to be unto life; or which is styled a saving\ngrace, which is wrought by the Spirit of God, as the beginning of that\nsaving work, which is a branch of sanctification, and shall end in\ncompleat salvation.\nThis is expressly styled in scripture, _repentance unto life_, Acts xi.\n18. inasmuch as every one, who is favoured with it, shall obtain eternal\nlife; and it is connected with conversion and remission of sins, which\nwill certainly end in eternal salvation. Thus it is said, _Repent and be\nconverted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of\nrefreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord_, chap. iii. 9. and\nfor this reason it is called a saving grace, or a grace that accompanies\nsalvation, whereby it is distinguished from that repentance which some\nhave, who yet remain in a state of unregeneracy. And it is called,\n_Repentance to salvation, not to be repented of_, 2 Cor. vii. 10. that\nis, it shall issue well; and he shall, in the end, have reason to bless\nGod, and rejoice in his grace, that has made him partaker of it, who\nthus repents.\nIV. We shall now consider the instrument or means whereby the Spirit\nworks this grace.[77] Thus it is said to be wrought in the heart of a\nsinner, by the word of God, as all other graces are, except\nregeneration, as has been before observed: we must first suppose the\nprinciple of grace implanted, and the word presenting motives, and\narguments leading to repentance; and then the understanding is\nenlightened and disposed to receive what is therein imparted. The word\n_calls sinners to repentance_, Matt. ix. 13. and therefore, when this\ngrace is wrought, we are not only turned by the power of God, but\n_instructed_, Jer. xxxi. 19. by the Spirit\u2019s setting home what is\ncontained therein whereby we are led into the knowledge of those things\nwhich are necessary to repentance. As,\n1. We have in the word a display of the holiness of the divine nature\nand law, and our obligation in conformity thereunto, to the exercise of\nholiness in heart and life, as God says, _Be ye holy, for I am holy_,\nLev. xi. 44. And to this we may add, that it contains a display of the\nholiness of God in his threatenings, which he has denounced against\nevery transgression and disobedience, which shall receive a just\nrecompence of reward; and in all the instances of his punishing sin in\nthose who have exposed themselves thereunto, that hereby he might deter\nmen from it, and lead them to repentance: thus the apostle speaks of\n_the law_ of God as _holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good_,\nRom. vii. 12, 13. and of its leading him into the knowledge of sin, by\nwhich means it appeared to be sin, that is, opposite to an holy God,\nand, as he expresses it, _became exceeding sinful_.\n2. Hereby persons are led into themselves; and by comparing their hearts\nand lives with the word of God, are enabled to see their own vileness\nand want of conformity to the rule which he has given them, the\ndeceitfulness and desperate wickedness thereof, and what occasion there\nis to abhor themselves, and repent in dust and ashes; thus the apostle,\nin the place but now mentioned, speaks of himself as _once alive without\nthe law; but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died_, and\nconcludes himself to be _carnal, sold under sin_, Rom. vii. 9, 14. This\nis a necessary means leading to repentance.\nAnd we may farther add, that God not only makes use of the word, but of\nhis providences to answer this end; therefore he speaks of a sinning\npeople, _when carried away captive into the land of the enemy_, as\n_bethinking_ themselves, and afterwards _repenting and making\nsupplication to him_ therein, 1 Kings viii. 46, 47. And we read of\nsickness and bodily diseases as ordained by God, to bring persons to\nrepentance; thus Elihu speaks of a person\u2019s being _chastened with pain\nupon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain; his soul\ndrawing nigh to the grave, and his life to the destroyers_, Job xxxiii.\n19, 27. and then represents the person thus chastened, and afterwards\nrecovered from his sickness, as acknowledging himself to _have sinned,\nand perverted that which is right, and_ that _it profited him not_. And\nthe apostle speaks of _the goodness of God_ in the various dispensations\nof his providence, as _leading to repentance_, Rom. ii. 4. But these\ndispensations are always to be considered in conjunction with the word,\nand as impressed on the conscience of men by the Spirit, in order to\ntheir attaining this desirable end.\nBut that we may insist on this matter more particularly, we must take an\nestimate of repentance, either as it is a common or special grace; in\nboth these respects it is from the Spirit, and wrought by the\ninstrumentality of the word, applied to the consciences of men; but\nthere is a vast difference between the one and the other in the\napplication of the word, as well as in the effects and consequences\nthereof.\n(1.) In them who are brought under convictions, but not made partakers\nof the saving grace of repentance; the Holy Spirit awakens, and fills\nthem with the terrors of God, and the dread of his vengeance, _by the\nlaw_, by which _is the knowledge of sin_, and _all the world becomes\nguilty before God_, Rom. iii. 20. compared with 19. These are what we\ncall legal convictions; whereby the wound is opened, but no healing\nmedicine applied: the sinner apprehends himself under a sentence of\ncondemnation, but at the same time cannot apply any promise which may\nafford hope and relief to him; groans under his burden, and knows not\nwhere to find ease or comfort, and dreads the consequence thereof, as\nthat which would sink him into hell; God appears to him as a consuming\nfire, his arrows stick fast in his soul, the poison whereof drinketh up\nhis spirits; if he endeavours to shake off his fears, and to relieve\nhimself against his despairing thoughts, he is notwithstanding,\ndescribed, as being like the _troubled sea_, when it _cannot rest_,\nwhich _casts forth mire and dirt_, Isa. lvii. 20. This is a most\nafflictive case; concerning which it is said, that though _the spirit of\na man will sustain his infirmity_; _yet a wounded spirit who can bear_?\nProv. xviii. 14.\nThus it is with some when convinced of sin by the law: but there are\nothers who endeavour to quiet their consciences by using indirect\nmethods, thinking to make atonement for it, and by some instances of\nexternal reformation, to make God amends, and thereby procure his\nfavour, but to no purpose; for _sin taking occasion, by the commandment,\nworks in them all manner of concupiscence_, Rom. vii. 8. And if they\ngrow stupid, which is oftentimes the consequence hereof, their sense of\nsin is entirely lost, and their repentance ends in presumption, and a\ngreat degree of boldness in the commission of all manner of wickedness.\n(2.) We shall now consider how the Spirit works repentance unto life,\nwhich is principally insisted on in this answer. This is said to be done\nby the word of God; not by the law without the gospel, but by them both,\nin which one is made subservient to the other. The law shews the soul\nits sin, and the gospel directs him where he may find a remedy; one\nwounds and the other heals; _the law enters_, as the apostle expresses\nit, _that the offence might abound_, Rom. v. 20. but the gospel shews\nhim how _grace_ does _much more abound_, and where he may obtain\nforgiveness, by which means he is kept from sinking under that weight of\nguilt that lies on his conscience. And it leads him to hate and abstain\nfrom sin, from those motives that are truly excellent; for which reason\nit is called evangelical repentance.\nNow that we may better understand the nature thereof, we shall consider;\nhow it differs from that which we before described, which arises only\nfrom that conviction of sin, which is by the law, which a person may\nhave, who is destitute of this grace of repentance, which we are\nspeaking of. Repentance, of what kind soever it be, contains in it a\nsense of sin: but if it be such a sense of sin, that the unregenerate\nperson may have, this includes little more in it than a sense of the\ndanger and misery which he has exposed himself to by sins committed. The\nprincipal motives leading hereunto, are the threatenings which the law\nof God denounces against those that violate it. Destruction from God is\na terror to him; if this were not the consequence of sin, he would be so\nfar from repenting of it, that it would be the object of his chief\ndelight. And that guilt, which he charges himself with, is principally\nsuch, as arises from the commission of the most notorious crimes, which\nexpose him to the greatest degree of punishment: whereas, repentance\nunto life brings a soul under a sense of the guilt of sin, as it is\ncontrary to the holy nature and law of God, which the least, as well as\nthe greatest sins, are opposed to, and contain a violation of. And\ntherefore he charges himself, not only with open sins, which are\ndetestable in the eyes of men; but secret sins, which others have little\nor no sense of; sins of omission, as well as sins of commission; and he\nis particularly affected with the sin of unbelief, inasmuch as it\ncontains a contempt of Christ, and the grace of the gospel. And he is\nnot only sensible of those sins which break forth in his life; but that\npropensity of nature, whereby he is inclined to rebel against God; so\nthat this sense of guilt, in some respects, differs from that which they\nare brought under, who are destitute of saving repentance.\nBut that in which they more especially differ is, in that saving\nrepentance contains in it a sense of the filth, and odious nature of\nsin, and so considers it as defiling, or contrary to the holiness of\nGod, and rendering the soul worthy to be abhorred by him; so that as the\nsense of guilt excites fear, and a dread of the wrath of God, this fills\nhim with shame, confusion of face, and self-abhorrence, which is\ninseparably connected with the grace of repentance; accordingly these\nare joined together, as Job says, _I abhor myself, and repent in dust\nand ashes_, Job xlii. 6. or, as when God promises that he would bestow\nthis grace on his people, he says, _Then shall ye remember your own evil\nways, and your doings, that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves\nin your own sight, for your iniquities, and for your abominations_,\nEzek. xxxvi. 31. As before this they set too high a value upon\nthemselves, and were ready to palliate and excuse their crimes, or\ninsist on their innocence, though their iniquity was written in legible\ncharacters, as with a pen of iron, and the point of a diamond, and to\nsay with Ephraim, _In all my labour they shall find none iniquity in me\nthat were sin_, Hos. xii. 8. or, as the prophet Jeremiah says,\nconcerning a rebellious people, that _though in their skirts were found\nthe blood of the souls of the poor innocents_; yet they had the front to\nsay, _Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me_, Jer.\nii. 34, 35. Notwithstanding, when God brings them to repentance, and\nheals their backslidings; they express themselves in a very different\nway; _We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covers us; for we have\nsinned against the Lord our God_, chap. iii. 25. Now this is such an\ningredient in true repentance, which is not to be found in that which\nfalls short of it: the sinner is afraid of punishment indeed, or, it may\nbe, he may be filled with shame, because of the reproach which attends\nhis vile and notorious crimes in the eyes of the world; yet he is not\nashamed, or confounded, as considering how vile he has rendered himself\nhereby, in the eye of an holy God.\nThere is another thing which is farther observed in this answer, which\nis an ingredient in repentance unto life, in which respect it is\nconnected with faith, inasmuch as he apprehends the mercy of God in\nChrist to such as are penitent; and this effectually secures him from\nthat despair which sometimes attends a legal repentance, as was before\nobserved, as well as affords him relief against the sense of guilt with\nwhich this grace is attended. The difference between legal and\nevangelical repentance, does not so much consist in that one represents\nsin, as more aggravated; nor does it induce him that thus repents, to\nthink himself a greater sinner than the other; for the true penitent is\nready to confess himself the chief of sinners. He is far from\nextenuating his sin, being ready, on all occasions, to charge himself\nwith more guilt than others are generally sensible of: but that which he\ndepends upon as his only comfort and support is the mercy of God in\nChrist, or the consideration that there is forgiveness with him, that he\nmay be feared; this is that which affords the principal motive and\nencouragement to repentance, and has a tendency to excite the various\nacts thereof; which leads us to consider,\nV. What are the various acts of this repentance unto life; or what are\nthe fruits and effects produced thereby.\n1. The soul is filled with hatred of sin. When he looks back on his past\nlife, he bewails what cannot now be avoided; charges himself with folly\nand madness, and wishes (though this be to no purpose) that he had done\nmany things which he has omitted, and avoided those sins, together with\nthe occasions thereof, which he has committed, the guilt whereof lies\nwith great weight upon him. How glad would he be if lost seasons and\nopportunities of grace might be recalled, and the talents, that were\nonce put into his hand, though misimproved, regained! But all these\nwishes are in vain. However, these are the after-thoughts which will\narise in the minds of those who are brought under a sense of sin. Sin\nwounds the soul; the Spirit of God, when convincing thereof, opens the\nwound, and causes a person to feel the smart of it, and gives him to\nknow, that _it is an evil thing, and bitter, that he has forsaken the\nLord his God_, Jer. ii. 19. This sometimes depresses the spirits, and\ncauses him to walk softly, to _set alone and keep silence_, Lam. iii.\n28. being filled with that uneasiness which is very afflictive to him.\nAt other times it gives vent to itself in tears, as the Psalmist\nexpresses it, _I am weary with my groaning, all the night make I my bed\nto swim; I water my couch with my tears_, Psal. vi. 6. In this case the\nonly thing that gives him relief or comfort is, that the guilt of sin is\nremoved by the blood of Christ, which tends to quiet his spirit, which\nwould otherwise be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.\nAnd to this we may add, that sin is always the object of his\ndetestation, even when there is an abatement of that grief, which, by\nthe divine supports and comforts he is fenced against: he hates sin, not\nbarely because of the sad consequences thereof, but as it is in itself\nthe object of abhorrence; and therefore his heart is set against all\nsin, as the Psalmist says, _I hate every false way_, Psal. cxix. 104.\nThis hatred discovers itself by putting him upon flying from it,\ntogether with all the occasions thereof, or incentives to it. He not\nonly abstains from those sins which they who have little more than the\nremains of moral virtue are ashamed of, and afraid to commit, but hates\nevery thing that has in it the appearance of sin, and this hatred is\nirreconcileable. As forgiveness does not make sin less odious in its own\nnature, so the experience that he has of the grace of God herein, or\nwhatever measures of peace he enjoys, whereby his grief and sorrow is\nassuaged, yet still his hatred of it not only remains, but increases:\nand, as the consequence hereof,\n2. He turns from sin unto God; he first hates sin, and then flies from\nit, as seeing it to be the spring of all his grief and fears, that which\nseparates between him and his God. Thus Ephraim, when brought to\nrepentance, is represented as saying, _What have I to do any more with\nidols_, Hos. xiv. 8. reflecting on his past conduct, when addicted to\nthem, with a kind of indignation; so the true penitent, who has hitherto\nbeen walking in those paths that lead to death and destruction, now\nenquires after the way of holiness, and the paths of peace; as he has\nhitherto walked contrary to God, now he desires to walk with him; and\nhaving wearied himself in the greatness of his way, and seeing no fruit\nin those things whereof he is now ashamed; and being brought into the\nutmost straits, he determines to return to his God and Father. And in\ndoing this he purposes and endeavours to walk with him in all the ways\nof new obedience, as the apostle exhorts those who had received good by\nhis ministry, that _with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the\nLord_, Acts xi. 23. This purpose is not like those hasty resolutions\nwhich unconverted sinners make when God is hedging up their way with\nthorns, and they are under the most distressing apprehensions of his\nwrath. Then they say as the people did to Joshua, _We will serve the\nLord_, Josh. xxiv. 22. though they are not sensible how difficult it is\nto fulfil the engagements which they lay themselves under, nor of the\ndeceitfulness of their own hearts, and the need they stand in of grace\nfrom God, to enable them so to do. This purpose to walk with God, does\nnot so much respect what a person will do hereafter; but it contains a\nresolution which is immediately put in execution, and so is opposed to\nhis former obstinacy, when determining to go on in the way of his own\nheart. Thus the prodigal son, in the parable, no sooner resolved that he\nwould _arise and go to his Father_, Luke xv. 18, compared with 20. but\nhe arose and went. True repentance is always attended with endeavours\nafter new obedience, so that a person lays aside that sloth and\nindolence which was inconsistent with his setting a due value on, or\nimproving the means of grace; and, as the result hereof, he now exerts\nhimself, with all his might, in pursuing after those things, whereby he\nmay approve himself God\u2019s faithful servant; and hereby he discovers the\nsincerity of his repentance; which he does, or rather is enabled to do,\nby that grace, which at first began, and then carries on this work in\nthe soul, whereby he _has his fruit unto holiness, and the end_ thereof\n_everlasting life_, Rom. vi. 22.\nFrom what has been said concerning repentance, we may infer,\n(1.) That since it is a grace that accompanies salvation, and\nconsequently is absolutely necessary thereunto, it is an instance of\nunwarrantable and bold presumption, for impenitent sinners to expect,\nthat they shall be made partakers of the benefits which Christ has\npurchased, while they continue in a state of enmity, opposition, and\nrebellion against him; or that they shall be saved by him in their sins,\nwithout being saved from them; for _he that covereth his sins shall not\nprosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy_,\nProv. xxviii. 13.\n(2.) Since repentance is the work of the Spirit, and his gift, we infer,\nthat whatever endeavours we are obliged to use, or whatever motives or\ninducements are given to lead us hereunto, we must not conclude, that it\nis in our own power to repent when we please; and therefore it should be\nthe matter of our earnest and constant prayer to God, that he would turn\nour hearts, give us a true sight and sense of sin, accompanied with\nfaith in Christ, as Ephraim is represented, saying, _Turn thou me, and I\nshall be turned_, Jer. xxxi. 18.\n(3.) Let not those that have a distressing sense of their former sins,\nhow great soever they have been, give way to despairing thoughts; but\nlay hold on the mercy of God in Christ, extended to the chief of\nsinners, and improve it to encourage them to hate sin, and forsake it\nfrom evangelical motives, which will have a tendency to remove their\nfears while they look on God, not as a sin-revenging Judge, but a\nreconciled Father, ready and willing to receive those who return to him\nwith unfeigned repentance.\n(4.) Since we daily commit sin, it follows from hence, that we stand in\nneed of daily repentance: and this being a branch of sanctification, as\nsanctification is a progressive work, so is repentance. We are not to\nexpect that sin should be wholly extirpated, while we are in this\nimperfect state; and therefore it is constantly to be bewailed, and, by\nthe grace of God working effectually in us, avoided; that, as the result\nhereof, we may have a comfortable hope that that promise shall be\nfulfilled, _They that sow in tears shall reap in joy_, Psal. cxxvi. 5.\nFootnote 222:\n  It has been, perhaps correctly, asserted that repentance is neither a\n  duty discoverable by the law of nature, nor the written law of God;\n  because it is unfit, that a law, appointing death for the violation of\n  its precept, should also discover to the culprit a way of escape from\n  its own penalty incurred.\n  But there existed purposes of mercy before the law was made; these\n  have been revealed by a gracious Sovereign; the condition of men, as\n  prisoners of hope possessing competent evidence of the compassion of\n  the Lawgiver, points to repentance. Sacrifices in former ages discover\n  not only a consciousness of guilt, but a glimmering hope at least, of\n  pardon. It is possible that these were the offspring of tradition\n  among the Gentiles, rather than the deductions of the light of nature.\n  But in either way, sorrow for sin is a duty founded on the will of\n  God.\n  It is therefore a duty, perfectly reasonable, and expressly revealed\n  on the sacred page. The strength to perform it is from the King of\n  Providence and Grace.\n  There is necessary in its production a discovery of guilt, liability\n  to misery, and entire helplessness. The general belief, or profession\n  of these truths, does not prove in event to be a cause adequate to\n  produce a total change in a man\u2019s views, pursuits, desires, aversions,\n  labours, joys, and sorrows. There is necessary some deep sense, or\n  strong conviction of guilt. This, with respect to its proximate cause,\n  may originate in various ways; by reflecting on the Divine Sovereignty\n  and Majesty; by a solemn contemplation of the excellency and\n  loveliness of the moral perfection of Deity; by an affecting sight of\n  his goodness and mercy to the individual in particular; by attending\n  to the awful subject of Divine Justice, seen in the sufferings of\n  Christ, or anticipated in the future judgment, and final sufferings of\n  the damned. Such convictions are produced in great mercy to the\n  individual, how dearly soever they cost him, whether the prostrated\n  idols, on which the sensual affections were fastened, were companions,\n  friends, relations, honour or wealth. Disease, approaching death, or\n  any thing which shall dissolve the unhallowed attachment to earth, may\n  by the Divine blessing produce this change, the glory of which will\n  always really belong to Divine grace, which works unseen.\n  The bitterness of such sorrows is sometimes extreme, when he who\n  wounded alone can cure. The effects of it are subsequently salutary,\n  both to deter from sin and to strengthen the party\u2019s faith.\n  The degrees of penitential sorrow are extremely various in different\n  converts. He who has been convinced of gospel truths step by step, and\n  has been in the same manner brought to the love and fear of God, and\n  to a universal conscientiousness, may have grounds of peace and\n  comfort equally safe, as he whose convictions have been the most\n  sensible; for not their height but their fruits prove them to be\n  genuine.\nFootnote 77:\n  Grace here is put for repentance, and not the immediate influence on\n  the soul.\n    QUEST. LXXVII. _Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?_\n    ANSW. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with\n    justification; yet they differ, in that God in justification,\n    imputeth the righteousness of Christ, in sanctification his Spirit\n    infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former\n    sin is pardoned, in the other it is subdued; the one doth equally\n    free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that\n    perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation, the\n    other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but\n    growing up to perfection.\nThis answer being principally a recapitulation of what is contained in\nthose that have been already insisted on, wherein the doctrine of\njustification and sanctification are particularly explained, we shall\nnot much enlarge on it; but since there are some who suppose that one of\nthese graces may be attained without the other; and others confound\nthem, as though to be justified and to be sanctified implied the same\nthing; we shall briefly consider,\nI. That which is supposed in this answer, namely, that sanctification\nand justification are inseparably joined together; and accordingly, no\none has a warrant to claim one without the other: This appears in that\nthey are graces that accompany salvation. When the apostle connects\njustification and effectual calling together, in the golden chain of our\nsalvation, Rom. viii. 30. he includes sanctification in this calling.\nAnd elsewhere, when Christ is said to be _made righteousness and\nredemption_ to us for our justification, he is, at the same time, said\nto be made _wisdom and sanctification_, 1 Cor. i. 31. and we are said to\nbe _saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy\nGhost_, Tit. iii. 5. which is the beginning of the work of\nsanctification; _that being justified by his grace, we should be made\nheirs according to the hope of eternal life_; and speaking of some who\nwere once great sinners, and afterwards made true believers, he says,\nconcerning them, that they were _washed, sanctified, and justified in\nthe name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God_, 1 Cor. vi.\n11. And when God promises to pardon and _pass by the transgression of\nthe remnant of his heritage_, Micah vii. 18, 19. he also gives them\nground to expect that he would _subdue their iniquities_; the former is\ndone in justification, the latter in sanctification.\nFrom the connexion that there is between justification and\nsanctification, we infer: that no one has ground to conclude that his\nsins are pardoned, and that he shall be saved while he is in an\nunsanctified state; for as this tends to turn the grace of God into\nwantonness, so it separates what he has joined together, and it is a\ncertain evidence that they who thus divide them, are neither justified\nnor sanctified. Let us therefore give diligence to evince the truth of\nour justification, by our sanctification, or that we have a right and\ntitle to Christ\u2019s righteousness, by the life of faith, and the exercise\nof all those other graces that accompany or flow from it.\nII. We have, in this answer, an account of some things in which\njustification and sanctification differ, as,\n1. In justification God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us;\nwhereas, in sanctification the Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to\nthe exercise thereof. What it is for God to impute Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness hath been before considered; the only thing that we shall\nnow observe is, that the righteousness whereby we are justified, is,\nwithout us, wrought out by Christ, for us; so that it is _by his\nobedience_, as the apostle expresses it, that _we are made righteous_,\nRom. v. 19. and that which Christ did as our Surety, is placed to our\naccount, and accepted by the justice of God, as though it had been done\nby us, as has been before observed: Whereas, in sanctification, the\ngraces of the Spirit are wrought and excited in us, we are denominated\nholy, and our right to eternal life is evinced, though not procured.\n2. In justification sin is pardoned, in sanctification it is subdued;\nthe former takes away the guilt thereof, the latter its reigning power.\nWhere sin is pardoned, it shall not be our ruin; but yet it gives us\ndaily disturbance and uneasiness, makes work for repentance, and is to\nbe opposed by our dying to it, and living to righteousness. This is\ntherefore sufficiently distinguished from justification, which is also\nto be considered as a motive or inducement leading to it.\n3. They differ, in that justification equally frees all believers from\nthe avenging wrath of God, in which respect it is perfect in this life,\nso that a justified person shall never fall into condemnation; whereas,\nthe work of sanctification is not equal in all, nor perfect in this\nlife, but growing up to perfection. For the understanding of which, let\nus consider, that when we speak of justification as perfect in this\nlife, or say, that all are equally justified, we mean, that where God\nforgives one sin, he forgives all; so that _there is no condemnation to\nthem which are in Christ Jesus_, as the apostle says, chap. viii. 1. and\nhe adds, _Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God\u2019s elect? it is\nGod that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died_,\nver. 33, 34. Were it not so, a person might be said to be justified, and\nnot have a right to eternal life, which implies a contradiction; for\nthough he might be acquitted, as to the guilt charged upon him by one\nindictment, he would be condemned by that which is contained in another.\nWe may from hence infer, that all justified persons have an equal right\nto conclude themselves discharged from guilt, and the condemning\nsentence of the law of God; though all cannot see their right to claim\nthis privilege by reason of the weakness of their faith. As for\nsanctification, that, on the other hand, is far from being equal in all;\nsince the best of believers have reason to complain of the weakness of\ntheir faith, and the imperfection of all other graces which are wrought\nin them by the Spirit. If it be enquired from whence this imperfection\nof sanctification arises, that is the subject of the following answer.\n    QUEST. LXXVIII. _Whence ariseth the imperfection of sanctification\n    in believers?_\n    ANSW. The imperfection of sanctification in believers, ariseth from\n    the remains of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual\n    lustings of the flesh against the spirit, whereby they are often\n    foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in\n    all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and\n    defiled in the sight of God.\nIn this answer we may consider,\nI. That there is something supposed, namely, that the work of\nsanctification is imperfect in this life, or that there are the remnants\nof sin still abiding in the best of men.\nII. In what the imperfection of sanctification more especially discovers\nitself; and in particular, what we are to understand by the lusting of\nthe flesh against the Spirit. And,\nIII. The consequences hereof, to wit, their being foiled with\ntemptations, falling into many sins, and being hindered in their\nspiritual services.\n1. As to the thing supposed in this answer, that the work of\nsanctification is imperfect in this life: This must be allowed by all\nwho are not strangers to themselves, as it is said, _There is not a just\nman upon the earth that doth good and sinneth not_, Eccl. vii. 20. fine\ngold is not without a mixture of some baser metal, or alloy; even so our\nbest frames of spirit, when we think ourselves nearest heaven, or when\nwe have most communion with God, are not without a tincture of\nindwelling sin, that is easy to be discerned in us. Whatever grace we\nexercise, there are some defects attending it, either with respect to\nthe manner of its exerting itself, or the degree thereof; therefore\nperfection, how desirable soever it be, is a blessing which we cannot,\nat present, attain to: And if it be thus with us, when at the best, we\nshall find, that at other times, corrupt nature not only discovers\nitself, but gives us great interruption and disturbance, so that the\nwork of sanctification seems to be, as it were, at a stand, and we are\nhereby induced to question the truth and sincerity of our graces; and\nif, notwithstanding this, we have sufficient ground to conclude, that\nour hearts are right with God; yet we are obliged to say with the\napostle, that we are _carnal, sold under sin_; and that, _when we would\ndo good, evil is present with us_, Rom. vii. 14. compared with 21. which\nis an undeniable argument of the imperfection of the work of\nsanctification.\nThe contrary opinion to this is maintained by many who pretend that\nperfection is attainable in this life; and to give countenance hereunto,\nthey refer to some scriptures, in which persons are characterized as\n_perfect_ men; and others wherein perfection is represented as a duty\nincumbent on us; as our Saviour says, _Be ye perfect, even as your\nFather which is in heaven is perfect_, Matt. v. 48. and the apostle, in\nhis valedictory exhortation to the church, advises them to _be perfect_,\nas well as _of one mind_; as they expected that the God of love and\npeace should be with them, 2 Cor. xiii. 11.\nBut to this it may be replied, that these scriptures do not speak of a\nsinless perfection, but of such a perfection as is opposed to hypocrisy;\nas Hezekiah says concerning himself, that he had _walked before the Lord\nin truth, and with a perfect heart_, Isa. xxxviii. 3. Accordingly, the\nperfection of those who are thus described in scripture, is explained as\ndenoting their uprightness. Thus Job is described, as _a perfect and\nupright man, one that feared God and eschewed evil_, Job i. 1. compared\nwith 8. though he elsewhere disclaims any pretensions to a sinless\nperfection; as he expresses himself, _If I say I am perfect, mine own\nmouth shall prove me perverse_, chap. ix. 20. And when Noah is said to\nbe _perfect in his generation_, this is explained as denoting that he\nwas a _just_ or an _holy man_, and one that _walked with God_, Gen. vi.\nAs for other scriptures, which speak of perfection as a duty incumbent\non us, they are to be understood concerning the perfection of grace, as\nto those essential parts thereof, without which it could not be\ndenominated true and genuine, and not as respecting a perfection of\ndegrees. True grace is perfect indeed, as it contains in it those\nnecessary ingredients, whereby an action is denominated good in all its\ncircumstances, in opposition to that which is so, only in some respects;\nand therefore it must proceed from a good principle, an heart renewed by\nregenerating grace; it must be agreeable to the rule which God has\nprescribed in the gospel, and be performed in a right manner, and for\nright ends: Thus a person may be said to be a perfect man, in like\nmanner as a new-born infant is denominated a man, as having all the\nessential perfections of the human nature; though not arrived to that\nperfection, in other respects, which it shall afterwards attain to:\nAccordingly grace, when described, in scripture, as perfect, is\nsometimes explained as alluding to a metaphor, taken from a state of\nperfect manhood, in opposition to that of children: Thus the apostle\nspeaks of some, whom he represents, _as being of full age_; where the\nsame word is used[223], which is elsewhere rendered _perfect_; and these\nare opposed to others whom he had before been speaking of, as weak\nbelievers, or _babes_ in Christ; Heb., v. 13, 14. And elsewhere he\nspeaks of the church, which he styles the _body of Christ_, as arrived\nto a state of manhood, and so calls it a perfect man; having attained\n_the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ_; still alluding to\nthat stature which persons arrive to when they are adult; and these he\nopposes in the following words, to children, who, through the weakness\nof their faith, were liable to be _tossed to and fro, and carried about\nwith every wind of doctrine_, Eph. iv. 13, 14. And in other places,\nwhere Christians are described as perfect, there is a word used, which\nsignifies their having that internal furniture whereby they are prepared\nor disposed to do what is good: Thus the apostle speaks of _the man of\nGod_ being _perfect_[78], that is, _throughly furnished unto all good\nworks_, 2 Tim. iii. 17. And elsewhere he prays, for those to whom he\nwrites, that God would _make them perfect in_, or for _every good work_,\nto the end _that they may do his will_[79], which is such a perfection\nas is necessary to our putting forth any act of grace; and therefore it\ndoes not in the least infer that perfection which they plead for, whom\nwe are now opposing.\nAnd, indeed, it is not barely the sense they give of those scriptures\nthat speak of persons being perfect, which they cannot but suppose may\nbe otherwise understood, that gives them occasion to defend this\ndoctrine; but the main thing on which it is founded, is, that God does\nnot require sinless perfection of fallen man, inasmuch as that is\nimpossible; and therefore he calls that perfection, which includes in it\nour using those endeavours to lead a good life, which are in our own\npower. This is agreeable to the Pelagian scheme, and to that which the\nPapists maintain, who make farther advances on the Pelagian hypothesis;\nand assert, not only that men may attain perfection in this life, but\nthat they may arrive to such a degree thereof, as exceeds the demands of\nthe law, and perform works of supererogation; which doctrine is\ncalculated to establish that of justification by works.\nBut that which may be alleged in opposition hereunto, is, that it is\ndisagreeable to the divine perfections, and a notorious making void the\nlaw of God, to assert that our obligation to yield perfect obedience,\nceases, because we have lost our power to perform it; as though a\nperson\u2019s being insolvent, were a sufficient excuse for his not paying a\njust debt. We must distinguish between God\u2019s demanding perfect\nobedience, as an out-standing debt, which is consistent with the glory\nof his holiness and sovereignty, as a law-giver; and his determining\nthat we shall not be saved, unless we perform it in our own persons: and\nwe also distinguish between his connecting a right to eternal life with\nour performing perfect obedience, as what he might justly insist on\naccording to the tenor of the first covenant, as our Saviour tells the\nyoung man in the gospel, _If thou wilt enter into life keep the\ncommandments_, Matt. xix. 16. and his resolving that we shall not be\nsaved, unless we are able to perform it. The gospel purposes another\nexpedient, namely, that they who were obliged to yield perfect\nobedience, and ought to be humbled for their inability to perform it,\nshould depend on Christ\u2019s righteousness, which is the foundation of\ntheir right to eternal life, in which respect they are said to be\nperfect, or _compleat in him_, Col. ii. 10. which is the only just\nnotion of perfection, as attainable in this life: and, to conclude this\nhead, it is very unreasonable for a person to suppose that God will\nabate some part of the debt of perfect obedience, and so to call our\nperforming those works, which have many imperfections adhering to them,\na state of perfection, which is to make it an easier matter to be a\nChristian than God has made it. Thus concerning the thing supposed in\nthis answer, _viz._ that the work of sanctification is imperfect in this\nlife.\nBut before we dismiss this head, we shall enquire, why God does not\nbring this work to perfection at once, which he could easily have done,\nand, as it is certain, will do, when he brings the soul to heaven. In\nanswer to which, we shall consider in general, that it is not meet for\nus to say unto God, Why dost thou thus? especially considering that\nthis, as well as many of his other works, is designed to display the\nglory of his sovereignty, which very eminently appears in the beginning,\ncarrying on, and perfecting the work of grace: we may as well ask the\nreason, why he did not begin the work of sanctification sooner? or, why\nhe makes use of this or that instrument, or means, to effect it rather\nthan another? which things are to be resolved into his own pleasure: but\nsince it is evident that he does not bring this work to perfection in\nthis world, we may adore his wisdom herein, as well as his sovereignty.\nFor,\n1. Hereby he gives his people occasion to exercise repentance and godly\nsorrow for their former sins committed before they were converted.\nPerfect holiness would admit of no occasion to bring past sins to\nremembrance; whereas, when we sin daily, and have daily need of the\nexercise of repentance and godly sorrow, this gives us a more sensible\nview of past sins. When corrupt nature discovers itself in those that\nare converted, they take occasion hereby to consider how they have been\ntransgressors from the womb; as David, when he repented of his sin in\nthe matter of Uriah, at the same time that he aggravated the guilt of\nhis crime, as it justly deserved, he calls to mind his former sins, from\nhis very infancy, and charges that guilt upon himself which he brought\ninto the world; _Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my\nmother conceive me_, Psal. li. 5. And when Job considers God\u2019s\nafflictive providences towards him, as designed to bring sin to\nremembrance, and desires that he would _make him to know his\ntransgression and his sin_; he adds, _Thou writest bitter things against\nme, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth_, Job. xiii. 23,\n26. sins committed after conversion were brought to mind, and ordered as\na means to humble him for those that were committed before it. As for\nsins committed before conversion, they could not, at that time, be said\ntruly to be repented of, since that would be to suppose the grace of\nrepentance antecedent to conversion; therefore if the work of\nsanctification were to be immediately brought to perfection, this\nperfect holiness would be as much attended with perfect happiness, as it\nis in heaven, and consequently godly sorrow would be no more exercised\non earth, than it is there; whereas God, in ordering the gradual\nprogress of the work of sanctification, attended with the remainders of\nsin, gives occasion to many humbling reflections, tending to excite\nunfeigned repentance, not only for those sins committed after they had\nexperienced the grace of God; but for those great lengths they ran in\nsin before they had tasted that the Lord was gracious; and therefore he\ndoes not bring the work of sanctification to perfection in this present\nworld.\n2. Another reason of this dispensation of providence, is, that\nbelievers, from their own experience of the breakings forth of\ncorruption, together with the guilt they contract thereby, and the\nadvantage they receive in gaining any victory over it, may be furnished\nto administer suitable advice, and give warning to those who are in a\nstate of unregeneracy, that they may be persuaded to see the evil of\nsin, which, at present, they do not.\n3. God farther orders this, that he may give occasion to his people to\nexercise a daily conflict with indwelling sin. He suffers it to give\nthem great disturbance and uneasiness, that hereby they may be induced\nto endeavour to mortify it, and be found in the exercise of those graces\nwhich are adapted to an imperfect state, such as cannot be exercised in\nheaven; nor could they be exercised here on earth, were they to be\nbrought into and remain while here in a sinless state; particularly\nthere could not be any acts of faith, in managing that conflict, whereby\nthey endeavour to stand their ground while exposed to those difficulties\nthat arise from the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit;\nwhich leads us to consider,\nII. In what the imperfection of sanctification more especially discovers\nitself. This it does, not only in the weakness of every grace, which we\nare at any time enabled to act; and the many failures we are chargeable\nwith in the performance of every duty incumbent upon us; so that if an\nexact scrutiny were made into our best actions, and they weighed in the\nbalance, they would be found very defective; as appears from what has\nbeen said under the foregoing head, concerning perfection, as not\nattainable in this life.\nBut this more particularly appears, as it is observed in this answer,\nfrom the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit. Thus the\napostle speaks of, _the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit\nagainst the flesh_, Gal. v. 19. and so of the contrariety of the one to\nthe other; _so that we cannot do the things that we would_, and points\nout himself as an instance hereof, when he says, _I know that in me,\nthat is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present\nwith me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not; the good\nthat I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do_, Rom.\nvii. 18-23. and this reluctancy and opposition to what is good, he lays\nto the charge of sin that dwelt in him, which he considers as having, as\nit were, the force of a law; and in particular he styles it _the law of\nhis members warring against the law of his mind_, which is the same\nthing with the lusting of the flesh, against the spirit: so that from\nhence it appears, that when God implants a principle of grace in\nregeneration, and carries on the work of sanctification in believers, he\ndoes not wholly destroy, or root out those habits of sin which were in\nthe soul before this, but enables us to militate against, and overcome\nthem by his implanting and exciting a principle of grace; and from hence\narises this conflict that we are to consider.\nIndwelling sin is constantly opposing; but it does not always prevail\nagainst the principle of grace. The event or success of this combat is\nvarious, at different times. When corrupt nature prevails, the principle\nof grace, though not wholly extinguished, remains unactive, or does not\nexert itself, as at other times; all grace becomes languid, and there\nappears but little difference between him and an unbeliever; he falls\ninto very great sins, whereby he wounds his own conscience, grieves the\nholy Spirit, and makes sad work for a bitter repentance, which will\nafterwards ensue: but inasmuch as the principle of spiritual life and\ngrace is not wholly lost, it will some time or other be excited, and\nthen will oppose, and maintain its ground against, the flesh, or the\ncorruption of nature; and, as the consequence hereof, those acts of\ngrace will be again put forth, which were before suspended.\nHaving thus given an account of the conflict between indwelling sin and\ngrace, we shall now more particularly shew, how the habits of sin exert\nthemselves in those who are unregenerate, where there is no principle of\ngrace to oppose them. And then, how they exert themselves in believers;\nand what opposition is made thereunto by the principle of grace in them;\nand how it comes to pass that sometimes one prevails, at other times the\nother.\n1. We shall consider those violent efforts that are made by corrupt\nnature, in those who are unregenerate, in whom, though there be no\nprinciple of grace to enable them to withstand them; yet they have a\nconflict in their own spirits. There is something in nature, that, for a\ntime, keeps them from complying with temptations to the greatest sins;\nthough the flesh, or that propensity that is in them to sin, will\nprevail at last, and lead them from one degree of impiety to another,\nunless prevented by the grace of God. In this case the conflict is\nbetween corrupt nature and an enlightened conscience; and that more\nespecially in those who have had the advantage of a religious education,\nand the good example of some whom they have conversed with, whereby they\nhave contracted some habits of moral virtue, which are not immediately\nextinguished: it is not an easy matter to persuade them to commit those\ngross, and scandalous sins, which others, whose minds are blinded, and\ntheir hearts hardened to a greater degree by the deceitfulness of sin,\ncommit with greediness and without remorse. The principles of education\nare not immediately broken through; for in this case men meet with a\ngreat struggle in their own breasts, before they entirely lose them; and\nthey proceed, by various steps, from one degree of wickedness unto\nanother[80]. A breach is first made in the fence, and afterwards widened\nby a continuance in the same sins, or committing new ones, especially\nsuch as have in them a greater degree of presumption. And this disposes\nthe soul to comply with temptations to greater sins; whereas, it would\nbe to no purpose to tempt him at first, to be openly profane, blaspheme\nthe name of God, or cast off all external acts of religion, and abandon\nhimself to those immoralities which the most notoriously wicked, and\nprofligate sinners commit, without shame, till he has paved the way to\nthem by the commission of other sins that lead thereunto.\nThat which at first prevents or restrains him from the commission of\nthem, is something short of a principle of grace which we call the\ndictates of a natural conscience, which often checks and reproves him:\nhis natural temper or disposition is not so far vitiated, at present as\nto allow of, or incline him to pursue any thing that is openly vile and\nscandalous; he abhors, and, as it were, trembles at the thoughts of it.\nThus when the prophet Elisha told Hazael of all the evil that he would\ndo unto the children of Israel, that he would _set their strong holds on\nfire, slay their young men with a sword, dash their children, and rip up\ntheir women with child_; when he heard this, he entertained the thought\nwith a kind of abhorrence, and said, _But what, is thy servant a dog,\nthat he should do this great thing_, 2 Kings viii. 12, 13. Yet\nafterwards, when king of Syria, we find him of another mind; for he was\na greater scourge to the people of God than any of the neighbouring\nprinces, and _smote them in all the coasts of Israel_, chap. x. 32.\nNow that which prevents these greater sins, is generally fear or shame;\ntheir consciences terrify them with the thoughts of the wrath of God,\nwhich they would hereby expose themselves to; or they are apprehensive\nthat such a course of life would blast their reputation amongst men, and\nbe altogether inconsistent with that form of godliness which they have\nhad a liking to from their childhood. But since these restraints do not\nproceed from the internal and powerful influence of regenerating grace,\nbeing excited by lower motives than those which the Spirit of God\nsuggests, in them who are converted; since natural conscience is the\nmain thing that restrains them, corrupt nature first endeavours to\ncounteract the dictates thereof, and, by degrees, gets the mastery over\nthem. When conscience reproves them, they first offer a bribe to it, by\nperforming some moral duties, to silence its accusations for\npresumptuous sins, and pretend that their crimes fall short of those\ncommitted by many others; at other times they complain of its being too\nstrict in its demands of duty, or severe in its reproofs for sin. And if\nall this will not prevail against it, but it will, notwithstanding,\nperform the office of a faithful reprover, then the sinner resolves to\nstop his ears against convictions; and if this will not altogether\nprevent his being made uneasy thereby, he betakes himself to those\ndiversions that may give another turn to his thoughts, and will not\nallow himself time for serious reflection; and associates himself with\nthose whose conversation will effectually tend to extinguish all his\nformer impressions of moral virtue; and by this means, at last he\nstupifies his conscience, and it becomes, as the apostle expresses it,\n_seared with a hot iron_, 1 Tim. iv. 2. and so he gets, as I may express\nit, a fatal victory over himself; and from that time meets with no\nreluctancy or opposition in his own breast, while _being past feeling,\nhe gives himself over unto lasciviousness, to work uncleanness_, and all\nmanner of _iniquity with greediness_, Eph. iv. 19. which leads us to\nconsider,\n2. That conflict which is between the flesh and spirit, in those in whom\nthe work of sanctification is begun. Here we shall first observe, the\nlustings of the flesh; and then the opposition that it meets with from\nthat principle of grace which is implanted and excited in them, which is\ncalled the lusting of the spirit against it.\n(1.) How corrupt nature exerts itself in believers, to prevent the\nactings of grace. Here it may be observed,\n[1.] That that which gives occasion to this, is the Spirit\u2019s withdrawing\nhis powerful influences, which, when the soul is favoured with, have a\ntendency to prevent those pernicious consequences which will otherwise\nensue. And God withdraws these powerful influences sometimes in a way of\nsovereignty, to shew him that it is not in his own power to avoid sin\nwhen he will; or that he cannot, without the aids of his grace,\nwithstand those temptations which are offered to him to commit it. Or\nelse, he does this with a design to let him know what is in his heart;\nand that he might take occasion to humble him for past sins, or present\nmiscarriages, and make him more watchful for the future.\n[2.] Besides this, there are some things which present themselves in an\nobjective way, which are as so many snares laid to entangle him. And\ncorrupt nature makes a bad improvement thereof, so that his natural\nconstitution is more and more vitiated by giving way to sin, and defiled\nby the remainders of sin that dwelleth in him. The temptation is\ngenerally adapted to the corrupt inclination of his nature, and Satan\nhas a hand therein. Thus if his natural temper inclines him to be proud\nor ambitious, then immediately the honours and applause of the world are\npresented to him; and he never wants examples of those, who, in an\nunlawful way, have gained a great measure of esteem in the world, and\nmade themselves considerable in the stations in which they have been\nplaced: if he is naturally addicted to pleasures, of what kind soever\nthey be, then something is offered that is agreeable to corrupt nature,\nwhich seems delightful to it; though it be in itself, sinful: if he be\nmore than ordinarily addicted to covetousness, then the profits and\nadvantages of the world are presented as a bait to corrupt nature, and\ngroundless fears raised in him, of being reduced to poverty, which, by\nan immoderate pursuit after the world, he is tempted to fence against.\nMoreover, if his natural constitution inclines him to resent injuries,\nthen Satan has always his instruments ready at hand to stir up his\ncorruption, and provoke him to wrath, by offering either real or\nsupposed injuries; magnifying the former beyond their due bounds, or\ninferring the latter without duly considering the design of those whose\ninnocent behaviour sometimes gives occasion hereunto, and, at the same\ntime, overcharging his thoughts with them, as though no expedient can be\nfound to atone for them. Again, if his natural constitution inclines him\nto sloth and inactivity, then the difficulties of religion are set\nbefore him, to discourage him from the exercise of that diligence which\nis necessary to surmount them. And if, on the other hand, his natural\ntemper leads him to be courageous and resolute, then corrupt nature\nendeavours to make him self-confident, and thereby to weaken his trust\nin God. Or if he be naturally inclined to fear, then something is\noffered to him, that may tend to his discouragement, and to sink him\ninto despair. These are the methods used by the flesh, when lusting\nagainst the spirit; which leads us to consider,\n(2.) The opposition of the spirit to the flesh; or how the principle of\ngrace in believers inclines them to make a stand against indwelling sin,\nwhich is called the lusting of the spirit against the flesh. The grace\nof God, when wrought in the heart in regeneration, is not an unactive\nprinciple; for it soon exerts itself, as being excited by the power of\nthe Spirit, who implanted it; and from that time there is, or ought to\nbe, a constant opposition made by it to corrupt nature; and that, not\nonly as the soul, with unfeigned repentance, mourns for it, and\nexercises that self-abhorrence which the too great prevalence thereof\ncalls for; but as it leads him to implore help from God, against it, by\nwhose assistance he endeavours to subdue the corrupt motions of the\nflesh; or, as the apostle expresses it, to _mortify the deeds of the\nbody_, Rom. viii. 13. that by this means they may not be entertained, or\nprove injurious and destructive to him.\nAnd inasmuch as there is something objective, as well as subjective, in\nthis work; since the power of God never excites the principle of grace\nwithout presenting objects for it to be conversant about, there are\nseveral things suggested to the soul, which, if duly weighed and\nimproved, are a means conducive to its being preserved from a compliance\nwith the corrupt motions of indwelling sin: these are of a superior\nnature to those made use of by an enlightened conscience, in\nunregenerate persons, to prevent their committing the vilest\nabominations, as was before considered; and indeed, they are such as,\nfrom the nature of the thing, can be used (especially some of them) by\nnone but those in whom the work of grace is begun. Accordingly,\n[1.] A believer considers not only the glorious excellencies and\nperfections of Christ, which he is now duly sensible of, as he is said\nto be precious to them that believe; but he is also affected with the\nmanifold engagements, which he has been laid under to love him, and to\nhate and oppose every thing that is contrary to his glory and interest.\nThe love of Christ constraineth him; and therefore he abhors the\nthoughts of being so ungrateful and disingenuous as he would appear to\nbe, should he fulfil the lusts of the flesh: the sense of redeeming love\nand grace is deeply impressed on his soul; he calls to mind how he has\nbeen quickened, effectually called, and brought into the way of peace\nand holiness, and therefore cannot entertain any thoughts of relapsing\nor returning again to folly.\nHere he considers the great advantage which he has received, which he\nwould not lose on any terms. The delight and pleasure which he has had\nin the ways of God and godliness, has been so great, that corrupt nature\ncannot produce any thing that may be an equivalent for the loss of it.\nHe is very sensible that the more closely he has walked with God, the\nmore comfortably he has walked. And besides this, he looks forward, and,\nby faith, takes a view of the blessed issue of the life of grace, or\nthose reserves of glory laid up for him in another world, which inclines\nhim to cast the utmost contempt on every thing that has the least\ntendency to induce him to relinquish or abandon his interest therein.\n[2.] He considers and improves those bright examples which are set\nbefore him, to encourage him to go on in the way of holiness; takes\nChrist himself for a pattern, endeavouring, so far as he is able, to\nfollow him; walks as they have done, who have not only stood their\nground, but come off victorious in the conflict, and are reaping the\nblessed fruits and effects thereof.\n[3.] He also considers, as an inducement to him to oppose the corrupt\nmotions of the flesh; that he has by faith, as his own act and deed, in\nthe most solemn manner, given up himself to Christ entirely, and without\nreserve, and professed his obligation to obey him in all things, and to\navoid whatever has a tendency to displease him. And therefore he reckons\nthat he is not his own, or, at his own disposal, but Christ\u2019s, whose he\nis, by a double right, not only as purchased by, but as devoted and\nconsecrated to him; and therefore he says with the apostle, _How shall\nwe that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?_ Rom. vi. 2. He says\nto this purpose, I have given up my name to Christ; and I have not,\nsince that time, seen the least reason to repent of what I did; I have\nnot found the least iniquity in him, neither has he been an hard master;\nbut, on the other hand, has expressed the greatest tenderness and\ncompassion to me, to whose grace alone it is owing, that I am what I am.\nShall I therefore abandon his interest, or prove a deserter at last, and\nturn aside into the enemies\u2019 camp? Is there any thing that can be\nproposed as a sufficient motive hereunto? Such like thoughts as these,\nthrough the prevailing influence of the principle of grace implanted and\nexcited by the Spirit, are an effectual means to keep him from a sinful\ncompliance with the motions of the flesh, and to excite him to make the\ngreatest resistance against them.\nThus we have considered the opposition that there is between the flesh\nand spirit, and how each of these prevail by turns; we might now observe\nthe consequence of the victory obtained on either side. When grace\nprevails, all things tend to promote our spiritual peace and joy; we are\nhereby fortified against temptations, and enabled, not only to stand our\nground, but made more than conquerors, through him that loved us.\nHowever it is not always so with a believer; he sometimes finds, that\ncorrupt nature prevails, and then many sad consequences will ensue\nhereupon, which not only occasion the loss of that peace and joy which\nhe had before; but expose him to many troubles, which render his life\nvery uncomfortable; and this leads us to consider,\nIII. What are the consequences of the prevailing power of indwelling\nsin. When the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and God is pleased to\nwithhold his grace, the soul is subjected to many evils, which are\nmentioned in the remaining part of this answer, as,\n1. A believer is foiled with temptation. Satan gains ground against him\nby this means, and pursues the victory which the flesh has obtained\nagainst the spirit; hereupon his conflicts are doubled, arising not only\nfrom _flesh and blood; but the rulers of the darkness of this world_,\nEph. vi. 12. as the apostle expresses it: now his difficulties encrease\nupon him, his enemies are more insulting, and he less able to stand his\nground against them, his faith weakened, and his fears encreasing, so\nthat he is perpetually subject to bondage; sometimes inclined to think\nthat he shall one day fall, and whatever he formerly thought he had\ngained, he lost by the assaults of his spiritual enemies; and at other\ntimes, to question whether ever he had the truth of grace or no; in\nwhich case his spirit must needs be filled with the greatest perplexity,\nand almost overwhelmed within him. And he is destitute of that boldness\nor liberty of access to the throne of grace, and that comfortable sense\nwhich once he had of his interest in Christ, and finds it very difficult\nto recover those lively frames which he has lost, or to stand his ground\nagainst the great opposition made by corrupt nature, which still\nincreases as faith grows weaker.\n2. Another consequence hereof, is his falling into many sins. By which\nwe are not to suppose that he shall be so far left as to fall into a\nstate of unregeneracy, or lose the principle of grace that was implanted\nin regeneration: nevertheless, when this principle does not exert\nitself, and corrupt nature on the other hand, is prevalent, it is hard\nto say how far he will run into the commission of known and wilful sins.\nAs for sins of infirmity, they cannot be avoided, when we are in the\nbest frame: but in this case we shall find a person committing\npresumptuous sins, so that if we were to judge of his state by his\npresent frames, without considering the former experiences which he has\nhad of the grace of God, we should be ready to question, whether his\nheart were right with God.\nAnd as for sins of omission, these generally ensue hereupon; he cannot\ndraw nigh to God, with that frame of spirit, which he once had, and\ntherefore is ready to say, _What profit should I have if I pray unto\nhim?_ Job xxi. 15. and sometimes concludes, that he contracts guilt by\nattempting to engage in holy duties. And to this we may add, that he is\nhindered in all his spiritual services, as it is farther observed in\nthis answer: thus the apostle says, _When I would do good, evil is\npresent with me_, Rom. vii. 21. He finds his heart disposed to wander\nfrom God, and his thoughts taken up with vanity; upon which account it\nmay be truly said, that his best works are not only imperfect, but\ndefiled in the sight of God, who searcheth the heart, and observes the\nvarious steps by which it treacherously departs from him, and can find\nno way to recover itself till he is pleased to revive his work, take\naway the guilt which he has contracted, recover him out of the snare\ninto which he has fallen, and so cause the work of grace again to\nflourish in the soul, as it has once done.\nWe shall conclude with some inferences from what has been said\nconcerning the imperfection of sanctification in believers, together\nwith the reasons and consequences thereof.\n1. Since sinless perfection is not attainable in this life, we should\nfrom hence take occasion to give a check to our censorious thoughts\nconcerning persons or things, so as not to determine persons to be in an\nunconverted state, because they are chargeable with many sinful\ninfirmities, which are not inconsistent with the truth of grace: some\nabatements are to be made for their being sanctified but in part, and\nhaving the remnants of sin in them; and indeed, the greatest degree of\ngrace which can be attained here, comes far short of that which the\nsaints are arrived to in heaven; accordingly the difference between a\nbeliever and an unregenerate sinner is not in that one is perfect, and\nthe other imperfect; for when we consider the brightest characters given\nof any in scripture, their blemishes as well as their graces are\nrecorded; so that none but our Saviour could challenge the world to\nconvict or reprove them of sin. The apostle speaks of Elias, as a _man\nsubject to like passions as we are_, James v. 17. and he might have\ninstanced in many others. Therefore, when we are sensible of our own\nimperfections, we ought to enquire, whether the spots we find in\nourselves, are like the spots of God\u2019s children? or, whether these\ninfirmities may be reckoned inconsistent with the truth of grace? which,\nif they be, though it affords matter for humiliation, that we are liable\nto any sinful failures, or defects; yet it will be some encouragement to\nus, and matter of thanksgiving to God, that notwithstanding this, our\nhearts are right with him. That we may be, in some measure, satisfied as\nto this matter, let it be considered,\n[1.] That we must distinguish between a person\u2019s being tempted to the\ngreatest sins, which are inconsistent with the truth of grace; and his\ncomplying with the temptation. A temptation of this kind may offer\nitself, and at the same time grace may exert itself in an eminent\ndegree, by the opposition that it makes to it, whether it arises from\nindwelling sin, or Satan.\n[2.] When we read of some sins that are inconsistent with the truth of\ngrace, such as those which the apostle speaks of, when he says, that\n_neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor\nabusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor\ndrunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of\nGod_, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. and elsewhere, _the fearful and unbelieving_, as\nwell as those who are guilty of other notorious crimes, are said to\n_have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone_,\nRev. xxi. 8. We must distinguish between those who are guilty of these\nsins in a less degree than what is intended, when they are said to\nexclude from the kingdom of heaven; and others being guilty thereof, in\na notorious degree, with greater aggravations: Thus unbelieving fears in\nthose who are called to suffer for Christ\u2019s sake, if they do not issue\nin a denial of him, are not altogether inconsistent with the truth of\ngrace, though they render a person guilty before God. And the least\ndegree of covetousness, though it is not to be excused, yet it does not\nexclude from the kingdom of heaven; but the prevailing love of the\nworld, or the immoderate pursuit of it in those who use unlawful means\nto attain it, or have a rooted habitual desire after it, more than\nChrist, or put it in his room, this is to be reckoned a mark of\nunregeneracy.\n[3.] We must distinguish between sinful infirmities and allowed\ninfirmities, or such who sin through surprize, as being assaulted by an\nunforseen temptation, when not being on their guard; and the same sin\ncommitted with deliberation; the latter gives greater ground to fear\nthat a person is in a state of unregeneracy than the former.\nWe must also distinguish between sins committed and repented of, with\nthat degree of godly sorrow which is proportioned to their respective\naggravations; and the same sins committed and continued in with\nimpenitency; the latter gives ground to conclude, that a person is in an\nunconverted state, though not the former. And the difference arises not\nbarely from the nature of the crimes, for we suppose the sins in\nthemselves to be the same; but from other evidences which a person has\nor has not of his being in a state of grace.\n2. From what has been said concerning the opposition that there is\nbetween natural conscience and corrupt nature in the unregenerate, we\nmay infer; that it is a great blessing to have a religious education, as\nit has a tendency to prevent many enormities, which others, who are\ndestitute of it, run into: Accordingly they who have had this privilege\nought to bless God for, and make a right improvement of it. But since\nthose principles which take their rise from thence, are liable, without\nthe grace of God prevent it, to be overcome and lost; let us press after\nsomething more than this, and be importunate with God, whose providence\nhas favoured us thus far, that he would give us a better preservative\nagainst sin, or that the prevailing power thereof may be prevented by\nconverting grace.\n3. From the opposition that corrupt nature makes in believers to the\nwork of grace, we may infer that the standing of the best of men, or\ntheir not being chargeable with the greatest sins, is not so much owing\nto themselves as to the grace of God, by which we are what we are, and\ntherefore the glory thereof belongs intirely to him; and that we have\nreason, when we are praying against our spiritual enemies, to beg that\nGod would deliver us from the greatest of them, namely, ourselves; and\nthat he, who has a sovereignty over the hearts of all men, and can\ngovern and sanctify their natural tempers and dispositions, would keep\nus from being drawn aside thereby. This should also induce us to walk\nwatchfully, and to be always on our guard, depending on the grace of God\nfor help, that indwelling sin may not so far prevail as to turn aside\nand alienate our affections from him.\n4. From what has been said concerning the flesh and spirit prevailing by\nturns, we infer the uncertainty of the frame of our spirits, and what\nchanges we are liable to, with respect to the actings of grace, or the\ncomforts that result from it. This somewhat resembles the state of man\nas subject to various changes, with respect to the dispensations of\nprovidence; sometimes lifted up, at other times cast down, and not\nabiding long in the same condition: Thus we are enabled, at some times,\nto gain advantage over indwelling sin, and enjoy the comforts which\narise from thence; at other times, when the flesh prevails, the acts of\ngrace are interrupted, and its comforts, almost, if not entirely lost.\nWhat reason have we therefore to bless God, that though our graces are\nfar from being brought to perfection, and our frames so various; yet he\nhas given us ground to conclude, that grace shall not wholly be lost,\nand we are assured, that our state, as we are justified, is not liable\nto the same uncertainty, so that that which interrupts the progress of\nsanctification, does not bring us into an unjustified state, or render\nus liable to condemnation?\n5. From the inconveniences we sustain by the flesh prevailing against\nthe spirit, as we are foiled by temptation, fall into sins and are\nhindered in spiritual services, we infer the great hurt that sin does to\nthose who are in a justified and sanctified state, as well as to others,\nwho are under the dominion of it. And therefore it is a vile and\nunwarrantable way of speaking which some use, who say, that because\nnothing shall separate them from the love of Christ, or bring them who\nare justified, back again into an unjustified state, that therefore sin\ncan do them no hurt; as though all the consequences of the prevalency of\ncorrupt nature, and the dishonour we bring to God, and the guilt we\ncontract hereby, could hardly be reckoned prejudicial; but this is such\na way of speaking as confutes itself in the opinion of all judicious and\nsober Christians.\nAgain, we might also infer, from the consequences of the prevalency of\ncorruption, as we are liable hereby to be discouraged from, or hindered\nin the performance of duty; that we ought, if we find it thus with us,\nto take occasion from hence to enquire, whether some secret sin be not\nindulged and entertained by us, which gives occasion to the prevalency\nof corrupt nature, which we ought to be humbled for. Or if we have lived\nin the omission of those duties which are incumbent on us, or have\nprovoked God to leave us to ourselves, and so have had an hand in our\npresent evils; this affords matter of great humiliation. And we ought to\nbe very importunate with God for restoring grace, not only that our\nfaith may not fail; but that we may be recovered out of the snare in\nwhich we are entangled, and may be brought off victorious over all our\nspiritual enemies.\nFootnote 223:\n  \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 78:\n  \u0391\u03c1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\nFootnote 79:\n  _The word is_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9; _which signifies to give them an internal\n  disposition or fitness for the performance of the duties which they\n  were to engage in_, _Heb._ xiii. 21.\nFootnote 80:\n  _It is a true observation which some have laid down in this known\n  aphorism_, Nemo repente fit turpissimus.\n    QUEST. LXXIX. _May not true believers, by reason of their\n    imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken\n    with, fall away from the state of grace?_\n    ANSW. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God, and\n    his decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable\n    union with Christ, his continual intercession for them, and the\n    Spirit and seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor\n    finally fall from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of\n    God, through faith unto salvation.\nIt is natural for persons, when they enjoy any blessing, to be\nsolicitous about their retaining it; otherwise the pleasure that arises\nfrom it; if it is like to be short and transitory, is rather an\namusement than a solid and substantial happiness. The same may be said\nof those graces and privileges which believers are made partakers of, as\nthe fruits and effects of the death of Christ: These are undoubtedly the\nmost valuable blessings; therefore it highly concerns us to enquire;\nwhether we may assuredly conclude, that we shall not lose them, and so\nfail of that future blessedness which we have had so delightful a\nprospect of?\nThe saints\u2019 perseverance has not only been denied by many since the\nreformation, and, in particular, by Papists, Socinians, and\nRemonstrants: But by the Pelagians of old; and all those whose\nsentiments bear some affinity to, or are derived from their scheme. And,\nindeed, when we find persons endeavouring to establish the doctrine of\nconditional election, universal redemption, &c. or when they explain the\nnature of human liberty, as they do, who make the grace of God to be\ndependent on it for its efficacy in the beginning and carrying on the\nwork of conversion and sanctification; and accordingly assert, that the\nwill has an equal power to determine itself to good or evil; or, that\nthe grace of God affords no other assistance to promote the one or fence\nagainst the other, than what is objective, or, at least, by supporting\nour natural faculties; and if there be any divine concourse, that it\nconsists only in what respects the external dispensations of providence,\nas a remote means conducive thereunto, the event hereof depending on our\nown conduct or disposition to improve these means: I say, if persons\nmaintain these and such-like doctrines, it is not to be wondered, when\nwe find them pleading for the possibility of a believer\u2019s falling\ntotally and finally from the grace of God. For they who have brought\nthemselves into a state of grace, may apostatize, or fall from it. If\nthe free-will of man first inclined itself to exercise those graces\nwhich we call special, such as faith, repentance, love to God, &c. then\nit will follow, that he may lose them and relapse to the contrary vices;\nand by this means men may plunge themselves into the same depths of sin\nand misery from whence they had before escaped; and, according to this\nscheme, there may be, in the course of our lives, a great many instances\nof defection from the grace of God, and recovery to it, and finally, a\ndrawing back unto perdition: Or if a person be so happy as to recover\nhimself out of his last apostacy before he leaves the world, then he is\nsaved; otherwise he finally perishes. This is a doctrine which some\ndefend, the contrary whereunto we shall endeavour to maintain, as being\nthe subject insisted on in this answer.\nBut before we proceed to the defence thereof, it may not be amiss to\npremise something, which may have, at least, a remote tendency to\ndispose us to receive conviction from the arguments which may be brought\nto prove it. Thus we may consider that the contrary side of the question\nis in itself less desirable, if it could be defended. It is certain,\nthat the doctrine of the possibility of the saints falling from grace,\ntends very much to abate that delight and comfort which the believer has\nin the fore-views of the issue and event of his present state. It is a\nvery melancholy thought to consider, that he who is now advanced to the\nvery borders of heaven, may be cast down into hell; or that, though he\nhas at present an interest in the special and discriminating love of\nGod, he may afterwards become the object of his hatred, so as never to\nbehold his face with joy in a future world; or that, though his feet are\nset upon a rock, yet his goings are not established; though he is\nwalking in a plain and safe path, yet he may be ensnared, entangled, and\nfall, so as never to rise again; that though God be his friend, yet he\nmay suffer him to fall into the hands of his enemies, and be ruined and\nundone thereby, as though his own glory were not concerned in his coming\noff victorious over them, or connected with the salvation of his people:\nSo that as this doctrine renders the state of believers very precarious\nand uncertain, it tends effectually to damp their joys, and blast their\nexpectations, and subject them to perpetual bondage; and it is a great\nhindrance to their offering praise and thanksgiving to God, whose grace\nis not so much magnified towards them, as it would be, had they ground\nto conclude that the work which is now begun, should certainly be\nbrought to perfection.\nAnd on the other hand, the doctrine which we are to maintain, is in\nitself so very comfortable, that if we were, at present, in suspense\nconcerning the truth thereof, we cannot but desire that it may appear to\nbe agreeable to the mind of God: It is certainly a very delightful thing\nfor us to be assured, that what is at present well, shall end well; that\nthey who are brought to believe in Christ, shall for ever abide with\nhim; and that the work of grace, which, at present, affords so fair and\npleasing a prospect of its being at last perfected in glory, shall not\nmiscarry. This will have a tendency to enhance our joy in proportion to\nthe ground we have to conclude that the work is true and genuine; and it\nwill excite our thankfulness to God, when we consider, that he who is\nthe author, will also be the finisher of faith: So that it is certain\nthis doctrine deserves confirmation; and accordingly we shall endeavour\nto establish our faith therein in the following method:\nI. We shall consider what we are to understand by persevering in grace,\nor falling from it.\nII. We shall prove, that the best believers would certainly fall from\ngrace, were they left to themselves: So that their perseverance therein,\nis principally to be ascribed to the power of God, which keeps them,\nthrough faith, unto salvation.\nIII. We shall consider, what ground we have to conclude that the saints\nshall persevere in grace; and so explain and illustrate the several\narguments insisted on in this answer; to which we shall add some others\ntaken from several scriptures by which this doctrine may be defended.\nIV. We shall endeavour to answer some objections that are generally\nbrought against it.\nV. We shall consider what we are to understand by persevering in grace,\nor falling from it.\n1. When we speak of a person as persevering in grace, this supposes that\nhe has the truth of grace. We do not hereby intend that a person may not\nfall away from a profession of faith; or that no one can lose that which\nwe generally call common grace, which, in many things, bears a\nresemblance to that which is saving. We have before considered, that\nthere is a temporary faith, whereby persons appear religious, while it\ncomports with their secular interest; but when they are called by reason\nof persecution or tribulation, which may arise for the sake of the\ngospel, to forego their worldly interests, or quit their pretensions to\nreligion, they fall away, or lose that grace which they _seemed to\nhave_, as the Evangelist expresses it, Luke viii. 18. We read of some\nwhose hope of salvation is like the spider\u2019s web, or the giving up of\nthe ghost; but these are described not as true believers, but\nhypocrites. It is beyond dispute that such may apostatize, and not only\nlay aside the external practice of some religious duties, but deny and\noppose the doctrines of the gospel, which they once assented to the\ntruth of.\n2. It is certain that true believers may fall into very great sins; but\nyet they shall be recovered and brought again to repentance: therefore\nwe must distinguish between their dishonouring Christ, disobeying his\ncommands, and thereby provoking him to be angry with him; and their\nfalling away totally from him. We have before considered, when we proved\nthat perfection is not attainable in this life, that the best men are\nsometimes chargeable with great failings and defects. And indeed,\nsometimes their sins are very heinously aggravated, their conversation\nin the mean while discovering that they are destitute of the actings of\ngrace, and that to such a degree that they can hardly be distinguished\nfrom those who are in an unregenerate state: accordingly it is one thing\nfor a believer not to be able to put forth those acts of grace which he\nonce did; and another thing for him to lose the principle of grace: it\nwould be a very preposterous thing to say, that when David sinned in the\nmatter of Uriah, the principle of grace exerted itself; yet it was not\nwholly lost. It is not the same in this case, as in the more common\ninstances of the saints\u2019 infirmities, which they are daily chargeable\nwith, in which, the conflict that there is between the flesh and spirit\nappears; for when corrupt nature exerts itself in such a degree that it\nleads persons to the commission of deliberate and presumptuous sins,\nthey hardly appear to be believers at that time: nevertheless if we\ncompare what they were before they fell, with what they shall be when\nbrought to repentance, we may conclude, that they did not, by their\nfall, bring themselves altogether into a state of unregeneracy.\n3. It is beyond dispute, that as a believer may be destitute of the acts\nof grace; so he may lose the comforts thereof, and sink into the depths\nof despair. Of this we have several instances recorded in scripture,\nwhich are agreeable to the experiences of many in our day: thus the\nPsalmist, at one time, speaks of himself, as _cast down_, and _his soul\ndisquieted within him_, Psal. xliii. 5. and cxvi. 3. And at another time\nhe says, _The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat\nhold upon me._ And elsewhere he complains, _Will the Lord cast off for\never? will he be favourable no more? is his mercy clean gone for ever?\ndoth his promise fail for evermore? hath God forgotten to be gracious?\nhath he in anger shut up his tender mercies_, Psal. lxxvii. 7-9. And\nagain, a believer is represented as being altogether destitute of a\ncomfortable sense of the divine love, when complaining, _Thou hast laid\nme in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. Thy wrath lieth hard\nupon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves. Wilt thou shew\nwonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall thy\nloving kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in\ndestruction? Thy fierce wrath goeth over me, thy terrors have cut me\noff_, Psal. lxxxviii. 6. _&c._ And it is certain, that when at any time\nhe falls into very great sins, which seem inconsistent with a state of\ngrace, he has no present evidence that he is a believer; and is never\nfavoured with a comfortable sense of his interest in Christ, nor is the\njoy of God\u2019s salvation restored to him, till he is brought unfeignedly\nto repent of his sin. Former experiences will not evince the truth of\ngrace, while he remains impenitent. It is a bad sign when any one, who\nformerly appeared to have the truth of grace, but is now fallen into\ngreat sins, concludes himself to be in a state of grace, without the\nexercise of true repentance; for this can be deemed little better than\npresumption: however, God, whose mercy is infinitely above our deserts,\nwill, in the end, recover him; though, at present, he does not look like\none of his children.\n4. There are some who suppose that a believer may fall totally, though\nnot finally from grace. And their reason for it is this; because they\nconclude, as they have sufficient warrant to do, from scripture, that\nthey shall not fall finally, inasmuch as the purpose of God concerning\nelection, must stand; if they had not been chosen to salvation they\nwould never have been brought into a state of grace: they are supposed,\nbefore they fell, to have been sanctified; whereas sanctification is\ninseparably connected with salvation; and therefore, though they\nconsider them, at this time, as having lost the grace of sanctification,\nand so to have fallen totally; yet they shall be recovered, and\ntherefore not fall finally. Sanctification is Christ\u2019s purchase; and\nwhere grace is purchased for any one, a price of redemption is paid for\nhis deliverance from condemnation; and consequently he shall be\nrecovered and saved at last, though, at present, he is, according to\ntheir opinion, totally fallen.\nThese suppose, not only that the acts of grace may be lost, but the very\nprinciple, and the reason hereof is, because they cannot see, how great\nand notorious sins, such as those committed by David, Peter, Solomon,\nand some others, can consist with a principle of grace: this indeed cuts\nthe knot of some difficulties that seem to attend the doctrine of the\nsaints perseverance, though falling into great sins: nevertheless, I\nthink it may easily be proved, which we shall endeavour to do, that they\nshall be preserved from a total, as well as a final apostacy: or, that\nwhen they fall into great sins, they do not lose the principle of grace,\nthough it be, at present, innactive; which we shall take occasion to\ninsist on, more particularly under a following head, when we consider\nthat argument mentioned in this answer for the proof of this doctrine\ntaken from the Spirit and seed of God abiding in a believer, as that\nwhich preserves him from a total as well as a final apostacy.\nII. We shall now consider, that the best believers would certainly fall\nfrom grace, were they left to themselves: so that their perseverance\ntherein is principally to be ascribed to the power of God, that keeps\nthem through faith unto salvation. This is particularly observed in this\nanswer, in which several arguments are laid down to prove the doctrine\nof the saints\u2019 perseverance in grace, and it is supposed to be founded\non his power, and will, to maintain it. God is styled _the preserver of\nmen_, Job vii. 20. inasmuch as he upholds all things by the word of his\npower, so that independency on him is inconsistent with the idea of our\nbeing creatures; and we have no less ground to conclude, that his power\nmaintains the new creature, or that grace, which took its first rise\nfrom him. Should he fail or forsake us, we could not put forth the least\nact of grace, much less persevere therein. When man at first came out of\nthe hands of God, he was endowed with a greater ability to stand than\nany one, excepting our Saviour, has been favoured with, since sin\nentered into the world; yet he apostatized, not from any necessity of\nnature, but by adhering to that temptation which he might have\nwithstood. Then how unable is he to stand in his present state, who is\nbecome weak, and, though brought into a state of grace, renewed and\nsanctified but in part; having still the remainders of corruption, which\nmaintain a constant opposition to the principle of grace? Our\nperseverance in grace cannot therefore be owing to ourselves;\naccordingly the apostle ascribes this to a divine hand, when he says,\nthat _we are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation_, 1\nPet. i. 5.\nA late celebrated writer, on the other side of the question,[81]\nattempts to evade the force of this argument to prove the doctrine of\nperseverance, though I think, without much strength of reasoning, when\nhe says; that all who are preserved to salvation, are kept by the power\nof God, but not that all believers are so kept.\nTo which it may be replied, that all believers, whose character answers\nthat of the church, to which the apostle writes, shall be saved; namely,\nall who are _begotten again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of\nJesus Christ, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that\nfadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them_; whose _faith_, after it\nhas been tried, shall be _found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at\nthe appearing of Jesus Christ_, 1 Pet. i. 3, 4, 7. I say, these shall\ncertainly be saved: therefore, if all who are thus preserved to\nsalvation, are kept by the power of God, this is all we need contend\nfor. And whereas he adds, that when they are said to be kept through\nfaith, the meaning is, they are kept, if they continue in the faith. To\nthis it may be replied, That their continuance in the faith was put out\nof all dispute, by what is said concerning them in the words going\nbefore and following, as row referred to. And as to his argument, it\namounts to no more than this; that they shall be kept by the power of\nGod, if they keep themselves; or they shall persevere if they persevere,\nto which I need make no reply.\nBut since our main design in this head is not to prove that believers\nshall persevere, which we reserve to our next; but to shew that whatever\nwe assert concerning their perseverance, take its rise from God; we\nshall consider this as plainly contained in scripture. Accordingly the\napostle speaks of the Lord\u2019s _delivering him from every evil work, and\npreserving him to his heavenly kingdom_, 2 Tim. iv. 18. Jude, ver. 1.\nand the apostle Jude speaks of believers as _sanctified by God the\nFather, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called_, or as being first\ncalled, and then preserved by God the Father, through the intervention\nof Christ, our great Mediator, till they are brought to glory. And our\nSaviour, in his affectionate prayer for his church, a little before he\nleft the world, says, _Holy Father, keep, through thine own name, those\nwhom thou hast given me_, John xvii. 11. which not only proves that the\nperseverance of the saints is owing to God, but that the glory of his\nown name is concerned herein; therefore it is not from ourselves, but\nhim: and there is another scripture, in which our Saviour, speaks of the\nperseverance of his _sheep_ in grace, and of his giving them eternal\nlife, and adds, that _they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck\nthem out of his hand_, chap. x. 28. therefore it is owing to his care,\nas the great Shepherd of the sheep, and to his power, that is superior\nto that of all those who attempt to destroy them, that they shall\npersevere in grace. And this leads us to consider,\nIII. What ground we have to conclude that the saints shall persevere in\ngrace, and so explain and illustrate the arguments insisted on in this\nanswer, together with some others that may be taken from the sense of\nseveral scriptures, by which this doctrine may be defended.\n1. The saints\u2019 perseverance in grace may be proved from the unchangeable\nlove of God, and his decree and purpose, relating to their salvation, in\nwhich it is discovered and executed. That God loved them with a love of\ngood-will, before they were inclined to express any love to him, is\nevident; because their love to him is assigned as the effect and\nconsequence of his love to them, as the apostle says, _We love him\nbecause he first loved us_, 1 John iv. 19. Therefore this love of God to\nhis people, must be considered as an immanent act; from whence it\nfollows, that it was from eternity, since all God\u2019s immanent acts are\neternal: and this is particularly expressed by the prophet, when he\nsays, _The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved\nthee with an everlasting love_, Jer. xxxi. 3. If this be meant of a love\nthat shall never have an end, it plainly proves the doctrine we are\ndefending; but inasmuch as the words that immediately follow,\n_Therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee_, seem to intimate\nthat this everlasting love is that which was from everlasting; as his\ndrawing them or bringing them into a converted state is the result\nhereof: therefore this everlasting love is the same as his eternal\npurpose, or design to save them. If there be such an eternal purpose\nrelating to their salvation, this necessarily infers their perseverance;\nand that there was such a design in God has been already proved under a\nforegoing answer[82]. And they who are the objects of this eternal\npurpose of grace are frequently described, in scripture, as believers,\ninasmuch as faith and salvation are inseparably connected together;\ntherefore, the execution of God\u2019s purpose in giving faith, necessarily\ninfers the execution thereof, in saving them that believe.\nThat this purpose of grace is unchangeable, has been before proved[83];\nand may be farther argued from what the apostle speaks concerning _the\nimmutability of his counsel_, shewn to the _heirs of promise_, as the\nground of that _strong consolation_ which they have _who are flying for\nrefuge to lay hold upon the hope set before them_, Heb. vi. 17, 18.\nTherefore, if God cannot change his purpose, relating to the salvation\nof believers, it necessarily follows, that they shall certainly attain\nthis salvation, and consequently, that they shall persevere in grace.\n_Obj._ To this it will be objected, that though God may be said to love\nhis people, while they retain their integrity, yet they may provoke him\nby their sins to cast them off; therefore the present exercise of divine\nlove to them is no certain argument that it shall be extended to the\nend, so as that, by virtue hereof, he will enable them to persevere, and\nthen bring them to glory.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that we do not deny that believers,\nby their sins, may provoke God so far, as that, if he should mark their\niniquities, or deal with them according to the demerit thereof, he would\ncast them off for ever; but this he will not do, because it is\ninconsistent with his purpose to recover them from their backslidings,\nand forgive their iniquities. Moreover, it cannot be denied, that,\nnotwithstanding God\u2019s eternal love to them, there are many instances of\nhis hatred and displeasure expressed in the external dispensations of\nhis providence, which are as often changed, as their conduct towards him\nis changed; but this does not infer a change in God\u2019s purpose: he may\ntestify his displeasure against them, or as the Psalmist expresses it,\n_Visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with\nstripes_, Psal. lxxxix. 32. Nevertheless he cannot change his resolution\nto save them; and therefore, by some methods of grace, he will recover\nthem from their backslidings, and enable them to persevere in grace,\nsince his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.\n2. Another argument to prove the saints\u2019 perseverance, may be taken from\nthe covenant of grace, and the many promises respecting their salvation,\nwhich are contained therein. That this may appear, let it be considered,\n(1.) That Christ was appointed to be the head of this covenant, as was\nobserved in a foregoing answer[84]; and accordingly there was an eternal\ntransaction between the Father and him; in which, all things were\nstipulated in the behalf of his elect, whom he therein represented,\nwhich relate to their everlasting salvation. In this covenant God the\nFather, not only promised that he should _have a seed to serve him_,\nPsal. xxii. 30. but that he _should see his seed_; and that _the\npleasure of the Lord_, with relation to them, _should prosper in his\nhand_; that he should _see of the travel of his soul, and be satisfied_,\nIsa. liii. 10, 11. which implies, that he should see the fruits and\neffects of all that he had done and suffered for them, in order to their\nsalvation; and this is not spoken of some of them, but of all; and it\ncould not have had its accomplishment, were it possible for them not to\npersevere in grace.\n(2.) In this covenant, Christ has undertaken to keep them, as the result\nof his becoming a Surety for them, in which he not only engaged to pay\nthe debt of obedience and sufferings that was due from them, which he\nhas already done; but that he would work all that grace in them which he\npurchased by his blood; and he has already begun this work in them which\nis not yet accomplished: can we therefore suppose that he will not bring\nit to perfection, nor enable them to endure to the end, that they may be\nsaved, which would argue the greatest unfaithfulness in him, who is\nstyled Faithful and True?\nMoreover, as there are engagements on Christ\u2019s part, relating hereunto,\nand in pursuance thereof, they are said to be in his hand; so the Father\nhas given them an additional security, that they shall be preserved from\napostasy; and therefore they are also said to be _in his hand_; from\nwhence _none can pluck them out_; and from thence it is argued, that\n_they shall never perish_, John x. 28, 29. And we may observe, that the\nlife which Christ is said to give them respects not only the beginning\nthereof, in the first grace which they are made partakers of in\nconversion; but it is called _eternal life_, which certainly denotes the\ncompleting of this work in their everlasting salvation.\n(3.) The subject-matter of the promises contained in the covenant of\ngrace, relates not only to their sanctification here, but salvation\nhereafter; in which respect it is called _an everlasting covenant_, and\nthe mercies thereof, _the sure mercies of David_, Isa. lv. 3, 4. that\nis, either those mercies which David, who had an interest in this\ncovenant, was given to expect; or mercies which Christ had engaged to\npurchase and bestow, who is here called David, as elsewhere, Hos. iii.\n5. inasmuch as David was an eminent type of him, as well as because he\nwas his seed according to the flesh; and that this is the more probable\nsense of the two, appears from the following words, in which he is said\nto be _given for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the\npeople_: and if these mercies are in Christ\u2019s hand to apply, it is no\nwonder that they are styled _sure mercies_.\nWe might here consider the covenant of grace as containing in it all the\npromises that respect the beginning, carrying on, or completing the\nsalvation of his people; and these relate not only to what God will do\nfor them; but what he will enable them to be, and do, in those things\nthat concern their faithfulness to him, whereby they have the highest\nsecurity that they shall behave themselves as becomes a covenant-people.\nThus he assures them, that he will be to them a God, that is, that he\nwill glorify his divine perfections in bestowing on them the special and\ndistinguishing blessings of the covenant; and that they shall be to him\na people, that is, shall behave themselves so as that they shall not, by\napostacy from him, oblige him to disown his relation to them, or exclude\nthem from his covenant. He has not only encouraged them to expect those\ngreat things that he would do for them, provided they yielded obedience\nto his law; but that he would _put his law into their inward parts, and\nwrite it in their hearts_, whereby they might be disposed to obey him:\nand when he says, that they _shall teach no more every man his\nneighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord_, he gives\nthem to understand that they should not only teach or instruct one other\nin the knowledge of God, which respects their being favoured with the\nexternal means of grace; but that they _should all know him, from the\nleast of them unto the greatest_. This not only denotes that they should\nhave a speculative knowledge of divine truth, but a saving knowledge\nthereof; which is inseparably connected with _life eternal_, John xvii.\n3. as appears from its being accompanied with, or flowing from\nforgiveness of sin, as it immediately follows; _for I will forgive their\niniquity_; and this is expressed with a peculiar emphasis, which is\ncertainly inconsistent with their falling from a justified state, when\nit is said, _I will remember their sin no more_, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. And\nelsewhere, when God speaks of his _making an everlasting covenant_ with\nhis people, chap. xxxii. 40. he promises that _he will not turn away\nfrom them to do them good_; and, inasmuch as they are prone, by reason\nof the deceitfulness of their hearts, to turn aside from him, he adds,\n_I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from\nme_; it is not only said that he will not turn from them, if they fear\nhim; but he gives them security in this covenant, that they shall fear\nhim: can we therefore conclude that they, in whom this covenant is so\nfar made good, that God has put his fear in their hearts, which is\nsupposed in their being believers, shall not attain the other blessing\npromised, to wit, that of their not departing from him?\nMoreover, the stability of this covenant, as a foundation of the saints\u2019\nperseverance, is set forth by a metaphor, taken from the most fixed and\nstable parts of nature; and it is said to exceed them herein; _The\nmountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall\nnot depart from thee; neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed,\nsaith the Lord, that hath mercy on thee_, Isa. liv. 10.\n_Object._ The principal objection that is brought to enervate the force\nof this argument taken from those promises of the covenant, which\nrespect the saints\u2019 perseverance, is, that they are to be considered\neither as conditional, and the conditions thereof not fulfilled, in\nwhich case they are not obliging, and therefore God is not bound to give\nsalvation to those to whom he has promised it, upon these conditions; or\nelse they are to be considered as made to a political body, _viz._ the\nJewish nation, in which case it is not to be supposed that they respect\ntheir eternal salvation, but only some temporal deliverance which they\nwere to be made partakers of, that belonged to that church in general;\nfor everlasting salvation is never considered as a blessing that shall\nbe applied to whole nations, how much soever an whole nation may partake\nof the common gifts of divine bounty which are bestowed in this world.\n_Answ._ In answer to this objection, in both its branches, I need only\nrefer to what has been said elsewhere. As to the former branch thereof,\nwe have endeavoured to shew how those scriptures are to be understood\nwhich are laid down in a conditional form, without supposing that they\nmilitate against the absoluteness of God\u2019s purpose, or its\nunchangeableness, and independency on the conduct of men.[85] And as to\nthe latter branch thereof; what has been said in answer to an objection\nof the like nature, brought against the doctrine of election by Dr.\nWhitby, and others, who suppose that the blessings, which the elect are\nsaid to be made partakers of in scripture, respect the nation of the\nJews, or the church in general, and not a particular number chosen out\nof them to salvation; and that the promises which are directed to them,\nare only such as they were given to expect, as a church or political\nbody of men, may well be applied to our present purpose, and serve as an\nanswer to this objection;[86] therefore all that I shall add by way of\nreply to it, in this place, is,\n[1.] If any thing be annexed to these promises of the covenant, that\ngives occasion for some to conclude, that it is conditional, we must\ntake heed that we do not understand such expressions as denoting the\ndependance of God\u2019s determinations on the arbitrary will of man; as\nthough his purpose relating to the salvation of his people were\nindeterminate, and it were a matter of doubt with him, as well as with\nus, whether he should fulfil it or no; because it is uncertain whether\nthe conditions thereof shall be performed; for this supposition is\ninconsistent with the divine perfections: but, if, on the other hand, we\nsuppose that the grace or duty annexed to the promise, must have some\nidea of a condition contained in it; this may be understood according to\nthe tenor of God\u2019s revealed will, as denoting nothing else but a\ncondition of our expectation, or of our claim to the blessing promised;\nand then nothing can be inferred from hence, but that some who lay claim\nto, or expect salvation, without performing the condition thereof, may\napostatize, and so miss of it; which does not in the least militate\nagainst the doctrine we are defending.\nAnd to this we may farther add, that when such a condition is annexed to\na promise (for I will not decline to call it so, in the sense but now\nlaid down) and there is another promise added, in which God engages that\nhe will enable them to perform this condition, that is equivalent to an\nabsolute promise; and of this kind are those conditions that are\nmentioned in the scriptures before referred to, as has been already\nobserved. When God promises that he will be a God to them, that he will\nforgive their iniquities, and never reverse the sentence of forgiveness,\nor remember their sins no more, and that he will never turn away from\nthem to do them good; he, at the same time promises, that he will put\nhis law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and put his\nfear in their hearts, and so enable them to behave themselves as his\npeople, or to be to him a people; and when God sets forth the stability\nof his covenant, and intimates that it should not be removed, he adds,\nthat his kindness shall not depart from them, which kindness does not\nbarely respect some temporal blessings which he would bestow upon them,\nbut his extending that grace to them that should keep them faithful to\nhim; and therefore he says, _that in righteousness they should be\nestablished_; which contains a promise to maintain grace in them,\nwithout which they could hardly be said to be established in\nrighteousness, as well as that he would perform the other things\npromised to them in this covenant.\n[2.] As to the other branch of the objection, in which the promises are\nconsidered as given to the church in general, or to the Jews, as a\npolitical body of men; and that this cannot be supposed to respect their\neverlasting salvation, but only some temporal blessings which they\nshould enjoy, it may be replied, That this is to be determined by the\nexpress words contained in the promise: if God tells them that he will\ndo that for them which includes more in it than the blessings which they\nare supposed to enjoy, that are of a temporal nature, we are not to\nconclude that there is nothing of salvation contained in them, when the\nwords seem to imply that there is. And though these promises are said to\nbe given to the Jews, as a political body of men, and there are some\ncircumstances therein, which have an immediate and particular relation\nto them: yet the promises of special grace and salvation were to be\napplied only by those who believed amongst them; and the same promises\nare to be applied by believers in all ages; or else we must understand\nthose scriptures only as an historical relation of things that do not\nbelong to us; which would tend very much to detract from the\nspirituality and usefulness of many parts of scripture.\nTo make this appear, we might consider some promises which, when first\nmade, had a particular relation to God\u2019s dealings with his people in\nthose circumstances in which they were at that time; which,\nnotwithstanding, are applied in a more extensive manner, to New\nTestament believers in all ages. Thus when God tells his people, in the\nscripture before referred to, that _all thy children shall be taught of\nthe Lord_, Isa. liv. 13. whatever respect this may have to the church of\nthe Jews, our Saviour applies it in a more extensive way, as belonging\nto believers in all ages, when he says, _Every man therefore that hath\nheard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me_, John vi. 45. And when\nGod promises Joshua that _he would not fail nor forsake him_, and\nencourages him thereby, _not to fear nor be dismayed_, Josh. i. 5, 9.\nwhen he was to pass over Jordan, into the land of Canaan; and after\nthat, to engage in a work which was attended with many difficulties:\nthis promise is applied, by the apostle, as an inducement to believers,\nin his day, to be _content with such things as they have_; accordingly\nhe adds, that what God told Joshua of old, the same was written for\ntheir encouragement, _viz._ that _he would never leave them, nor forsake\nthem_, Heb. xiii. 5. We cannot therefore but conclude from hence, that\nthis objection is of no force in either of its branches, to overthrow\nthe doctrine of the saints\u2019 perseverance, as founded on the stability of\nthe promises of the covenant of grace.\n3. The saints\u2019 perseverance in grace may be farther proved from their\ninseparable union with Christ: this union is not only federal, as he is\nthe head of the covenant of grace, and they his members, whose salvation\nhe has engaged to bring about, as was observed under the last head; but\nhe may be considered also as their vital head, from whom they receive\nspiritual life and influence; so that as long as they abide in him,\ntheir spiritual life is maintained as derived from him: if we consider\nthe church, or the whole election of grace as united to him, it is\ncalled, _His body_, Col. i. 24. _the fulness of him that filleth all in\nall_, Eph. i. 23. and every believer being a member of this body, or a\npart, if I may so express it, of this fulness, if it should perish and\nbe separated from him, his body would be defective, and he would sustain\na loss of that which is an ingredient in his fulness.\nMoreover, as this union includes in it that relation between Christ and\nhis people, which is, by a metaphorical way of speaking, styled\nconjugal;[87] and accordingly is mutual, as the result of his becoming\ntheirs by an act of grace, and they his by an act of self-dedication;\nthis is the foundation of mutual love, which is abiding, it is certainly\nso on his part; because it is unchangeable, as founded on a\ncovenant-engagement, which he cannot violate; and though their love to\nhim be in itself subject to change, through the prevalency of corrupt\nnature, which too much inclines them to be unstedfast in this\nmarriage-covenant; yet he will recover and bring them back to him, and\nwill not deal with them as persons do with strangers, whom they exclude\nfrom their presence or favour, if they render themselves unworthy of it;\nbut they who stand in a nearer relation to him, and accordingly are the\nobjects of his special love, shall not be cast off for ever, how much\nsoever he may resent their unworthy behaviour to him. Not to be separate\nfrom Christ, is, according to the apostle\u2019s expression, not to _be\nseparated_ from his love; and this, he says, he was _persuaded_ that he\nshould not be, or _that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor\nprincipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor\nheight, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to do it_, Rom.\nviii. 35, 38, 39. Accordingly it is said, that _having loved his own,\nwhich were in the world, he loved them unto the end_, John xiii. 1.\nHere I cannot but take notice of a very jejune and empty sense which\nsome give of this text, to evade the force of the argument taken from\nit, to prove the doctrine we are maintaining. How plausible soever it\nmay seem to be to those who conclude that this must be the true sense,\nbecause it favours their own cause: by _his own_ they mean no other than\nChrist\u2019s disciples, whom he was at that time conversant with; and\nindeed, they apply whatever Christ says, in some following chapters, to\nthem, exclusive of all others; as when he says, _Ye are not of the\nworld, but I have chosen you out of the world_, chap. xv. 19. and\n_because I live, ye shall live also_, chap. xiv. 19. This, they suppose,\nrespects them in particular; and so in the text before us, _having loved\nhis own which were in the world_; that is, his own disciples; as though\nhe had a propriety in none but them; _he loved them to the end_; that\nis, not to the end of their lives; for that would prove the doctrine we\nare maintaining, but to the end of his life, which was now at hand; and\nhis love to them, they suppose to be expressed in this, that he\ncondescended to wash their feet. But if this were the sense of the\nwords, his love to them would not be so extraordinary a privilege as it\nreally is; for it would be only an instance of human and not divine\nlove. And indeed, our happiness consists, not only in Christ\u2019s loving us\nto the end of his life; but in his continuing to express his love in his\ngoing into heaven to prepare a place, and there making continual\nintercession for us; and in the end, in his coming again to receive us\nto himself, that where he is, we may be also; which leads us to\nconsider,\n4. That the saints\u2019 perseverance farther appears from Christ\u2019s continual\nintercession for them. This has been particularly explained in a\nforegoing answer;[88] and the apostle speaking of his _ever living to\nmake intercession_ for his people, infers that _he is able to save them\nto the uttermost that come unto God by him_, Heb. vii. 25. This he could\nnot be said to do, should he leave the work which he has begun in them,\nimperfect, and suffer them, who come to him by faith, to apostatize from\nhim. We have before considered Christ\u2019s intercession, as including in it\nhis appearing in the presence of God, in the behalf of those for whom he\noffered himself a sacrifice while here on earth; and also, that what he\nintercedes for shall certainly be granted him, not only because he is\nthe Son of God, in whom he is well pleased, but because he pleads his\nown merits; and to deny to grant what he merited, would be, in effect,\nto deny the sufficiency thereof, as though the purchase had not been\nfully satisfactory; therefore we must conclude, as he himself said on\nearth, that _the Father heareth him always_. It is also evident, that he\nprays for the perseverance of his people, as he says to Peter, _I have\nprayed for thee, that thy faith fail not_, Luke xxii. 32. And there are\nmany things in that affectionate prayer, mentioned in John xvii. which\nhe put up to God, immediately before his last sufferings, which respect\ntheir perseverance in grace; as when he says, _Holy Father, keep through\nthine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as\nwe are_, John xvii. 11. and, _I pray not that thou shouldst take them\nout of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil_, ver.\n15. that is, either the evil that often attends the condition in which\nthey are, in the world, that so the work of grace may not suffer, at\nleast, not miscarry thereby; or else, that he would keep them from the\nevil one, that so they may not be brought again under his dominion; he\nalso prays, _that they may be made perfect in one_, ver. 23. that is,\nnot only that they may be perfectly joined together in the same design,\nbut that this unanimity may continue till they are brought to a state of\nperfection; and _that the world may know that God has loved them, even\nas he has loved Christ_. And he declares his _will_; which shews that\nhis intercession is founded on justice, and accordingly contains in it\nthe nature of a demand, rather than a supplication for what might be\ngiven or denied, namely, _That they whom the Father had given him might\nbe with him where he is, that they may behold his glory_, ver. 24. all\nwhich expressions are very inconsistent with the supposition, that it is\npossible that they, whom he thus intercedes for, may apostatize, or fall\nshort of salvation.\n_Object._ It is objected by some, that this prayer respects none but his\ndisciples, who were his immediate friends and followers, and not\nbelievers in all ages and places in the world.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, That the contrary hereunto is\nevident, from several things which are mentioned in this prayer, as for\ninstance, he says, That _the Father had given him power over all flesh;\nthat he should give eternal life to as many as he had given him_, ver.\n2. the sense of which words will sink too low, if we suppose that he\nintends thereby, thou hast given me power to dispose of all persons and\nthings in this world, that I may give eternal life to that small number\nwhich thou hast given me, namely, my disciples; whereas he speaks of\nthat universal dominion which he has over all persons and things, which\nwere committed to him with this view, that all those who were put into\nhis hand to redeem and save, should attain eternal life: and again, he\nsays, _I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out\nof the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me, and they have\nkept thy word_, ver. 6. Did Christ manifest the divine name and glory to\nnone but those who were his disciples; and were there none but them that\nhad kept his word? And when he says, that they whom he prayed for, are\nthe Father\u2019s; and adds, that _all mine are thine, and thine are mine;\nand I am glorified in them_, ver. 9, 10. Is the number of those, whom\nChrist has a right to, and the Father has set apart for himself, in whom\nhe would shew forth his glory, as the objects of his love, and in whom\nChrist, as Mediator, was to be glorified, so small, as that it contained\nonly the eleven disciples? Or does it not rather respect all that have,\nor shall believe, from the beginning to the end of time? and when he\nspeaks of _the world\u2019s hating them, because they are not of the world_,\nJohn xvii. 14, 15. and of their being exposed to the evils that are in\nthe world, or the assaults of Satan, who is their avowed enemy; is this\nonly applicable to the disciples? And when he says, _Neither pray I for\nthese alone_, that is, for those who now believe, _but for them also\nwhich shall believe_, ver. 20. does it not plainly intimate that he had\nothers in view besides his disciples? These, and several other passages\nin this prayer, are a sufficient evidence that there is no weight in the\nobjection, to overthrow the argument we are maintaining.\n5. Believers\u2019 perseverance in grace may be proved from the Spirit and\nseed of God abiding in them. When at first they were regenerated, it was\nby the power of the Holy Ghost, as condescending to come and take up his\nabode in them: thus we read of their being acted by, and under the\ninfluence of, the Holy Ghost, who is said to dwell where he is pleased\nto display his divine power and glory; and if these displays hereof be\ninternal, then he dwells in the heart. Our Saviour speaks of him, as\n_another Comforter_ given, _that he may abide_ with his people _for\never_, chap. xiv. 19. And this indwelling of the Spirit is very distinct\nfrom that extraordinary dispensation which the church had, when they\nwere favoured with inspiration; for the apostle speaks of it as a\nprivilege peculiar to believers as such, when he says, _Ye are not in\nthe flesh, but in the Spirit; if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in\nyou: Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his_,\nRom. viii. 9. the meaning of which cannot be, that they have no interest\nin Christ, who have not the extraordinary _afflatus_ of the Spirit, such\nas the prophets had; therefore we must suppose, that this is a privilege\nwhich believers have in all ages. Now if the Spirit is pleased to\ncondescend thus to take up his abode in the soul, and that for ever, he\nwill certainly preserve it from apostacy.\nAnd to this we may add, that there are several fruits and effects of the\nSpirit\u2019s dwelling in the soul, which affords an additional proof of this\ndoctrine: thus believers are said to have _the first fruits of the\nSpirit_, ver. 23. that is, they have those graces wrought in them which\nare the beginning of salvation; and as the first fruits are a part of\nthe harvest that will follow, these are the fore-tastes of the heavenly\nblessedness which God would never have bestowed upon them had he not\ndesigned to preserve them from apostasy. Moreover, believers are said to\nbe _sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of\ntheir inheritance_, Eph. i. 13, 14. The earnest, as given by men, is\ngenerally deemed a part of payment, upon which they who are made\npartakers thereof, are satisfied that they shall, at last, receive the\nfull reward; and shall believers miss of the heavenly blessedness, who\nhave such a glorious pledge and earnest of it? Again, if we consider\n_the Spirit as bearing witness with their spirits, that they are the\nchildren of God; and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint\nheirs with Christ_; and that _they shall be glorified together_ with\nhim, Rom. viii. 16, 17. is this testimony invalid, or not to be depended\non, which it could not be were it possible for them to fall from a state\nof grace?\nThis testimony is what we depend very much upon, in order to our\nattaining assurance that we are in a state of grace, and shall persevere\ntherein, as will be observed under the next answer; therefore we shall\nat present, take it for granted, that there is such a thing as\nassurance, or that this blessing is attainable; and the use which I\nwould make of this supposition to maintain our present argument, is,\nthat if the Spirit has an hand in working or encouraging this hope that\nwe have of the truth of grace, and consequently shall persevere therein\nto salvation, this argues that it is warrantable, and not delusive; for\nhe that is the author or giver of it cannot deceive our expectation, or\nput us upon looking for that which is not a reality. From whence it\nfollows, that it is impossible that they should apostatize, to whom _God\nhas given_ this _good hope through grace_, so that they should fail of\nthat _everlasting consolation_, which is connected with it, 2 Thess. ii.\n16. This consequence will hardly be denied by those who are on the other\nside of the question; and we may observe, that they who oppose the\ndoctrine of perseverance, always deny that of assurance, especially as\nproceeding from the testimony of the Spirit: nevertheless, that we may\nnot be misunderstood, we do not say, that every one who has a strong\npersuasion that he shall be saved, shall be saved; which is no other\nthan enthusiasm; but our argument is, in short, this, that if there be a\nwitness of the Spirit to this truth, that cannot be charged therewith,\nthen the doctrine we are maintaining, is undeniably true, which will\nmore evidently appear from what will be said in defence of the doctrine\nof assurance under our next answer.\nAnd therefore we proceed to the other branch of the argument\nbefore-mentioned, to prove this doctrine, namely, that believers have\nthe seed of God abiding in them; which is founded on what the apostle\nsays in 1 John iii. 9. _Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;\nfor his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of\nGod_; for the understanding of which let us consider,\n(1.) That by the words, _he cannot commit sin_, the apostle does not\nintend that such an one is not a sinner, or that there is such a thing\nas sinless perfection attainable in this life; for that is contrary, not\nonly to the whole tenor of scripture, and daily experience of mankind;\nbut to what he had expressly said, _If we say we have no sin, we deceive\nourselves, and the truth is not in us_, 1 John i. 8. Therefore, in this\ntext, upon which our present argument is founded, he is, doubtless,\nspeaking of persons committing sins, inconsistent with the truth of\ngrace, as he says in a foregoing verse, _Whosoever sinneth hath not seen\nhim, neither known him_, chap. iii. 6. it is such a sin therefore as\nargues a person to be in a state of unregeneracy; and then, _He that\ncommitteth sin is of the devil_, ver. 8. therefore he certainly speaks\nof such a commission of sin, as argues us to be under the reigning power\nof the devil: and that this may plainly appear to be his sense, we may\nobserve, that he elsewhere distinguishes between _a sin that is unto\ndeath_, and a sin that is _not unto death_, chap. v. 16, 17. by which he\ndoes not mean, as the Papists suppose, that some sins deserve eternal\ndeath, and others not; the former of which they call mortal sins; the\nlatter venial; but he is speaking of a sin that is inconsistent with the\nprinciple of grace, and that which is consistent therewith; the former\nis sometimes called _the pollution that is in the world, through lust_,\n2 Pet. i. 4. the latter _the spot of God\u2019s children_, Deut. xxxii. 5.\nThe least sin deserves death, though they who commit it shall not\nperish, but be brought to repentance; but the _sin unto death_ is wilful\nsin, committed and continued in with impenitency; and with this\nlimitation we are to understand the apostle\u2019s words, _He who is born of\nGod doth not commit sin_.\n(2.) We shall now consider the reason assigned, why the person he speaks\nof, cannot, in this sense, commit sin; namely, because he is _born of\nGod_, and _the seed of God abideth, in him_. To be born of God, is what\nis elsewhere styled regeneration, or being born of the Spirit, in which\nthere is a principle of grace implanted, which is here called _the seed\nof God_. And, indeed, this metaphorical way of speaking is very\nexpressive of the thing designed hereby; for as in nature the seed\nproduces fruit, and in things moral, the principle of action produces\naction, as the principle of reason produces acts of reason: so in things\nspiritual, the principle of grace produces acts of grace; and this\nprinciple being from God, which has been largely proved under a\nforegoing answer,[89] it is called here, _the seed of God_.\n(3.) This seed of God, or this principle is not barely said to be in the\nbeliever, as that which, for the present, is the ground of spiritual\nactions; but it is said to _remain in him_. As elsewhere Christ speaks\nof the Spirit as _abiding_ with his people _for ever_, John xiv. 16. so\nhere the apostle speaks of that principle of grace wrought by the\nSpirit, as abiding, that is, continuing for ever; and from thence he\ninfers, that a believer _cannot sin_; for if he had been only speaking\nof its being implanted, but not abiding; all that could be inferred from\nthence would be, that he does not sin; but whereas, he argues from it,\nthat he cannot sin, that is, apostatize; it being understood, that this\nprinciple abides in him continually; which plainly contains the sense of\nthe argument we are maintaining, namely, that because the seed of God\nabides in a believer, therefore he cannot apostatize, or fall short of\nsalvation.\nThey who are on the other side of the question, seem to find it very\ndifficult to evade the force of this argument: some suppose that the\napostle intends no more but that he that is born of God, should not\ncommit sin; but that is not only remote from the sense of the words\n_cannot sin_;[90] but it does not sufficiently distinguish one that is\nborn of God, from another that is not so; for it is as much a truth,\nthat an unregenerate person ought not to sin, as when we speak of one\nthat is regenerate.\nOthers, by not sinning, suppose that the apostle means, they sin with\ndifficulty, or they are hardly brought to commit sin; but as this also\ndoes not answer to the sense of the word _cannot_ sin, so it is\ninconsistent with that beautiful gradation, which we may observe in the\nwords. To say that he does not sin; and then if he commits sin, it is\nwith some difficulty, is not so agreeable to that climax, which the\napostle makes use of, when he says, he does not commit sin, yea, he\ncannot.\nOthers suppose that the apostle\u2019s meaning is, that he that is born of\nGod, cannot sin unto death, or apostatize, so as to fall short of\nsalvation, so long as he makes a right use of this principle of grace,\nwhich is implanted in him; but by opposing and afterwards extinguishing\nit, he may become an apostate. But we may observe; in answer to this,\nthat the apostle does not attribute his perseverance in grace, to his\nmaking use of the principle, but his having it, or its abiding in him;\nand he sufficiently fences against the supposition of its being possible\nthat the principle of grace may be wholly lost; for then this seed could\nnot be said to abide in him, nor would the inference deduced from its\nabiding in him, namely, that he cannot sin, be just.\nThus, concerning this latter branch of the argument to prove the saints\u2019\nperseverance in grace, taken from the seed of God, abiding in believers:\nBut there is one thing must be observed before I dismiss this head,\n_viz._ That the principle of grace, which is signified by this metaphor,\nthough it be, and abide in a believer; yet it does not always exert\nitself so as to produce those acts of grace which would otherwise\nproceed from it. This cannot be better illustrated than by a similitude\ntaken from the soul, which is the principle of reason in man; though it\nbe as much so in an infant in the womb as it is in any, yet it is\naltogether unactive; for most allow that such have not the exercise of\nthought or acts of reason; and when a person is newly born, it hardly\nappears that this principle is deduced into act; and in those in whom it\nhas been deduced into act, it may be rendered stupid, and almost\nunactive, or at least, so disordered, that the actions which proceed\nfrom it cannot be styled rational, through the influence of some bodily\ndisease, with which it is affected, yet still it remains a principle of\nreason. The same may be said concerning the principle of grace; it is\ncertainly an unactive principle in those who are regenerate from the\nwomb; and it may cease to exert itself, and be with equal reason, styled\nan unactive principle in believers, when they fall into very great sins,\nto which it offers no resistance: This we shall take occasion to apply\nunder a following head, when we shall consider some objections that are\nbrought against this doctrine, by those who suppose that believers, when\nsinning presumptuously, as David, Peter, and others, are said to have\ndone, fail totally, though not finally. There was indeed a total\nsuspension of the activity of this principle, but yet the principle\nitself was not wholly lost; but more of this in its proper place. We are\ntherefore bound to conclude, that because this principle abides in them,\nthey can neither totally nor finally apostatize, and therefore, that\nthey can neither fall from a state of grace, nor fail, at last, of\nsalvation.\nThus we have endeavoured to explain and shew the force of those\narguments which are contained in this answer to prove the doctrine of\nthe saints\u2019 perseverance. There are several others that might have been\ninsisted on; and particularly it may be proved, from the end and design\nof Christ\u2019s death, which was not only that he might purchase to himself\na peculiar people, but that he might purchase eternal life for them; and\nwe cannot think that this invaluable price would have been given for the\nprocuring of that which should not be applied, in which respect Christ\nwould be said to die in vain. When a person gives a price for any thing,\nit is with this design, that he or they, for whom he purchased it,\nshould be put into the possession of it; which, if it be not done, the\nprice that was given is reckoned lost, and the person that gave it\ndisappointed hereby.\nAnd this argument may be considered as having still more weight in it,\nif we observe, that the salvation of those whom Christ has redeemed, not\nonly redounds to their happiness, but to the glory of God the Father,\nand of Christ, our great Redeemer. God the Father, in giving Christ to\nbe a propitiation for sin, designed to bring more glory to his name than\nby all his other works: Thus our Saviour appeals to him in the close of\nhis life, _I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work\nwhich thou gavest me to do_, John xvii. 14. The work was his, and there\nwas a revenue of glory which he expected thereby; and this glory did not\nonly consist in his receiving a full satisfaction for sin, that so he\nmight take occasion to advance his grace in forgiving it; but he is said\nto be glorified, when his people are enabled to _bear much fruit_, chap.\nxv. 8. Therefore the glory of God the Father is advanced by the\napplication of redemption, and consequently by bringing his redeemed\nones to perfection.\nThe Son is also glorified, not barely by his having those honours, which\nhis human nature is advanced to, as the consequence of his finishing the\nwork of redemption, but by the application thereof to his people;\naccordingly he is said to be _glorified in them_, chap. xviii. 10. that\nis, his mediatorial glory is rendered illustrious by all the grace that\nis conferred upon them; and therefore, certainly he will be eminently\nglorified, when they are brought to be with him, where he is, to behold\nhis glory. Now can we suppose, that since the Father and the Son\ndesigned to have so great a glory redound to them by the work of our\nredemption, that they will sustain any loss thereof, for want of the\napplication of it to them, for whom it was purchased. If God designed,\nas the consequence thereof, that the saints should sing that new song,\n_Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by\nthy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation_:\nAnd if God the Father, and the Son, are both joined together, and their\nglory celebrated therein, by their ascribing _blessing, glory, and\npower, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for\never and ever_, Rev. v. 19. compared with 13. Then certainly they will\nnot lose this glory; and therefore, the saints shall be brought into\nthat state where they shall have occasion thus to praise and adore them\nfor it.\nIf it be objected to this, that God, the Father and the Son, will be\nglorified, though many of his saints should apostatize, and the death of\nChrist be, to no purpose, with respect to them, because all shall not\napostatize. The answer to this is plain and easy; that though he could\nnot be said to lose the glory he designed, by the salvation of those who\npersevere, yet some branches of his glory would be lost, by reason of\nthe apostacy of others, who fall short of salvation; and it is a\ndishonour to him to suppose that he will lose the least branch thereof,\nor that any of those, for whom Christ died, should be for ever lost.\nWe might also add, that for the same reason that we suppose one whom\nChrist has redeemed, should be lost, all might be lost, and so he would\nlose all the glory he designed to have in the work of redemption. This\nappears, in that all are liable to those temptations, which, if complied\nwith, have a tendency to ruin them. All are supposed to be renewed and\nsanctified but in part, and consequently the work of grace meets with\nthose obstructions from corrupt nature; which would certainly prove too\nhard for all our strength, and baffle our utmost endeavours to\npersevere, did not God appear in our behalf, and keep us by his power.\nNow, if all need strength from him to stand, and must say, that without\nhim they can do nothing, then we must either suppose, that that grace is\ngiven to all saints which shall enable them to persevere, or else that\nit is given to none; if it be given to none, but all are left to\nthemselves, then that which overthrows the faith of one, would overthrow\nthe faith of all; and consequently we might conclude, that whatever God\nthe Father, or the Son have done, in order to the redemption and\nsalvation of the elect might be of none effect.\nI might produce many other arguments in defence of the saints\u2019\nperseverance, but shall conclude this head with two or three scriptures,\nwhereby the truth hereof will farther appear: Thus our Saviour says to\nthe woman of Samaria, _Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give\nhim, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be\nin him a well of water springing up into everlasting life_, John iv. 14.\nWhere, by the water that Christ gives, is doubtless understood the gifts\nand graces of the Spirit; these are not like the waters of a brook, that\noften deceive the expectation of the traveller; but they are a well of\nwater, intimating that a believer shall have a constant supply of grace\nand peace till he is brought to the rivers of pleasure, which are at\nGod\u2019s right-hand, and is made partaker of eternal life. Again, our\nSaviour says, _He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent\nme, hath everlasting life_, chap. v. 24. _i. e._ it is as surely his as\nthough he was in the actual possession of it; and he farther intimates,\nthat such are not only justified for the present; but they shall not\ncome into condemnation; certainly this implies that their salvation is\nso secure as that it is impossible for them to perish eternally.\nAnother scripture that plainly proves this doctrine, is in 2 Tim. ii.\n19. _Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,\nthe Lord knoweth them that are his; and let every one that nameth the\nname of Christ depart from iniquity_; in which words the apostle\nencourages the church to hope for perseverance in grace, after they had\nhad a sad instance of two persons of note, _viz._ Hymeneus and Philetus,\nwho had not only _erred from the truth_, but _overthrown the faith of\nsome_; and he cautions every one, who makes a profession of religion, as\nthey would be kept from apostatizing, to depart from iniquity, _q. d._\nsince many of you are ready to fear that your faith shall be overthrown,\nas well as that of others, by the sophistry or cunning arts of those\napostates who lie in wait to deceive, you may be assured that their\nstate is safe, who are built upon that foundation which God has laid,\nthat _chief corner stone, elect, precious_, viz. Christ, _on whom he\nthat believeth, shall not be confounded_, 1 Pet. ii. 6. or else, that\nthe instability of human conduct shall not render it a matter of\nuncertainty, whether they, who are ordained to eternal life, shall be\nsaved or no; for that depends on God\u2019s purpose, relating hereunto, which\nis a sure foundation, and has this seal annexed to it, whereby our faith\nherein may be confirmed, that they whom God has set apart for himself,\nand lays a special claim to, as his chosen and redeemed ones, whom he\nhas foreknown and loved with an everlasting love, shall not perish\neternally, because the purpose of God cannot be frustrated. But inasmuch\nas there is no special revelation given to particular persons, that they\nare the objects of this purpose cf grace; therefore every one that names\nor professes the name of Christ ought to use the utmost caution, that\nthey be not ensnared; let them depart from all iniquity, and not\nconverse with those who endeavour to overthrow their faith. And, indeed,\nall that are faithful shall be kept from iniquity by God, as they are\nhere given to understand that it is their duty to endeavour to depart\nfrom it, and consequently they shall be kept from apostacy. This seems\nto be the sense of these words; and it is agreeable to the analogy of\nfaith, as well as a plain proof of the doctrine which we are\nmaintaining.\nA late writer[91], by _the foundation of God, which standeth sure_,\nsupposes the doctrine of _the resurrection_ is intended, which Hymeneus\nand Philetus denied, saying, that it _was past already_; this doctrine,\nsays he, which is a fundamental article of faith, _standeth sure, having\nthis seal the Lord knoweth them that are his_; that is, he loveth and\napproveth of them. But though it be true the resurrection is spoken of\nin the foregoing verse, and we do not deny that it is a fundamental\narticle of faith; yet that does not seem to be the meaning of the word\n_foundation_, in this text. For if by the resurrection we understand the\ndoctrine of the general resurrection of the dead, I cannot see where the\nforce of the apostle\u2019s argument lies, _viz._ that there shall be a\ngeneral resurrection, because the Lord knoweth who are his, since the\nwhole world are to be raised from the dead. But if by the resurrection\nwe are to understand a resurrection to eternal life, so that they who\nare known or beloved of God, shall have their part in it, and the\napostle\u2019s method of reasoning be this, that they who believe shall be\nraised to eternal life; that is, so far from militating against the\nargument we are maintaining, that it is agreeable to the sense we have\ngiven of the text, and makes for, rather than against us.\nAs to what is farther advanced by the author but now mentioned, _viz._\nthat _the Lord knoweth who are his_, is to be taken for that regard\nwhich God had to his apostles and ministers. This seems too great a\nstrain on the sense of the words, and so much different from the scope\nof the apostle therein, as well as disagreeable to the caution given,\nthat _every one who names the name of Christ_ should _depart from\niniquity_, that no one who reads the scriptures without prejudice, can\neasily give into this sense of the text.\nI shall mention but one scripture more for the proof of this doctrine,\nand that is in 1 John ii. 19. _They went out from us, but they were not\nof us; for if they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued\nwith us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they\nwere not all of us_; for the understanding of which, let it be\nconsidered, that the apostle is speaking of some who were formerly\nmembers of the church, who afterwards turned apostates and open enemies\nto Christ, and his gospel: It is plain that the words _they went out\nfrom us_, and _they were not of us_, must be taken in different\nrespects, otherwise it would imply a contradiction, to say that a person\ndeparted from the faith and communion of the church, when he never\nembraced it, or had communion with it; but if they understand it thus,\nthey left the faith and communion of the church because they were\nChristians only in pretence, and did not heartily embrace the faith on\nwhich the church was built; nor were they really made partakers of that\ngrace, which the apostles, and other faithful members of the church, had\nreceived from God, as being effectually called thereby, the sense is\nvery plain and easy, _viz._ That there were some false professors, who\nmade a great shew of religion, and were admitted into communion with the\nchurch, and, it may be, some of them preached the gospel, and were more\nesteemed than others; but they apostatized; for they had not the truth\nof grace, but were like the seed that sprang up without having root in\nitself, which afterwards withered; whereas, if they had had this grace\nit would have been abiding, and so they would, _without doubt_, says the\napostle, _have continued with us_; but by their apostacy it appears,\nthat they were not, in this sense, of our number, that is believers.\nThey who understand this scripture, not of persons who were members of\nthe church, but ministers, that first joined themselves with the\napostles, and afterwards deserted them, and their doctrine, advance\nnothing that tends to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; for we\nmay then understand the words thus, they pretended to be the true\nministers of Jesus Christ, and doubtless, to be, as the apostles were,\nmen of piety and religion, for, in other respects, they were of them\nvisibly, whilst they preached the same doctrines; but afterwards, by\ndeparting from the faith, it appeared, that though they were ministers\nthey were not sincere Christians, for if they had, they would not have\napostatized.\nIV. We shall now proceed to consider the objections that are usually\nbrought against the doctrine of the saints\u2019 perseverance in grace.\n_Object._ 1. It is objected, that there are several persons mentioned in\nscripture, who appear to have been true believers, and yet apostatized,\nsome totally, as David and Peter; others not only totally, but finally,\nin which number Solomon is included; and others are described as\napostates, such as Hymeneus and Alexander, who are said _concerning\nfaith, to have made shipwreck_, and therefore it is supposed that they\nhad the grace of faith; and Judas is also, by them, reckoned to have\nbeen a true believer, whom all allow afterwards to have proved an\napostate.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the case of David and Peter, it is true, their fall was\nvery notorious, and the former seems to have continued some months in a\nstate of impenitency; and when they fell, there appeared no marks of\ngrace in either of them. Peter\u2019s sin, indeed, was committed through\nsurprize and fear; but yet it had such aggravating circumstances\nattending it, that if others, whose character is less established than\nhis was, had committed the same sin, we should be ready to conclude,\nthat they were in a state of unregeneracy; and David\u2019s sin was committed\nwith that deliberation, and was so complicated a crime, that if any\nbeliever ever lost the principle of grace, we should have been inclined\nto suppose this to have been his case. Nevertheless, that which gives us\nground to conclude that this principle was not wholly extinguished,\neither in Peter or him, at the same time that they fell; and therefore,\nthat they were not total apostates, is what we before observed, that the\nprinciple of grace may be altogether unactive, and yet abide in the\nsoul, agreeably to the sense we gave of that scripture, _his seed\nabideth in him_; and if what has been already said concerning the\npossibility of the principle of grace remaining, though it makes no\nresistance against the contrary habits of sin, be of any force,[92] then\nthese and other instances of the like nature, on which one branch of the\nobjection is founded, will not be sufficient to prove the possibility of\nthe total apostacy of any true believer.\n2. As to the case of Solomon; that he once was a true believer is\nallowed on both sides; for it is said concerning him, soon after he was\nborn, that _the Lord loved him_, 2 Sam. xii. 24, 25. upon which occasion\nhe gave him that significant name, Jedidiah, the beloved of the Lord;\nand it is certain, that in the beginning of his reign, his piety was no\nless remarkable than his wisdom, as appears from his great zeal,\nexpressed in building the temple of God, and establishing the worship\nthereof; and also from that extraordinary instance of devotion with\nwhich he dedicated or consecrated the house to God, 1 Kings viii. 1. &\n_seq._ and the prayer put up to him on that occasion, and also from\nGod\u2019s appearing to him twice: in his first appearance he condescended to\nask him, what he would give him? and upon Solomon\u2019s choosing, _an\nunderstanding heart_, to judge his people, he was pleased with him, and\ngave him several other things that he asked not for; so that there were\n_not any among the kings like unto him_, chap. iii. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13.\nfrom all this it is taken for granted, that he once was a believer: but,\non the other hand, we must, if we duly weigh the force of the objection,\nset the latter part of his life against the former, in which we find him\nguilty of very great sins; not only in multiplying wives and concubines,\nbeyond what any of his predecessors had done, but in that _his heart was\nturned away after other gods, and_, as it is expressly said, _was not\nperfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David, his father_,\nchap. xi. 4. And it is also said, that _the Lord was angry with Solomon,\nbecause his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had\nappeared to him twice_, ver. 9. and on this occasion he determined to\nrend part of the kingdom from his son, ver. 13. which came to pass\naccordingly; and all this is said to have been done _when he was old_,\nver. 4. And after this we read of several that were _stirred up as\nadversaries_ to him, ver. 14, 23, 26. And in the remaining part of his\nhistory we read of little but trouble and uneasiness that he met with;\nand this seemed to continue till his death, of which we have an account\nin 1 Kings xi. chapter throughout, which contains the history of his\nsin, and troubles; and we read not the least word of his repentance\ntherein; for which reason he is supposed, in the objection, to have\napostatized totally and finally.\nThe main strength of this objection lies in the supposition, that\nSolomon did not repent of his idolatry which he committed in his old\nage, or, as it is supposed, in the latter part of his life, and also\nfrom the silence of scripture as to the matter; especially in that part\nof it which gives an account of his fall and death. But this is not\nsufficient to support the weight of the objection, and to oblige us to\nconclude him to be an apostate; for there is nothing that appears from\nthe account we have of him in scripture, but that he might have\nsufficient time for repentance between his fall and death. It is said\nindeed, that in his old age his wives turned him aside, but this they\nmight do, and yet he not die an apostate; for sometimes that part of\nlife which is called old age, comprises in it several years; therefore,\nwhen he began to be in his declining age, he might sin, and after that\nbe brought to repentance. And as for the scripture\u2019s speaking first of\nhis fall, and then of his death; it does not follow from thence that one\nwas immediately after the other; since the history of the blemishes and\ntroubles of his life is but short.\nOn the other hand, there are several things which may give us ground to\nconclude, that he repented after his fall; particularly,\n(1.) We have an intimation hereof in God\u2019s promise relating thereunto,\nin which it is supposed, that God would suffer him to fall, and a\nprovisionary encouragement is given to expect that he should be\nrecovered: thus he says, _I will chastise him with the rod of men, and\nwith the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart\naway from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee_, 1\nSam. vii. 14, 15. and the same thing is repeated, in which his fall is\nsupposed, and his recovery from it particularly mentioned, in Psal.\nlxxxix. 30-34. as though God had designed that this should be a\nsupplement to his history, and remove the doubts which might arise from\nit, with relation to his salvation.\n(2.) There are some things in other parts of scripture, which give\nsufficient ground to conclude, that he was a true penitent, which\nplainly refer to that part of his life which was between his fall and\nhis death. Thus, if we duly weigh several passages in Ecclesiastes,\nwhich none can deny that he was the inspired writer of, inasmuch as it\nis said, in the title or preface set before it, that they are _the words\nof the preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem_, we shall find\nmany things in which he expresses the great sense of the vanity of his\npast life, when he says, _I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know\nmadness and folly_, Eccl. i. 17. where, by _madness and folly_, he\ndoubtless intends that which was so in a moral sense, when he indulged\nhis sinful passions, which respects the worst part of his life. And this\nhe farther insists on; _Whatsoever mine eyes desired, I kept not from\nthem, I withheld not my heart from any joy, for my heart rejoiced in all\nmy labour_, Eccl. ii. 10. or in all things, which afterwards were matter\nof grief and uneasiness to me; in which he observes how he did, as it\nwere, take pains to bring on himself a long train of miseries that\ntroubled him afterwards; and then he plainly expresses his repentance,\nwhen he says, _All was vanity and vexation of spirit_, and there was _no\nprofit under the sun_, ver. 11. as though he should say, I turned from\nGod to the creature, to see what happiness I could find therein, but met\nwith nothing but disappointment; he had no profit in those things,\nwhereof he was now ashamed. It is probable, God shewed him the vanity\nthereof, by his chastening him, or visiting his transgressions with the\nrod, and his iniquities with stripes, as he had promised to do; and this\nended in vexation of spirit, which is a plain intimation of that godly\nsorrow that proceeded from a sense of sin, which made him, beyond\nmeasure, uneasy; and this vexation or uneasiness was so great, that he\nsays, _I hated life_, that is, I hated my past wicked life, and abhorred\nmyself for it, _because the work that is wrought under the sun, is\ngrievous unto me_; that is, the work that I have wrought, was such as\ngave me grief of heart; _for all is vanity and vexation of spirit_, ver.\n17. that is, this is all the consequence thereof: it cannot be supposed\nthat he was weary of his life for the same reasons that many others are,\nwho are deprived of the blessings of common providence, and reduced to\nthat condition that makes them miserable, as to their outward\ncircumstances in the world; but it was the uneasiness he found in his\nown spirit, the secret wounds of conscience and bitterness of soul,\nwhich arose from a sense of sin, that made him thus complain.\nAnd elsewhere, he seems to be sensible of his sin, in heaping up vast\ntreasures, which he calls _loving silver_; and adds, that such an one,\nwhich seems very applicable to his own case, _shall not be satisfied\nwith silver, nor he that loveth abundance, with increase; this is also\nvanity_, chap. v. 10. that is, this had been an instance of his former\nvanity: and he adds, _The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he\neat little or much; but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to\nsleep_, ver. 12. If by this we understand that the increase of riches\nsometimes gives disturbance to, and stirs up the corruptions of those\nthat possess them, and this be applied to himself, it is an\nacknowledgment of his sin. Or, if we understand by it that the abundance\nof a rich man will not give him rest at night, when his mind is made\nuneasy with a sense of the guilt of sin, and this be applied to his own\ncase, when fallen by it; then it intimates that his repentance gave him\nnot only uneasiness by day, but took away his rest by night; and it\nseems not improbable, that what gave him farther occasion to see the\nvanity of his past life, was the sense of mortality impressed on him;\nfor he says, _It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to\nthe house of feasting; for that is the end of all men, and the living\nwill lay it to his heart_, chap. vii. 3. that is, he will, or ought to\nimprove the sense of his own frailty, which we may conclude he had done;\nand therefore adds, _Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness\nof the countenance, the heart is made better_, ver. 3.\nBut if it be objected, that all these expressions are not applicable to\nhimself, and many others of the like nature, which might have been\nreferred to, which are expressive of his great repentance; though I\ncannot but think that the contrary to this seems very probable; yet\nthere is something farther added, that he expressly applies to himself,\nwhich refers to his unlawful love of women: _I find more bitter than\ndeath the woman whose heart is snares, and nets, and her hands as bands.\nWhoso pleaseth God shall escape from her, but the sinner shall be taken\nby her: behold, this have I found, saith the preacher_, ver. 26, 27. If\nthese things be not expressive of repentance, it is hard to say what\nare.\nAnd to this we may add, that as he expresses a grief of heart for past\nsins; so he warns others that they may not be guilty of that which he\nhimself found more bitter than death; and accordingly, having described\nthe arts used by the wicked woman, to betray the unthinking passenger,\nhe cautions every one to take heed of declining to her ways; inasmuch as\nthe consequence thereof will be, that a _dart_ will _strike through his\nliver_, and he is _as a bird that hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not\nthat it is for his life_, Prov. vii. 23. compared with the foregoing\nverses. He also adds, That _she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many\nstrong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going\ndown to the chambers of death_, ver. 26, 27. So that we find in Solomon,\ntwo of the greatest evidences that we can have of sincere repentance;\nnamely, a great degree of sorrow for sin, and an earnest desire that\nothers would avoid it, by giving those cautions that are necessary to\nprevent their falling into the snare in which he had been entangled.\n(3.) There is something spoken in Solomon\u2019s commendation, after his\ndeath, which may be gathered from what is said, that during the three\nfirst years of Rehoboam\u2019s reign, which God approved of he _walked in the\nway of David and Solomon_, 2 Chron. xi. 17. where we may observe, that\nSolomon is joined with his father David: so that as there were\nabatements to be made for the blemishes in David\u2019s reign; the reign of\nSolomon had in it great blemishes: but as one repented, so did the\nother, and therefore ought not to be reckoned an apostate.\nAnd to all this we may add, that he was a penman of scripture; and it\ndoes not appear that God conferred this honour upon any that apostatized\nfrom him; but on the other hand, they have this general character given\nof them by the apostle Peter, that they were all _holy men of God_, 2\nPet. i. 21. which we must conclude Solomon to have been, till we have\ngreater evidence to the contrary than they can produce who deny it.\n3. There are others mentioned in the objection, to wit, Hymeneus and\nAlexander, whose apostacy we have no ground to doubt of; but we cannot\nallow that they fell from, or lost the saving grace of faith. It is one\nthing to fall from the profession of faith, and another thing to lose\nthe grace of faith; therefore, the only thing to be proved in answer to\nthis branch of the objection, is, that these persons, who are described\nas apostates, never had the truth of grace; or that they only fell from\nthat visible profession which they made thereof; whereby they were\nreckoned to be, what in reality they were not, namely, true believers.\nNow that this may appear, let it be considered,\nThat the apostle speaks of them as having _departed from the faith_,\nviz. the doctrines of the gospel; and that was attended with blasphemy,\nfor which they were _delivered unto Satan_, which is a phrase used by\nthe apostle here and elsewhere, for persons being cut off from the\ncommunion of the church; upon which occasion he advises Timothy _to hold\nfaith and a good conscience, which some having put away, concerning\nfaith, have made shipwreck_, as these have done.\nNow the main force of the objection seems to lie in this, that they who\nhave made shipwreck of faith, were once true believers; therefore, such\nmay apostatize, and so fall short of salvation.\nTo which it may be replied, that by _faith_ here, is meant the doctrines\nof the gospel, which are often styled _faith_: thus it is said, that the\napostle _preached the faith which once he destroyed_, Gal. i. 23. and\nelsewhere, _before faith came_; that is, before the gospel-dispensation\nbegan, and those doctrines were preached that were to be published\ntherein to the world, _we were kept under the law_, chap. iii. 23. And\nagain, _Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the\nhearing of faith_, ver. 2. that is, by hearing those doctrines that are\ncontained in the gospel. Therefore, that which he chargeth these\napostates with, is making shipwreck of faith, considered objectively:\nthey once, indeed, held the truth, but it was in unrighteousness; they\nhad right notions of the gospel, which they afterwards lost: now the\napostle advises Timothy not only to _hold faith_, that is, to retain the\ndoctrines of the gospel, as one who had right sentiments of divine\ntruths, but to hold it _with a good conscience_; for I take that\nexpression, _hold faith and a good conscience_, to contain an\n_hendyadis_; and so it is the same as though he should say, Be not\ncontent with an assent to the truths of the gospel, but labour after a\nconscience void of offence towards God, that thou mayst have the\ntestimony thereof, that thy knowledge of divine truth is practical and\nexperimental, and then thou art out of danger of making shipwreck of\nfaith, as these have done, who held it without a good conscience. It is\nnot said they made shipwreck of a good conscience; for that they never\nhave had; but _concerning faith_, which they once professed, _they made\nshipwreck_.\nThe same thing may be said concerning Judas; he apostatized from the\nfaith, which he once made a very great profession of, being not only one\nof Christ\u2019s disciples, but sent forth with the rest of them, to preach\nthe gospel, and work miracles; yet it is evident, that he had not the\nsaving grace of faith. For our Saviour, who knew the hearts of all men,\nwas not deceived in him (though others were) inasmuch as it is said, _He\nknew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should\nbetray him_, John vi. 64. However, the principal force of the objection\nlies in this, that Judas must needs have been a believer, because he was\ngiven to Christ; and our Saviour says, that _those who were given him\nwere kept by him, and none of them was lost but the son of perdition_,\nchap. xvii. 12. His being styled _the son of perdition_, argues him an\napostate; and his being _given to Christ_ denotes that he was once a\ntrue believer; therefore he fell totally and finally. In answer to\nwhich,\n(1.) Some conclude, that they who are said to _be given to Christ_, are\nsuch as were appointed, by the providence of God, to be his servants in\nthe work of the ministry. Now it is said concerning them, that they were\ngiven to Christ, to be employed by him in this service; and that all of\nthem were kept faithful, except the son of perdition. If this be the\nsense of their being given to him, it does not necessarily infer their\nbeing made partakers of special grace: it is one thing to be given to\nChrist, to be employed in some peculiar acts of service, in which his\nglory is concerned; and another thing to be given to him, as being\nchosen and called by him, to partake of special communion with him: if\nJudas had been given to him in this latter sense, he would not have been\na son of perdition, but would have been kept by him, as the other\ndisciples were; but inasmuch as he was only given to Christ, that he\nmight serve the design of his providence, in the work of the ministry,\nhe might be lost, or appear to be a son of perdition, and yet not fall\nfrom the truth of grace.\n(2.) If, by being _given to Christ_, we understand a being given to him,\nas objects of his special love, we must suppose, that all who were thus\ngiven to him, were kept by him; in which sense Judas, who is called _the\nson of perdition_, and was not kept by him, was not given to him:\naccordingly the particle _but_ is not exceptive, but adversative; and it\nis as though he should say, _All that thou gavest me I have kept, and\nnone of them is lost; but the son of perdition is lost_, I have not\npreserved him; for he was not the object of my special care and love; he\nwas not given me to save, therefore he is lost. Now it is certain, that\nthe particle _but_ is used in this sense in many other scriptures,\nparticularly that wherein it is said, _There shall in no wise enter into\nit_, that is, the heavenly Jerusalem, _any thing that defileth, neither\nwhatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they which are\nwritten in the Lamb\u2019s book of life_, Rev. xxi. 27. _q. d._ ungodly men\nshall not enter in; but they that are written in the lamb\u2019s book of life\nshall[93]. Thus much concerning this objection, taken from particular\npersons, who are supposed to have fallen from grace.\n_Obj._ 2. The next objection is taken from what the apostle Paul says\nconcerning the church of the Jews, whom he describes as apostatized from\nGod; and it is evident, that they are, to this day, given up to judicial\nblindness, and not in the least disposed to repent of that crime for\nwhich they were cast off by him; concerning these he says, that they\nonce were holy; _If the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and\nif the root be holy, so are the branches_, Rom. xi. 16. and afterwards\nhe speaks of _their casting away_, and _some of the branches being\nbroken off, because of unbelief_, ver. 15, 17, 19, 20. Now if the whole\nchurch apostatized, we must conclude at least, that some of them were\ntrue believers, and therefore true believers may fall from the grace of\nGod.\n_Answ._ That the church of the Jews apostatized, and were cut off for\ntheir unbelief, is sufficiently evident: but we must distinguish between\nthe apostacy of a professing people, such as the church of the Jews\nwere, who first rejected God, and then were cast off by him, and the\napostacy of those who were truly religious among them; the apostle\nhimself gives us ground for this distinction, when he says, _they are\nnot all Israel which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of\nAbraham are they all children_, chap. ix. 6, 7. And elsewhere he\ndistinguishes between one who is _a Jew_, as being partaker of the\nexternal privileges of the covenant, which that church was under, and a\nperson\u2019s being _a Jew_, as partaking of the saving blessings thereof; as\nhe says, _He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that\ncircumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is\none inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and\nnot in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God_, Rom. ii. 28,\n29. A church may lose its external privileges, and cease to have the\nhonourable character given it; the greatest part of them may be blinded,\nwhen, at the same time _the election_, that is, all among them who were\nchosen to eternal life, _obtained it_, as the apostle observes, chap.\nxi. 7. and thereby intimates, that some who were members of that church\nwere faithful; those were preserved from the common apostacy, being\nconverted to the Christian faith. Their privileges, as members of a\nchurch, were lost, but they still retained their spiritual and\ninseparable union with Christ, which they had as believers, and not as\nthe result of their being the natural seed of Abraham, they were made\npartakers of the blessings that accompany salvation; and therefore were\nnot separated from the love of God in Christ, whilst formal professors\nand hypocrites, who were Abraham\u2019s natural seed, but not his spiritual,\nwere cast off by Christ.\n_Obj._ 3. It is farther objected, that there are some who have the\ncharacter of righteous persons, concerning whom it is supposed, that\nthey may fall away or perish; particularly those mentioned in Ezek.\nxviii. 24. _When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness,\nand committeth iniquity, and doth according to all the abominations that\nthe wicked man doth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath\ndone shall not be mentioned, in the trespass that he hath trespassed,\nand in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die_: And in Heb.\nx. 38. it is said, _The just shall live by faith; but if any man_, or,\nas the word should be rendered, if _he draw back, my soul shall have no\npleasure in him_. Therefore, since the righteous man may turn from his\nrighteousness, and draw back to perdition, the doctrine of the saints\u2019\nperseverance cannot be defended.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the former of these scriptures, we must consider the\nsense thereof agreeably to the context, and the scope and design of the\nprophet therein; he had often reproved them for those vile abominations\nwhich they were guilty of, and had denounced the threatnings of God,\nwhich should have their accomplishment in their utter ruin;\nparticularly, he fortels the judgments that should sweep away many of\nthem before, and others that should befal them in the captivity: this is\nthe subject principally insisted on by the prophets Jeremiah and\nEzekiel; whereupon sometimes they were represented as disliking the\ndoctrine, desiring that _smooth things_ might be prophesied unto them,\nand _the holy one of Israel might cease from before them_. At other\ntimes they are represented as complaining of the hardship of this\ndispensation, intimating that it was unjust and severe, and, at the same\ntime, justifying themselves, as though they had done nothing that\ndeserved it; but all this was to befal them for the sins of their\nfathers, and accordingly there was a proverbial expression often made\nuse of by them, mentioned verse 2d of this chapter, _The fathers have\neaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge_; by which\nthey did not understand that we expect to perish eternally for our\nfathers\u2019 sins, in which sense it must be taken, if this objection has\nany force in it: now God, by the prophet, tells them that they had no\nreason to use this proverb, and so puts them upon looking into their\npast conduct, and enquiring, whether they had not been guilty of the\nsame sins that their fathers were charged with? which, if they could\nexculpate themselves from, they should be delivered, and not die, that\nis, not fall by those judgments which either should go before, or follow\nthe captivity; for that seems to be the sense of _dying_, according to\nthe prophetic way of speaking, as we have observed elsewhere.[94] For\nthe understanding of this scripture we must consider, that the prophet\naddresses himself to _the house of Israel_, who are represented, ver.\n25. as complaining, that _the way of the Lord was not equal_; or, that\nGod\u2019s threatnings or judgments, which were the forerunners of the\ncaptivity, were such as they had not deserved; and therefore he tells\nthem that he would deal with them according to their deserts, ver. 24.\n_When the righteous_, that is, one whose conversation before this seemed\nto be unblemished, and he not guilty of those enormous crimes which were\ncommitted by others (which may be supposed, and yet the person not be in\na state of grace) I say, when such an one _turneth away from his\nrighteousness, and doth according to all the abominations that the\nwicked man doth_, that is, becomes openly vile and profligate; _shall he\nlive?_ can he expect any thing else but that God should follow him with\nexemplary judgments, or that he should be involved in the common\ndestruction? _In his sin that he hath sinned shall he die._ And on the\nother hand, ver. 27. _When the wicked man turneth away from his\nwickedness_; that is, they who have been guilty of these abominations\nshall reform their lives, or turn from their idolatry, murders,\nadulteries, oppressions, and other vile crimes, that the people in\ngeneral were charged with, by the prophet, which are assigned as the\nreason of God\u2019s sending this dreadful judgment of the captivity; I say,\nif there be such an instance of reformation, _he shall save his soul\nalive_; that is, either he shall be delivered from the captivity, or\nshall be preserved from those temporal judgments that either went before\nor followed after it. This reformation, and deliverance from these\njudgments, includes in it something less than saving grace, and a right\nto eternal life, which is inseparably connected with it, so that if\nnothing else be intended by the _righteous_ and _wicked man_; and if the\njudgments threatened, or their deliverance from them, in case of\nreformation, includes no more than this, it is evident, that it does not\nin the least suppose, that any true believer shall apostatize or fall\nfrom a state of grace. As we may distinguish between eternal death and\ntemporal judgments; so we must distinguish between a person\u2019s abstaining\nfrom the vilest abominations, as a means to escape these judgments; and\nhis exercising those graces that accompany salvation. There may be an\nexternal reformation in those who have no special grace, if nothing\nfarther be regarded than a person\u2019s moral character, or inoffensive\nbehaviour in the eye of the world. If we only consider him as abstaining\nfrom those sins which are universally reckoned disreputable among those\nwho make any pretensions to religion, and in this respect he be\ndenominated a righteous man, such an one may turn away from his\nrighteousness and become immoral and profligate, and so be reckoned\namong the number of apostates: nevertheless he cannot be said to\napostatize or fall from the grace of God, since moral virtue or the\nexercise of righteousness in our dealings with men is as much inferior\nto saving grace, as a form of godliness is to the power thereof.\n2. As to the other scripture, mentioned in the objection, it is\ngenerally urged against us as an unanswerable argument, taken from the\nexpress words thereof, to prove the possibility of the saints\u2019 apostacy;\nand our translation is charged with a wilful mistake, to serve a turn,\nand make the text speak what it never intended, since all who understand\nthe original must allow that it ought to be rendered, _If he draw back_,\nwhich supposes that the just man may apostatize, or draw back unto\nperdition. To which it may be replied,\n(1.) That though the words, according to the form in which they are laid\ndown, contain a supposition, it does not infer the being or reality of\nthe thing supposed[95]; but only this, that if such a thing should\nhappen, it would be attended with what is laid down as a consequence\nthereof. This is very agreeable to our common mode of speaking, as when\nwe say; if a virtuous person should commit a capital crime, he will fall\nunder the lash of the law as much as though he had made no pretensions\nto virtue; nevertheless, it does not follow from hence, that such an one\nshall do it, or expose himself to this punishment; or, on the other\nhand, if a king should say to a criminal, as Solomon did to Adonijah,\n\u2018If he will shew himself a worthy man, there shall not an hair of him\nfall to the earth,\u2019 it cannot be concluded from hence, that he will\nbehave himself so as that his life shall be secured to him. The\nproposition is true, as there is a just connexion between the\nsupposition and the consequence; yet this does not argue that the thing\nsupposed shall come to pass. Now to apply this to the scripture, under\nour present consideration; the proposition is doubtless true, that if\nthe just man should draw back, so as to become a wicked man, if he\nshould lose the principle of grace which was implanted in regeneration,\nand abandon himself to the greatest impieties, he would as certainly\nperish as though he had never experienced the grace of God; but it must\nnot be inferred from hence, that God will suffer such an one, who is the\nobject both of his love and care, thus to fall and perish, so that his\nsoul should have no pleasure in him.\n(2.) If we suppose the person here spoken of, whom we consider as a true\nbeliever, to draw back, we may distinguish between backsliding or\nturning aside from God, by the commission of very great sins; and\napostacy. Or between drawing back, by being guilty of great crimes, so\nas to expose himself to sore judgments; and his drawing back to\nperdition. The just man in this text, is said, indeed, to draw back, but\nhe is distinguished from one that draws back to perdition; as it is said\nin the following verse, \u2018We are not of them who draw back to perdition,\nbut of them that believe, to the saving of the soul.\u2019 Such a drawing\nback as this, though it shall not end in perdition, inasmuch as the\nperson shall be recovered and brought to repentance; yet it shall be\nattended with very great marks of God\u2019s displeasure against believers,\nfor those sins which they have committed, as well as others;\naccordingly, _his soul having no pleasure_ in them, denotes that he\nwould, in various instances, reveal his wrath against relapsing\nbelievers, as a display of his holiness, who shall nevertheless be\nrecovered and saved at last. If these things be duly considered, the\nobjection seems to have no weight in it, though it should be allowed,\nthat the words upon which it is principally founded, are not rightly\ntranslated.\nHowever, I cannot see sufficient reason to set aside our translation, it\nbeing equally just to render the words, _if any man draw back_[96];\nsince the supplying the words _any man_, or _any one_, is allowed of in\nmany other instances, both in the Old and New Testament. Therefore there\nis not the least incongruity in its being supplied in the text under our\npresent consideration[97]; and, if it be, the sense that we give of it,\nwill appear very agreeable to the context; accordingly the meaning is,\n\u2018The just shall live by faith,\u2019 or they who \u2018know in themselves that\nthey have in heaven a better and an enduring substance,\u2019 as in one of\nthe foregoing verses: These shall live by faith, but as for others who\ndo not live by faith, having only a form or shew of religion, \u2018whose\nmanner is to forsake the assembling of themselves together,\u2019 as in verse\n25. these are inclined to _draw back_; therefore, let them know that _if\nany one_, or _whosoever draws back_, it will be at their peril; for it\nwill be to their own _perdition_; yet saith the apostle, that true\nbelievers may not be discouraged by the apostacy of others, let them\ntake notice of what is said in the following words, \u2018We are not of them\nwho draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe, to the saving of\nthe soul.\u2019 These things being duly considered, it will be sufficiently\nevident that this text does not militate against the doctrine of the\nsaints\u2019 perseverance.\n_Obj._ 4. There is another objection brought against the doctrine we\nhave been endeavouring to maintain, taken from what the apostle says in\nHeb. vi. 4, 5, 6. \u2018It is impossible for those who were once enlightened,\nand have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the\nHoly Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the\nworld to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto\nrepentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and\nput him to an open shame.\u2019 The force of this objection lies in two\nthings, _viz._ that they are described as total and final apostates; and\nalso, that according to the account we have of their former\nconversation, they appear then to have been true believers.\n_Answ._ This is thought, by some, who defend the doctrine of the saints\u2019\nperseverance, to be one of the most difficult objections that we\ngenerally meet with against it; especially they who cannot see how it is\npossible for a person to make such advances towards true godliness, and\nyet be no other than an hypocrite or formal professor, are obliged to\ntake a method to set aside the force of the objection, which I cannot\ngive into, namely, that when the apostle says, _It is impossible_ that\nsuch should be _renewed again to repentance_; the word _impossible_\ndenotes nothing else, but that the thing is exceeding difficult, not\nthat they shall eventually perish; because they are supposed to be true\nbelievers; but their recovery after such a notorious instance of\nbacksliding, shall be attended with difficulties so great that nothing\ncan surmount, but the extraordinary power of God; and though he will\nrecover them, yet they shall feel the smart thereof as long as they\nlive; they shall be saved, yet so as by fire[98].\nBut notwithstanding the word _impossible_ may be sometimes taken for\nthat which is very difficult, I cannot but conclude that the apostle is\nhere speaking of that which is impossible, with respect to the event,\nand therefore, that he is giving the character of apostates who shall\nnever be recovered. This appears, not only from the heinousness of the\ncrime, as they are said _to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,\nand put him to an open shame_; but from what is mentioned in the\nfollowing verses, in which they are compared to _the earth that bringeth\nforth thorns and briars, which is rejected, and nigh unto cursing, whose\nend is to be burned_; and from their being distinguished from those who\nshall be saved, concerning whom the apostle was _persuaded better\nthings, and things that accompany salvation_; therefore he is speaking\nhere concerning a total and final apostasy.\nBut that this may not appear to militate against the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, I shall endeavour to shew, that notwithstanding the\ncharacter the apostle gives of the persons he here speaks of they were\ndestitute of the truth of grace, and therefore nothing is said\nconcerning them, but what a formal professor may attain to: That this\nmay appear let it be considered,\n1. That they are described as _once enlightened_; but this a person may\nbe, and yet be destitute of saving faith. If by being _enlightened_ we\nunderstand their having been baptized, as some critics take the word,\nwhich was afterwards, in some following ages, used in that sense, it\nmight easily be alleged, that a person might be baptized and yet not be\na true believer: But since I question whether baptism was expressed by\nillumination in the apostles age[100], I would rather understand by it,\ntheir having been convinced of the truth of the gospel, or yielded an\nassent to the doctrines contained therein. Now this a person may do, and\nyet be destitute of saving faith, which is seated not barely in the\nunderstanding, but in the will, and therefore supposes him not only to\nbe rightly informed, with respect to those things which are the object\nof faith, but to be internally and effectually called, from whence\nsaving faith proceeds, as has been before observed.\n2. They are said to have _tasted the good word of God_; which agrees\nwith the character before given of those who had a temporary faith[101],\nwho seemed, for a while, pleased with the word, and their affections\nwere raised in hearing it; as Herod is said to have _heard John the\nBaptist gladly, and to have done many things_; like those whom our\nSaviour compares to the seed sown in stony ground, which soon sprang up,\nbut afterwards withered away. This a person may do, and yet not have\nsaving faith; for it is one thing to approve of, and be affected with\nthe word, and another thing to mix it with that faith which accompanies\nsalvation. A person may entertain those doctrines contained in the word\nwhich relate to a future state of blessedness with pleasure; as all men\ndesire to be happy, and at the same time be far from practising the\nduties of self-denial, taking up the cross, and following Christ,\nmortifying indwelling sin, and exercising an intire dependance upon, and\nresignation to him in all things: This contains much more than what is\nexpressed by _tasting the good word of God_.\n3. They are farther described as having _tasted the heavenly gift, and\nbeing made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and of the powers of the world\nto come_; all which expressions, I humbly conceive, carry in them no\nmore than this, that they had been enabled to work miracles, or that\nthey had a faith of miracles, which has been before described[102], and\nproved to fall very short of saving faith[103]. Therefore these\ncharacters given of them do not argue that they were true believers, and\nconsequently the objection, which depends on the supposition that they\nwere, is of no force to prove that saints may totally or finally fall\nfrom grace.\n_Obj._ 5. The next objection against the doctrine we have been\nmaintaining, is taken from Heb. x. 29. _Of how much sorer punishment\nsuppose ye shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the\nSon of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was\nsanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of\ngrace._ The crime here spoken of is of the heinous nature, and the\ngreatest punishment is said to be inflicted for it: Now, inasmuch as\nthese are described as having been _sanctified by the blood of the\ncovenant_, it follows, that they were true believers, and consequently\ntrue believers may apostatize, and fall short of salvation.\n_Answ._ The force of the objection lies principally in those words, _the\nblood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified_; which expression is\ntaken, by divines, in two different senses.\n1. Some take the word _he_ in the same sense as it is taken in the\nobjection, as referring to the apostate; and then the difficulty which\noccurs, is how such an one could be said to be sanctified by the blood\nof the covenant, and yet not regenerate, effectually called, or a true\nbeliever: To solve this, they suppose, that by _sanctification_ we are\nonly to understand a relative holiness, which such have who are made\npartakers of the common grace of the gospel: Thus it is said, _Israel\nwas holiness unto the Lord_, Jer. ii. 3. or, as the apostle Peter\nexpresses it, _an holy nation_, 1 Pet. ii. 9. as they were God\u2019s people\nby an external covenant relation, and by an explicit consent to be\ngoverned by those laws which he gave them when they first became a\nchurch, Exod. xxiv. 3. and publicly avouched him to be their God, and he\navouched them to be his peculiar people, which was done upon some solemn\noccasions, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. Nevertheless, many of them were destitute\nof the special grace of sanctification, as it contains in it a thorough\nand universal change of heart and life. Moreover, they suppose that this\nprivilege of being God\u2019s people, by an external covenant-relation,\ntogether with all these common gifts and graces that attend it, was\npurchased by, and founded on the blood of Christ, which is called _the\nblood of the covenant_, inasmuch as he was _given for a covenant of the\npeople_, Isa. xlii. 6. and pursuant hereunto, he shed his blood to\nprocure for them the external as well as the saving blessings of the\ncovenant of grace; the former of these, the persons here described as\napostates, are supposed to have been made partakers of, as the apostle\nsays, _To them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the\ncovenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the\npromises_, Rom. ix. 4. they worshipped him in all his ordinances, as\nthose whom the prophet speaks of, _who seek him daily, and delight to\nknow his ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the\nordinance of their God; they ask of him the ordinances of justice, and\ntake delight in approaching to God_; and yet these things were not done\nby faith, Isa. lviii. 2. In this respect persons may be sanctified, and\nyet afterwards forfeit, neglect, despise and forsake these ordinances,\nand lose the external privileges of the covenant of grace, which they\nonce had, and so become apostates. This is the most common method used\nto solve the difficulty contained in the objection. But I would rather\nacquiesce in another way, which may be taken to account for the sense of\nthose words, _the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified_.\nTherefore, let it be considered,\n2. That the word _he_ may be understood, not as referring to the\napostate, but our Saviour, who is spoken of immediately before: thus the\napostate is said to \u2018trample under foot the Son of God, and count the\nblood of the covenant wherewith He, that is, Christ, \u2018was sanctified, an\nunholy thing.\u2019 That this sense may appear just, it may be observed, that\nChrist was sanctified or set apart by the Father, to perform all the\nbranches of his Mediatorial office, in two respects.\n(1.) As he was fore-ordained or appointed, by him, to come into the\nworld to shed his blood for the redemption of his people: thus his\nundertaking to redeem them is called his sanctifying, or devoting\nhimself to perform this work, as he says, \u2018For their sakes I sanctify\nmyself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth,\u2019 John\nxvii. 19. this he did in pursuance of the eternal transaction between\nthe Father and him, relating hereunto. But it will be said, that this\nwas antecedent to his dying for them; and therefore, properly speaking,\nhe could not be said, in this respect, to be _sanctified by the blood of\nthe covenant_; therefore, to this we may add,\n(2.) That he was also sanctified, or set apart by the Father, to apply\nthe work of redemption after he had purchased it; which sanctification\nwas, in the most proper sense, the result of his shedding his blood,\nwhich was the blood of the covenant; so that as he was \u2018brought again\nfrom the dead,\u2019 as the apostle speaks, \u2018through the blood of the\neverlasting covenant,\u2019 Heb. xiii. 20. all the blessings which he applies\nto his people as the consequence hereof, are the result of his being\nsanctified, or set apart to carry on and perfect the work of our\nsalvation, the foundation whereof was laid in his blood.\nMoreover, that they who are here described as apostates, had not before\nthis, the grace of faith, is evident from the context, inasmuch as they\nare distinguished from true believers. The apostle seems to speak of two\nsorts of persons, to wit, some who had cast off the ordinances of God\u2019s\nworship, \u2018forsaking the assembling of themselves together,\u2019 who are\ndistinguished from those whom he dehorts from this sin, who _had_ the\ngrace of _faith_, whereby they were enabled to \u2018draw near to God in full\nassurance thereof, having their hearts sprinkled from an evil\nconscience, and their bodies washed with pure water;\u2019 concerning these\nhe says, \u2018We are not of them who draw back to perdition, but of them who\nbelieve to the saving of the soul,\u2019 chap. x. 39. Therefore we must\nconclude that others are intended in the text under our present\nconsideration, who were not true believers, and consequently it does not\nfrom hence appear that such may totally, or finally, fall from a state\nof grace.\nThe apostates spoken of in this and the foregoing objection, were\nprobably some among the Jews, to whom the gospel was preached, who\nembraced the Christian faith, being convinced by those miracles which\nwere wrought for that purpose, but afterwards revolted from it, and were\nmore inveterately set against Christ and the gospel than they had been\nbefore they made this profession; and accordingly as they had formerly\napproved of the crimes of those who crucified Christ, in which respect\nthey are said to have crucified him; now they do, in the same sense,\ncrucify him afresh. And as they had been made partakers of the\nextraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; afterwards they openly blasphemed\nhim, and this was done with spite and malice. These texts therefore not\nonly contain a sad instance of the apostasy of some, but prove that they\nwere irrecoverably lost; and this comes as near the account we have in\nthe gospels of the unpardonable sin, as any thing mentioned in\nscripture: nevertheless, what has been said to prove that they never\nwere true believers, is a sufficient answer to this and the foregoing\nobjection.\n_Objec._ 6. Another objection against the doctrine of the saints\u2019\nperseverance, is taken from 2 Pet. ii. 20-22. _For if after they have\nescaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord\nand Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and\novercome; the latter end is worse with them than the beginning_; and\nthey are said in the following verse, to _turn from the holy commandment\ndelivered unto them_; which is compared to the _dog turning to his own\nvomit again, and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire_.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That though every one must conclude,\nthat the persons, whom the apostle here speaks of, plainly appear to be\napostates; yet there is nothing in their character which argues that\nthey apostatized, or fell from the truth of grace; and it is only such\nwhom we are at present speaking of. It may be observed, that the apostle\nis so far from including these apostates in the number of those to whom\nhe writes this, with the foregoing epistle, whom he describes _as elect,\naccording to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, through\nsanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood\nof Jesus Christ_, and as having been _begotten again unto a lively hope,\nby the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to an inheritance reserved for them\nin heaven_, and as such, who should be _kept by the power of God,\nthrough faith, unto salvation_, 1 Pet. i. 2-5. that he plainly\ndistinguishes them from them. For in verse 1, of this chapter, from\nwhence it is taken, it is said, \u2018There shall be false teachers among\nyou, and many shall follow their pernicious ways;\u2019 he does not say many,\nwho are now of your number, but many who shall be joined to the church,\nwhen these false teachers arise. These persons, indeed, are represented\nas making a great shew of religion, by which they gained reputation\namong some professors, whom they seduced which otherwise they could not\nhave done; and therefore it is said, \u2018They had escaped the pollutions of\nthe world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,\u2019\nand that they had \u2018known the way of righteousness.\u2019 Such might indeed be\njoined to the church afterwards; but they did not now belong to it; and\nwhat is said concerning them, amounts to no more than an external\nvisible reformation, together with their having attained the knowledge\nof Christ and divine things; so that they were enlightened in the\ndoctrines of the gospel; though they made it appear, by the methods they\nused to deceive others, that they had not experienced the grace of the\ngospel themselves, and therefore they fell away from their profession,\nand turned aside from the faith, which once they preached. It is one\nthing for a formal professor, who makes a great show of religion, to\nturn aside from his profession, to all excess of riot; and another thing\nto suppose a true believer can do so, and that to such a degree as to\ncontinue therein; this the grace of God will keep him from.\n_Objec._ 7. Another objection against the doctrine of the saints\u2019\nperseverance, is taken from the parable of the debtor and creditor, in\nMatt, xviii. 26, _&c._ in which it is said, \u2018The servant fell down and\nworshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee\nall. Then the Lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed\nhim, and forgave him the debt;\u2019 but afterwards, upon his treating one of\nhis fellow-servants, who owed him a very inconsiderable sum, with great\nseverity, his lord exacted the debt of him, which he had before forgiven\nhim, and so _delivered_ him _to the tormentors_, till he should pay all\nthat was due to him: \u2018So likewise,\u2019 it is said, \u2018shall my heavenly\nFather do unto you, if ye, from your hearts forgive not every one his\nbrother their trespasses;\u2019 from whence it is inferred, that a person may\nfall from a justified state, or that God may forgive sin at one time,\nand yet be provoked to alter his resolution, and inflict the punishment\nthat is due to it, at another; which is altogether inconsistent with the\ndoctrine of the saints\u2019 perseverance in grace.\n_Answ._ In answer to this we must observe, that our Saviour\u2019s design in\nhis parables, is not that every word or circumstance contained in them,\nshould be applied to signify what it seems to import, but there is some\ntruth in general intended to be illustrated thereby, which is\nprincipally to be regarded therein. Thus in the parable of the _judge_,\nin Luke xviii. 2, &c. \u2018which feared not God, neither regarded man,\u2019 who\nwas moved, by a widow\u2019s importunity, to \u2018avenge her of her adversary;\u2019\nwhich after a while, he resolved to do, because the widow _troubled\nhim_. This is applied to \u2018God\u2019s avenging his elect, who cry day and\nnight unto him;\u2019 where we must observe, that it is only in this\ncircumstance that the parable is to be applied to them without any\nregard had to the injustice of the judge, or his being uneasy, by reason\nof the importunity which the widow exprest in pleading her cause with\nhim.\nAgain, in the parable of the _steward_, in Luke xvi. 1, &c. who being\naccused for having _wasted his lord\u2019s goods_; and apprehending that he\nshould be soon turned out of the stewardship, he takes an unjust method\nto gain the favour of his lord\u2019s debtors, by remitting a part of what\nthey owed him, that by this means they might be induced to shew kindness\nto him when he was turned out of his service. It is said indeed, verse\n8. that \u2018the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had acted\nwisely;\u2019 whereas, our Saviour does not design, in the account he gives\nof his injustice, to give the least countenance to it, as though it were\nto be imitated by us; nor by his lord\u2019s commending him as acting wisely\nfor himself, does he intend that it is lawful or commendable for wicked\nmen to pursue the like measures to promote their future interest. But\nthe only thing in which this parable is applied, is, that we might learn\nfrom hence, that \u2018the children of this world are, in their generation\nwiser than the children of light;\u2019 and that men ought to endeavour,\nwithout the least appearance of injustice, to gain the friendship of\nothers, by using what they have in the world, in such a way, as that\nthey may be induced, out of gratitude for those favours, which they\nconferred upon them, to shew respect to them; but principally, that in\nperforming what was really their duty, they might have ground to hope\nthat they shall be approved of God, and received into everlasting\nhabitations.\nNow to apply this rule to the parable from whence the objection is\ntaken, we must consider, that the design hereof is not to signify that\nGod changes his mind, as men do, by forgiving persons at one time, and\nafterwards condemning them, as though he did not know, when he extended\nthis kindness to them, how they would behave towards others, or whether\nthey would improve or forfeit this privilege; since to suppose this\nwould be contrary to the divine perfections. Therefore the only design\nof the parable is to shew, that they who now conclude that God has\nforgiven them, ought to forgive others, or else they will find\nthemselves mistaken at last: and though according to the tenor of the\ndivine dispensations, or the revealed will of God, which is our only\nrule of judging concerning this matter, they think that they are in a\njustified state, it will appear, that the debt which they owed was not\ncancelled, but shall be exacted of them to the utmost, in their own\npersons; so that all that can be proved from hence is, that a man may\nfall from, or lose those seeming grounds, which we had to conclude that\nhis sins were forgiven: but we are not to suppose that our Saviour\nintends hereby that God\u2019s secret purpose, relating to the forgiveness of\nsin, can be changed; or that he, who is really freed from condemnation,\nat one time, may fall under it at another: therefore, what is said in\nthis parable, does not in the least give countenance to this objection,\nor overthrow the doctrine we are maintaining.\n_Objec._ 8. There is another objection, taken from what the apostle Paul\nsays concerning himself, in 1 Cor. ix. 27. _I keep under my body, and\nbring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached\nto others, I myself should be a cast-away._ Now it is certain that the\napostle was a true believer; yet he concludes, that if he did not behave\nhimself so as to subdue or keep under his corrupt passions, but should\ncommit those open scandalous crimes, which they would prompt him to, he\nshould, in the end, become a cast-away, that is, apostatize from God,\nand be rejected by him.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That though the apostle had as good\nground to conclude that he had experienced the grace of God in truth, as\nany man, and was oftentimes favoured with a full assurance hereof; yet\nhe did not attain this assurance by immediate revelation, so as he\nreceived those doctrines which he was to impart to the church as a rule\nof faith; for then it would have been impossible for him to have been\nmistaken as to this matter: and if this be supposed, then I would\nunderstand what he says concerning his being _a cast-away_, as denoting\nwhat would be the consequence of his _not keeping under his body_; but\nnot implying hereby that corrupt nature should so far prevail, as that\nhe should fall from a sanctified state. Now if he did not attain this\nassurance by immediate revelation, then he had it in the same way as\nothers have, by making use of those marks and characters which are given\nof the truth of grace; and accordingly he argues, that though, at\npresent, he thought himself to be in a sanctified state, from the same\nevidences that others conclude themselves to be so; yet if corrupt\nnature should prevail over him, which it would do, if he did not keep\nhis body in subjection, or if he were guilty of those vile abominations\nwhich unregenerate persons are chargeable with, then it would appear,\nthat this assurance was ill grounded, his hope of salvation delusive,\nand he no other than an hypocrite; and so, notwithstanding his having\npreached to others, he would be found, in the end, among them who were\nfalse professors, and accordingly rejected of God: therefore we may\nobserve, that it is one thing for a person to exercise that caution, and\nuse those means to prevent sin, which, if he should commit, would prove\nhim an hypocrite; and another thing for one that is a true believer, to\nbe suffered to commit those sins whereby he would apostatize from God,\nand so miss of salvation.\nAnd this will serve to answer another objection that is usually brought\nagainst the doctrine we are maintaining, as though it were inconsistent\nwith that holy fear which believers ought to have of falling, as an\ninducement to care and watchfulness in the discharge of their duty; as\nit is said in Prov. xxviii. 14. _Happy is the man that feareth always_;\ninasmuch as we must distinguish between that fear of caution, which is a\npreservative against sin, and includes a watchfulness over our actions,\nthat we may not dishonour God thereby; and an unbelieving fear, that\nthough we are in a state of grace, and are enabled to exercise that\ndiligence and circumspection that becomes christians, yet we have no\nfoundation whereon to set our foot, or ground to hope for salvation. Or,\nit is one thing to fear, lest we should, by giving way to sin, dishonour\nGod, grieve his Spirit, and wound our own consciences, and do that which\nis a disgrace to the gospel, through the prevalency of corrupt nature,\nwhereby we shall have ground to conclude that we thought ourselves\nsomething when we were nothing, deceiving our own souls; and another\nthing to fear that we shall perish and fall, though our hearts are right\nwith God, and we have reason to expect that we shall be kept by his\npower, through faith, unto salvation.\nWe shall conclude this answer with some few inferences from what has\nbeen said, to prove the doctrine of the saints\u2019 perseverance as\ncontained therein. And,\n1. Since we do not pretend to assert that all who make a profession of\nreligion are assured that they shall never apostatize, but only true\nbelievers, let unbelievers take no encouragement from hence to conclude,\nthat it shall be well with them in the end. Many are externally called\nwho are not really sanctified; and presume that they shall be saved,\nthough, without ground, inasmuch as they continue in impenitency and\nunbelief; such have no warrant to take comfort from the doctrine we have\nbeen maintaining.\n2. We may, from what has been said, observe the difference between the\nsecurity of a believer\u2019s state, as his hope is fixed on the stability of\nthe covenant, and the promises thereof, relating to his salvation,\ntogether with the Spirit\u2019s witness, with ours, concerning our own\nsincerity; and that which we generally call carnal security, whereby a\nperson thinks himself safe, or that all things shall go well with him,\nthough he make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof: This\nis an unwarrantable security in a state of unregeneracy, or\nlicentiousness, which this doctrine does not in the least give\ncountenance to.\n3. From what has been said concerning the apostasy of some from that\nfaith which they once made a profession of, we may infer; that it is\nonly the grace of God experienced in truth, that will preserve us from\nturning aside from the faith of the gospel. The apostle speaks of some\nwho, by embracing those doctrines that were subversive of the gospel,\nare _fallen from grace_, Gal. v. 4. that is, from the doctrines of\ngrace; concerning whom he says, that _Christ profited them nothing_, or\nwas _become of no effect to them_, chap. v. 2, 4. that is, the gospel,\nwhich contains a display of the glory of Christ, was of no saving\nadvantage to them. All the sad instances we have of many, who are tossed\nto and fro with every wind of doctrine, and are made a prey to those\nthat lie in wait to deceive, proceed from their being destitute of the\ngrace of God, which would have a tendency to preserve them from turning\naside from the faith of the gospel.\n4. Let us be exhorted to be as diligent and watchful against the\nbreakings forth of corruption, and endeavour to avoid all occasions of\nsin, as much as though perseverance in grace were to be ascribed to our\nown endeavours, or as though God had given us no ground to conclude that\nhe would enable us to persevere; and yet, at the same time, depend on\nhis assistance, without which this blessing cannot be attained, and hope\nin his mercy and faithfulness, and lay hold on the promises which he has\ngiven us, that it shall go well with us in the end, or that we shall\nhave all joy and peace in believing.\n5. Let us not only endeavour to persevere, but grow in grace; which two\nblessings are joined together; as it is said, _The righteous also shall\nhold on his way; and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and\nstronger_, Job xvii. 9.\n6. This doctrine has a great tendency to support and fortify believers,\nunder the most adverse dispensations of providence, which, at any time,\nthey are liable to; and to comfort them under all the assaults of their\nspiritual enemies; since though they may be suffered to discourage or\ngive them interruption in the exercise of those graces which they have\nexperienced, yet grace shall not be wholly extinguished. And sometimes,\nby the over-ruling providence of God, those things which in themselves\nhave a tendency to weaken their faith, shall be ordered as a means to\nincrease it; so that when they can do nothing in their own strength,\nthey may be enabled, by depending on Christ, and receiving strength from\nhim, to prevail against all the opposition they meet with, and come off\n_more than conquerors_, at last, _through him that loved them_, Rom.\nviii. 37.\nFootnote 81:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s discourse, &c._ _page 463._\nFootnote 82:\n  _See Vol. I. Page 469._\nFootnote 83:\n  _See Vol. I. page 481, and page 135-138._\nFootnote 84:\nFootnote 85:\n  _See Vol. I. page 477_, & albi passim.\nFootnote 86:\n  _See Vol. I. page 437._\nFootnote 87:\n  _See Page 11, 12, ante._\nFootnote 88:\n  _See Vol. II. page 473-479. Quest._ lv.\nFootnote 89:\n  _See Page 30, ante._\nFootnote 90:\n  _The words are_ \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\nFootnote 91:\n  _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, &c. Page 67, 68, 463._\nFootnote 92:\nFootnote 93:\n  _See several other scriptures, in which_ \u03bc\u03b7 _is taken adversatively_,\n  Matt. xxiv. 35. Gal. i. 7. Rev. ix. 4.\nFootnote 94:\n  _See Vol. II page 333-335._\nFootnote 95:\n  _It is a known maxim in logic_, Suppositio nihil ponit in esse.\nFootnote 96:\n  \u0395\u03b1\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\nFootnote 97:\n  _It is certain, that the particles_ \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8, _and others of the like\n  import, are often left out, and the defect thereof is to be supplied\n  in our translation: Thus it is in_ Job xxxiii. 27. _where the Hebrew\n  word, which might have been rendered_ and he shall say, _is better\n  rendered_ and if any say, &c. _and in_ Gen. xlviii. 2. _instead of_ he\n  told Jacob, _it is better rendered_ one told Jacob, _or_ somebody\n  _told him; and in_ Mark ii. 1. \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, _which is left out in the Greek\n  text, is supplied in the translation, in which we do not read it_\n  after days, _but_ after some days. _See Nold. Concord. Partic. Page\n  41, 42. in which several texts of scripture are produced to the same\n  purpose, and among the rest, this in_ Heb. x. 38. _which we are at\n  present considering as what ought to be rendered_ if any one draw\n  back. _In this and such like instances we may observe, that the verb\n  personal has an impersonal signification, or that which is properly\n  active is rendered passively; so_ Eccl. ix. 15. \u05d6\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 _is not\n  rendered_ and he found in it, &c. _but_ now there was found in it;\n  _many other instances of the like nature are to be observed in the\n  Hebrew text in the Old Testament; and sometimes this mode of speaking\n  is imitated by the Greek text in the New. I might also observe, with\n  respect to the scripture under our present consideration, that the\n  learned Grotius observes that_ \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 _ought to be supplied, and\n  consequently the text ought to be rendered as it is in our\n  translation_, if any man draw back, _which he observes as what is\n  agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof, without any regard\n  to the doctrine we are maintaining, with respect to which, he is\n  otherwise minded_.\nFootnote 98:\n  _To give countenance to this sense of the word_ impossible, _they\n  refer to some scriptures, in which it does not denote an absolute\n  impossibility of the thing, but only that if it comes to pass it will\n  be with much difficulty. Thus it is said_, Acts xx. 16. _that the\n  Apostle_ Paul hasted, if it were possible for him to be at _Jerusalem_\n  the day of Pentecost; _where his making haste argues that the thing\n  was not in itself impossible, but difficult. And_ Rom. xii. 18. _we\n  are exhorted_, if it be possible, as much as in us lieth, to live\n  peaceably with all men; _which shews that it is hard indeed so to do;\n  nevertheless, we are to use our utmost endeavours to do it, which does\n  not argue that the thing is in itself altogether impossible. And there\n  is another scripture they bring to justify this sense of the words in_\n  Matt. xix. 23-26. _in which our Saviour\u2019s design is to shew the\n  difficulty of a rich man\u2019s entering into the kingdom of heaven, which\n  he compares to a_ camel\u2019s going through the eye of a needle; _by which\n  very few suppose, that the beast, so called, is intended, but a\n  cable-rope, which is sometimes called a_ camel; _thus the Syriack[99]\n  and Arabick versions translate the word_:\n  _And a learned writer observes, that the Jews, in a proverbial way,\n  express the difficulty of a thing by that of a cable-rope\u2019s passing\n  through the eye of a needle, See Buxt. Lex. Talmud. Pane 1719. and\n  Bochart Hiero. Part. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 3. And by_ needle _is not meant\n  that which is used in working, but an iron, through which a small rope\n  may be easily drawn; though it was very difficult to force a camel or\n  cable-rope through it; therefore they suppose our Saviour is not\n  speaking of a thing which is absolutely impossible, but exceeding\n  difficult; and this may be inferred from his reply to what the\n  disciples objected_, who then can be saved, _when he says_, with men\n  this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. _And to\n  apply this to the scripture under our present consideration, they\n  suppose that the apostle, when he speaks of the renewing of those\n  persons to repentance, does not intend that which is absolutely\n  impossible, but that it cannot be brought about but by the\n  extraordinary power of God, with whom all things are possible._\nFootnote 99:\n  The ancient Syriac is \u0720\u0713\u0721\u0720\u0710 the modern is the same word, which is\n  literally \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd _a camel_, not \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd _a cable_. This Eastern\n  proverb is now well established. Vide Campbell, Clarke, &c.\nFootnote 100:\n  _We do not find the word used in that sense till the second century_,\n  _by Justin Martyr [Vid. ejusd. Dial. 2.] and Clemens Alexandrinus [in\n  P\u00e6dag. Lib. 1. cap. 6.] and therefore we are not altogether to take\n  our measures in explaining the sense of words, used in scripture, from\n  them, who sometimes mistake the sense of the doctrine, contained\n  therein. However, if we take the word in this sense, it does not\n  militate against our argument, since a person may be baptized, who is\n  not in a state of grace and salvation._\nFootnote 101:\nFootnote 102:\nFootnote 103:\n  _There seems to be an hendyadis in the apostle\u2019s mode of speaking. By\n  the heavenly gift we are to understand extraordinary gifts, which are\n  called the Holy Ghost elsewhere_, Acts xix. 2. _because they were from\n  the Holy Ghost as effects of his power, and wrought to confirm the\n  gospel dispensation, which is called the world to come_, Heb. ii. 6.\n  _and therefore they are styled the powers of the world to come_.\n    QUEST. LXXX. _Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are\n    in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto\n    salvation?_\n    ANSW. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all\n    good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation,\n    by faith grounded upon the truth of God\u2019s promises, and by the\n    Spirit, enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which\n    the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their\n    spirits, that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured\n    that they are in a state of grace, and shall persevere therein unto\n    salvation.\nHaving before considered a believer as made partaker of those graces of\nthe Holy Spirit that accompany salvation, whereby his state is rendered\nsafe, and also that he shall not draw back unto perdition, but shall\nattain the end of his faith, even the salvation of his soul; it is\nnecessary for the establishing of his comfort and joy, that he should\nknow himself to be interested in this privilege. It is a great blessing\nto be redeemed by Christ, and sanctified by the Spirit; but it is a\nsuperadded privilege to know that we are so, or be assured that we are\nin a state of grace, which is the subject insisted on in this answer: In\nwhich we are led,\nI. To speak something concerning the nature of assurance, and how far\npersons may be said to be infallibly assured of their salvation.\nII. We shall endeavour to prove that this blessing is attainable in this\nlife.\nIII. We shall consider the character of those to whom it belongs. And,\nIV. The means whereby it may be attained.\nI. Concerning the nature of assurance, and how far persons may be said\nto be infallibly assured of their salvation. Assurance is opposed to\ndoubting; which is inconsistent therewith; so that he who has attained\nthis privilege, is carried above all those doubts and fears respecting\nthe truth of grace, and his interest in the love of God, which others\nare exposed to, whereby their lives are rendered very uncomfortable: It\nmay also be considered as containing in it something more than our being\nenabled to hope that we are in a state of grace; for though that affords\nrelief against despair, yet it falls short of assurance, which is\nsometimes called _a full assurance of hope_, Heb. vi. 11. and it\ncertainly contains a great deal more than a probability, or a\nconjectural persuasion relating to this matter; which is the only thing\nthat some will allow to be attainable by believers, especially they who\ndeny the doctrine of the saints\u2019 perseverance, and lay the greatest\nstress of man\u2019s salvation on his own free-will, rather than the\nefficacious grace of God. All that they will own as to this matter is,\nthat persons may be in a hopeful way to salvation, and that it is\nprobable they may attain it at last. But they cannot be fully assured\nthat they shall, unless they were assured concerning their perseverance,\nwhich, they suppose, no one can be; because the carrying on of the work\nof grace depends on the free-will of man, as well as the first beginning\nof it; and according to their notion of liberty, as has been before\nobserved under another answer[104], _viz._ that he who acts freely may\nact the contrary; and consequently, since every thing that is done in\nthe carrying on of the work of grace, is done freely; no one can be\nassured that this work shall not miscarry; therefore none can attain\nassurance; this is what some assert, but we deny. And it is observed in\nthis answer, that believers may not only attain assurance that they are\nin a state of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation, but\nthat they may be infallibly assured hereof, which is the highest degree\nof assurance. How far this is attainable by believers, may be the\nsubject of our farther inquiry.\nIt is a matter of dispute among some, whether assurance admits of any\ndegrees, or whether a person can be said to be more or less assured of a\nthing? or whether that which does not amount to the highest degree of\ncertainty, may be called assurance? This is denied, by some, for this\nreason; because assurance is the highest and strongest assent that can\nbe given to the truth of any proposition; accordingly the least defect\nof evidence on which it is supposed to be founded, leaves the mind in a\nproportionable degree of doubt, as to the truth of it; in which case\nthere may be a probability, but not an assurance. If this method of\nexplaining the meaning of the word be true, then it is beyond dispute,\nthat they who have attained assurance of their being in a state of\ngrace, may be said to be infallibly assured thereof: Whether this be the\nsense of that expression in this answer, I will not pretend to\ndetermine; neither shall I enter any farther into this dispute, which\namounts to little more than what concerns the propriety or impropriety\nof the sense of the word _assurance_. All that I shall add concerning\nit, is, that according to our common mode of speaking it is reckoned no\nabsurdity for a person to say he is sure of a thing, though it be\npossible for him to have greater evidence of the truth thereof, and\nconsequently a greater degree of assurance. Thus the assurance that\narises from the possession of a thing cannot but be greater than that\nwhich attends the bare expectation of it: Therefore whatever be the\nsense of that infallible assurance, which is here spoken of; we cannot\nsuppose that there is any degree of assurance attainable in this life,\nconcerning the happiness of the saints in heaven, equal to that which\nthey have who are actually possessed of that blessedness; to suppose\nthis would be to confound earth and heaven together, or expectation with\nactual fruition.\nAs to what relates to our assurance thereof, there is another matter of\ndispute among some, which I am not desirous to enter into; namely,\nwhether it is possible for a believer to be as sure that he shall be\nsaved, as he is that he exists, or that he is a sinner, and so stands in\nneed of salvation? or whether it is possible for a person to be as sure\nthat he shall be saved, as he is sure of that truth which is matter of\npure revelation, viz. that he, that believes shall be saved? or whether\nit is possible for a person to be as sure that he has the truth of\ngrace, as he may be that he performs any actions, whether natural or\nreligious; such as speaking, praying, reading, hearing, &c. or whether\nwe may be as sure that we have a principle of grace, as we are that we\nput forth such actions, as seem to proceed from that principle, when\nengaged in the performance of some religious duties? If any are disposed\nto defend the possibility of our attaining assurance in so great a\ndegree as this, as what they think to be the meaning of what some\ndivines have asserted, agreeably to what is contained in this answer,\nthat a believer may be infallibly assured of his salvation, I will not\nenter the list with them; though I very much question whether it will\nnot be a matter of too great difficulty for them to support their\nargument, without the least appearance of exception to it.\nNevertheless, (that I may not extenuate or deny the privileges which\nsome saints have been favoured with, who have been, as it were, in the\nsuburbs of heaven, and not only had a prelibation, but a kind of\nsensation, of the enjoyments thereof, and expressed as full an assurance\nas though they had been actually in heaven); it cannot be denied that\nthis, in various instances, has amounted, as near as possible, to an\nassurance of infallibility; and that such a degree of assurance has been\nattained, by some believers, both in former and later ages, will be\nproved under a following head, which, I am apt to think, is what is\nintended in this answer, by the possibility of a believer\u2019s being\ninfallibly assured of salvation. But let it be considered, that these\nare uncommon instances, in which the Spirit of God, by his immediate\ntestimony, has favoured them with, as to this matter, which are not to\nbe reckoned as a standard, whereby we may judge of that assurance which\nGod\u2019s children desire, and sometimes enjoy, which falls short of it:\nTherefore, when God is pleased to give a believer such a degree of\nassurance, as carries him above all his doubts and fears, with respect\nto his being in a state of grace, and fills him with those joys which\narise from hence, that are unspeakable, and full of glory; this is that\nassurance which we are now to consider, which, in this answer is called\nan infallible assurance; whether it be more or less properly so called,\nwe have nothing farther to add; but shall proceed,\nII. To prove that this privilege is attainable in this present life; and\nthat it may appear to be so, let it be considered,\n1. That if the knowledge of other things which are of less importance,\nbe attainable, then certainly it is possible for us to attain that which\nis of the greatest importance. This argument is founded on the goodness\nof God; if he has given us sufficient means to lead us into the\nknowledge of other things, which respect our comfort and happiness in\nthis world; has he left us altogether destitute of those means whereby\nwe may conclude, that it shall go well with us in a better? God has\nsometimes been pleased to favour his people with some intimations\nconcerning the blessings of common providence, which they might expect\nfor their encouragement, under the trials and difficulties which they\nwere to meet with in the world; and our Saviour encourages his disciples\nto expect, that notwithstanding their present destitute circumstances,\nas to outward things; yet their _Father_, who _knows that they had need\nof them_, would supply their wants; and therefore they had no reason to\nbe over-solicitous in _taking thought what they should eat and drink,\nand wherewithal they should be clothed_, Matt. vi. 31, 32. and if God,\nthat he may encourage the faith of his people, gives them assurance that\n_no temptation shall befal them, but what is common to men_; or, that\nthey shall not be pressed down, so as to sink and despair of help from\nhim, under the burdens and difficulties that, in the course of his\nprovidence, he lays on them; I say, if God is pleased to give such\nintimations to his people, with respect to their condition in this\nworld, that they may be assured that it shall go well with them, as to\nmany things that concern their outward circumstances therein; may we not\nconclude from hence, that the assurance of those things that concern\ntheir everlasting salvation may be attained? or, if the promises that\nrespect the one may be depended on so as to afford relief against all\ndoubts and fears that may arise from our present circumstances in the\nworld; may we not, with as good reason, suppose, that the promises which\nrespect the other, to wit, the carrying on and perfecting the work of\ngrace, afford equal matter of encouragement; and consequently, that the\none is as much to be depended on, as the other; so that as the apostle\nsays, they who have fled for refuge, to lay hold on the hope set before\nthem, may have strong consolation arising from thence, Heb. vi. 18.\n_Objec._ It will be objected to this, that the promises that respect\noutward blessings are not always fulfilled, and therefore we cannot be\nassured concerning our future condition, as to outward circumstances in\nthe world; though godliness, as the apostle says, hath the promise of\nthe world that now is, as well as that which is to come. This appears\nfrom the uncommon instances of affliction, that the best men often meet\nwith, which others are exempted from. Therefore the promises which\nrespect the carrying on and completing the work of grace, will not\nafford that assurance of salvation which we suppose a believer may\nattain to, as founded thereon.\n_Answ._ In answer to this it may be replied, that the promises of\noutward blessings are always fulfilled, either in kind or value.\nSometimes the destitute state of believers, as to the good things of\nthis life, is abundantly compensated with those spiritual blessings,\nwhich are, at present, bestowed on, or reserved for them hereafter; and\ntherefore, if their condition in the world be attended with little else\nbut affliction, they have no reason to say that they are disappointed;\nfor while they are denied the lesser, they have the greater blessings\ninstead thereof, so that their assurance of the accomplishment of the\npromises of outward blessings, must be understood with this limitation:\nbut as to spiritual blessings, which God has promised to his people,\nthere is no foundation for any distinction of their being made good in\nkind or in value; if the promise of eternal life be not made good\naccording to the letter of it, it cannot be, in any sense, said to be\naccomplished: therefore, since God gives his people these promises as a\nfoundation of hope, we may conclude from thence, that the assurance of\nbelievers, relating to their salvation, is as much to be depended on as\nthe assurance they have, founded on the promises of God, concerning any\nblessings which may tend to support them in their present condition in\nthe world.\n2. That assurance of justification, sanctification and salvation, may be\nattained in this life, is farther evident from the obligations which\npersons are under to pray for these privileges, and to bless God for the\nexperience which they have of the one, and the ground which they have to\nexpect the other. That it is our duty to pray for them is no less\ncertain than that we stand in need of them; this therefore being taken\nfor granted, it may be inferred from hence, that there is some way by\nwhich we may know that our prayers are answered, the contrary to which\nwould be a very discouraging consideration; neither could the experience\nhereof be alleged as a motive to the performance of the duty of prayer,\nas the Psalmist says, _O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all\nflesh come_, Psal. lxv. 2. Nor could any believer have the least reason\nto say as he does elsewhere, _Verily God hath heard me, he hath attended\nto the voice of my prayer_, Psal. lxvi. 19. And the apostle says, that\n_if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us_, 1 John v.\n14, 15. and this is said in the following words, to be known by us, we\nknow that we have the petitions that we desired of him; therefore it\nfollows, that we may know from the exercise of faith in prayer, for the\nforgiveness of sin, that our iniquities are forgiven; the same may be\nsaid concerning the subject-matter of our prayer for all other blessings\nthat accompany salvation; and consequently it is possible for us to know\nwhether God has granted us these blessings or no.\nBut if it be replied to this, that it is not absolutely necessary that\nan humble suppliant should have any intimations given him, that his\npetition shall be granted; or that it would be a very unbecoming thing\nfor such an one to say, that he will not ask for a favour, if he be not\nsure before-hand that it will he bestowed.\nTo this it may be answered, That we are not only to pray for saving\nblessings, but to praise God for our experience thereof; as it is said,\n_Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me_, Psal. l. 23. and _praise is\ncomely for the upright_, Psal. xxxiii. 1. Now this supposes that we know\nthat God has bestowed the blessings we prayed for upon us. If the\nPsalmist calls upon his soul to _bless the Lord for forgiving_ him _all\nhis iniquities_, Psal. ciii. 2, 3. we must suppose that there was some\nmethod by which he attained the assurance of the blessing which he\npraises God for; which leads us to consider,\n3. That some have attained this privilege, therefore it is not\nimpossible for others to attain it. That some have been assured of their\nsalvation, is evident from the account we have thereof in several\nscriptures, Thus the apostle tells the church he writes to, _God hath\nnot appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation_, 1 Thes. v. 7. and\nhe says concerning himself, _I know whom I have believed, and I am\npersuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him,\nagainst that day_, 2 Tim. i. 12.\n_Objec._ To this it is objected, that though it is true, some persons of\nold, have experienced this privilege, yet it does not follow from hence\nthat we have any ground to expect it; since they attained it by\nextraordinary revelation, in that age in which they were favoured with\nthe spirit of inspiration, whereby they arrived to the knowledge of\nthings future, even such as it was impossible for them otherwise to have\nknown, at least, they could not without these extraordinary intimations,\nhave arrived to any more than a probable conjecture concerning this\nmatter; and this is not denied by those who oppose the doctrine of\nassurance: whereas, to pretend to more than this, is to suppose that we\nhave it by extraordinary inspiration, which, at present, can be reckoned\nno other than enthusiasm.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That though God does not give the\nchurch, at present, the least ground to expect extraordinary intimations\nconcerning their interest in spiritual and saving blessings, as he\nformerly did; yet we must not conclude that there is no method whereby\nthey may attain the assurance hereof in a common and ordinary way, by\nthe internal testimony of the Spirit; which, as will farther appear\nunder a following head, differs very much from enthusiasm; since it is\nattended with, and founded on those evidences which God has given hereof\nin scripture, which they, in a way of self-examination, are enabled to\napprehend in themselves. That this may appear, let it be considered,\n(1.) That there never was any privilege conferred upon the church by\nextraordinary revelation, while that dispensation was continued therein,\nbut the same, or some other which is equivalent thereunto, is still\nconferred in an ordinary way, provided it be absolutely necessary for\nthe advancing the glory of God, and their edification and consolation in\nChrist. If this were not true, the church could hardly subsist, much\nless would the present dispensation of the covenant of grace excel the\nother which the church was under in former ages, as to those spiritual\nprivileges which they have ground to expect. It is, I think, allowed by\nall, that the gospel-dispensation, not only in the beginning thereof,\nwhen extraordinary gifts were conferred, but in its continuance, now\nthey are ceased, excels that which went before it, with respect to the\nspiritual privileges which are conferred therein. Now if God was pleased\nformerly to converse with men in an extraordinary way, and thereby give\nthem an intimation of things relating to their salvation, but, at\npresent, withholds not only the way and manner of revealing this to\nthem, but the blessings conveyed thereby; then it will follow, that the\nchurch is in a worse state than it was before; or else it must be\nsupposed that these privileges are not absolutely necessary to enable\nthem to glorify God, which they do by offering praise to him, and to\ntheir attaining that peace and joy which they are given to expect in a\nway of believing; but if the church were destitute of this privilege, it\nwould be in a very unhappy state, and retain nothing that could\ncompensate the loss of those extraordinary gifts that are now ceased.\nThey who insist on this objection, and charge the doctrine of assurance\nas what savours of enthusiasm, are obliged, by their own method of\nreasoning, to apply the same objection to the doctrine of internal,\nspecial, efficacious grace, which we have, under a foregoing\nanswer,[105] proved to be the work of the Spirit; and if these internal\nworks are confined to the extraordinary dispensation of the Spirit, then\nthe church is at present as much destitute of sanctification as it is of\nassurance. Therefore we must conclude, that one no more savours of\nenthusiasm than the other; or that we have ground to hope for assurance\nof salvation, though not in an extraordinary way, as much as the saints\ndid in former ages.\n(2.) Our Saviour has promised his people the Spirit to perform what is\nnecessary for the carrying on the work of grace in all ages, even when\nextraordinary gifts should cease: accordingly he says, _The Comforter,\nwhich is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall\nteach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,\nwhatsoever I have said unto you_, John xiv. 26. And elsewhere it is\nsaid, _Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things_, 1\nJohn ii. 20. And to this privilege of assurance, it is said, _We have\nreceived not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,\nthat we might know the things that are freely given to us of God_, 1\nCor. ii. 12. And there are many other promises of the Spirit, which\nthough they had their accomplishment, as to what respects the conferring\nextraordinary gifts, in the first age of the church; yet they have a\nfarther accomplishment in what the Spirit was to bestow on the church in\nthe following ages thereof, though in an ordinary way. This seems very\nevident from scripture; inasmuch as the fruits of the Spirit are said to\nappear in the exercise of those graces which believers have in all ages,\nwho never had extraordinary gifts: thus it is said, _The fruit of the\nSpirit, is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,\nfaith, meekness, temperance_, Gal. v. 22, 23. Now if these graces be\nproduced by the Spirit, as they are called his fruits, and the exercise\nthereof be not confined to any particular age of the church, then we\nmust suppose that the Spirit\u2019s energy extends itself to all ages.\nAgain, believers are said, to be _led by the Spirit_, Rom. viii. 14. and\nthis is assigned as an evidence of their being _the sons of God_; and,\non the other hand, it is said, _If any man have not the spirit of\nChrist, he is none of his_, ver. 9. from whence we may conclude, that\nthere was, in the apostles\u2019 days, an effusion of the Spirit, common to\nall believers, besides that which was conferred in an extraordinary way,\non those who were favoured with the gift of inspiration; otherwise, the\nhaving the Spirit would not have been considered as a privilege\nbelonging only to believers, and being destitute of it, an argument of a\nperson\u2019s not belonging to Christ. As for the extraordinary dispensation\nof the Holy Ghost, it was not inseparably connected with salvation; for\nmany had it who were Christians only in name, and had nothing more than\na form of godliness; and on the other hand, many true believers brought\nforth those fruits which proceeded from the Spirit, in an ordinary way,\nwho had not these extraordinary gifts conferred on them. Moreover the\napostle speaks of believers _through the Spirit mortifying the deeds of\nthe body_, Rom. viii. 13. Now if the work of mortification be incumbent\non believers in all ages, then the influences of the Spirit, enabling\nhereunto, may be expected in all ages. Now to apply this to our present\nargument; the Spirit\u2019s bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the\nchildren of God, which is the foundation of that assurance which we are\npleading for, is, together with the other fruits and effects of the\nSpirit but now mentioned, a privilege which believers, as such, are\ngiven to desire and hope for, and stand in as much need of as those who\nhad this or other privileges conferred on them in an extraordinary way,\nin the first age of the gospel-church.\nAnd to all this we might add, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit\nat that time, were conferred on particular persons, and not on whole\nchurches; but assurance is considered, by the apostle, as a privilege\nconferred on the church to which he writes, that is, the greatest part\nof them, from whence the denomination is taken; upon which account, the\napostle speaking to the believing Corinthians, says, _We know that if\nour earthy house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building\nof God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens_, 2 Cor. v.\n1. by which he does not only intend himself and other ministers, but the\ngenerality of believers, at that time, who are described as walking by\nfaith: and there are many other things said concerning them in the\nforegoing and following verses; which makes it sufficiently evident,\nthat the apostle intends more than himself and other ministers, when he\nspeaks of their having assurance, since many had it who were not made\npartakers of extraordinary gifts. Therefore we must not conclude that\nthe church has, at present, no ground to expect this privilege, so that\nthey are liable to the charge of enthusiasm if they do. But that this\nobjection may farther appear not to be sufficient to overthrow the\nargument we are maintaining, we may appeal to the experience of many\nbelievers in this present age, who pretend not to extraordinary\nrevelation; and therefore let it be considered,\n(3.) That many, in later ages, since extraordinary revelation has\nceased, have attained this privilege, and consequently it is now\nattainable. To deny this would be to offend against the generation of\nGod\u2019s people, of whom many have given their testimony to this truth, who\nhave declared what a comfortable sense they have had of their interest\nin Christ, and the sensible impressions they have enjoyed of his love\nshed abroad in their hearts, whereby they have had, as it were, a\nprelibation of the heavenly blessedness; and this has been attended with\nthe most powerful influence of the Spirit of God enabling them to\nexercise those graces which have been agreeable to these comfortable\nexperiences, whereby they have been carried through, and enabled to\nsurmount the greatest difficulties which have attended them in this\nlife. And many have been supported and comforted therewith, at the\napproach of death, in which respect the sting thereof has been taken\naway, and they have expressed themselves with a kind of triumph over it,\nin the apostle\u2019s words, _O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is\nthy victory?_ 1 Cor. xv. 55.\nThat some have been favoured with this invaluable privilege is\nundeniable; the account we have in the history of the lives and deaths\nof many, who have been burning and shining lights in their generation,\nputs it out of all doubt. And if this were not sufficient, we might\nappeal to the experience of many now living, since there is scarce any\nage or place in which the gospel comes with power, but we have some\ninstances of the Spirit\u2019s testimony to his own work, whereby it comes,\nwith much assurance, a comfortable sense of God\u2019s love, peace of\nconscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which is the first-fruits and\nearnest of eternal life. But since this will be particularly insisted on\nunder a following answer[106], and farther proofs given hereof; we may,\nat present, take it for granted, that many have been assured of their\nbeing in a state of grace, who have not made the least pretension, to\ninspiration; and to charge them with enthusiasm, or a vain ungrounded\ndelusion, is to cast a reflection on the best of men, as well as on one\nof the highest privileges which we can enjoy in this world.\nI am sensible that it will be objected to this, that though some have\nindeed expressed such a degree of assurance, yet this will only afford\nconviction to those that have it, who are best judges of their own\nexperience, and the evidence whereon it is founded; but this is not a\nsufficient proof to us, with respect to whom it is only matter of\nreport: And it may be said, on the other hand, that it is possible they\nmight be mistaken who have been so sure of their own salvation.\nBut to this it may be replied, that it is very unreasonable to suppose\nthat all have been mistaken or deluded, who have declared that they have\nbeen favoured with this blessing; charity will hardly admit of such a\nsupposition; and if there be no possibility of attaining this assurance,\nthey must all have been deceived, who have concluded that they had it.\nMoreover, this privilege has been attained, not only by a few persons,\nand these the more credulous part of mankind, or by such who have not\nbeen able to assign any marks or evidences tending to support it; but\nmany believers have experienced it, who, at the same time, have been far\nfrom discovering any weakness of judgment, or disposition to\nunwarrantable credulity; yea, they have enjoyed it at such a time when\nthey have been most sensible of the deceitfulness of their own hearts,\nand could not but own that there was a peculiar hand of God herein; and\nthe same persons, when destitute of the Spirit\u2019s testimony, have\nacknowledged themselves to have used their utmost endeavours to attain\nit, but in vain.\nAs to the conviction which this will afford to us who are destitute\nhereof; that though we suppose it true to a demonstration, to those who\nhave it, as being matter of sensation to them, it is only matter of\nreport to us; which we are no farther bound to believe than we can\ndepend on the credibility of their evidence, who have declared that they\nhave experienced it. To this it may be replied, that if there be such a\nthing as certainty founded on report, which to deny, would be the\ngreatest degree of scepticism; and if this has been transmitted to us,\nby a great number of those who cannot be charged with any thing that\nlooks like a disposition to deceive either themselves or others; then we\nare bound to believe, from their own testimony, that there is such an\nassurance to be attained by those who pretend not to receive it by\nextraordinary inspiration from the Spirit of God. This leads us,\nIII. To consider the character of the persons to whom this privilege\nbelongs. Accordingly they are described in this answer, as such who\ntruly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience\nbefore him: these only have ground to expect this privilege. It is an\nassurance of our having the truth of grace that we are considering;\nwhich supposes a person truly to believe in Christ; and accordingly it\nis distinguished from that unwarrantable presumption whereby many\npersuade themselves that they shall be saved, though they be not\nsanctified. It is not _the hope of the hypocrite_ we are speaking of,\nwhich, as it is said, shall _perish_, and be _cut off; whose trust shall\nbe as the spider\u2019s web_, which shall be swept away with the besom of\ndestruction, and be like the _giving up of the ghost_, which shall end\nin everlasting despair, Job viii. 13, 14. and chap. xi. 20. but it is a\nwell-grounded hope, such as is accompanied with, and supported by the\nlife of faith; so that we are first enabled to act grace, and then to\ndiscern the truth thereof in our own souls, and accordingly reap the\ncomfortable fruits and effects that attend this assurance; as the\napostle prays in the behalf of the believing Romans, that _the God of\nhope would fill them with all joy and peace in believing_, Rom. xv. 13.\nSo that an unbeliever has no right to this privilege, and, indeed, from\nthe nature of the thing, it is preposterous for a person to be assured\nof that, which in itself has no reality, as the apostle says, _If a man\nthink himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself_,\nGal. vi. 3. And if faith be necessary to assurance, then it follows, as\nit is farther observed in this answer, that they who have attained this\nprivilege, walk in all good conscience before God; whereby the sincerity\nof their faith is evinced: Thus the apostle says, _Our rejoicing is\nthis, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly\nsincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had\nour conversation in the world_, 2 Cor. i. 12.\nIV. We are now to consider the means by which assurance is to be\nattained, _viz._ not by extraordinary revelation, but by faith, founded\non the promises of God. As to the former of these, we have already\nconsidered, that assurance may be attained without extraordinary\nrevelation, as has been experienced by some in this present dispensation\nof the gospel, in which extraordinary revelation is ceased. And, indeed,\nit may be observed, in the account the scripture gives of this\nprivilege, that it does not appear, that when extraordinary revelation\nwas granted to many, in the first age of the gospel, that the design\nthereof was to lead men into the knowledge of their own state, so as\nthat they should attain assurance of their interest in Christ, and right\nto eternal life that way. The main design of inspiration was to qualify\nministers in an extraordinary way to preach the gospel, as the necessity\nof affairs seemed then to require it; it was also necessary for the\nimparting some doctrines; which could not otherwise be known: And,\ninasmuch as it was an extraordinary dispensation of divine providence,\nit was an expedient to give conviction to the world, concerning the\ntruth of the christian religion, since God hereby was pleased to\nconverse in an immediate way with men, and testified by this, the great\nregard he had to his church, and answered the great ends of inspiration,\nin propagating that religion which was then to be set up in the world.\nBut we do not find that the work of grace was ordinarily wrought, or\ncarried on this way; nor was it God\u2019s instituted means, without which\nthey could not attain assurance, which the saints\u2019 arrived to, in that\nage of extraordinary inspiration, the same way as we are to expect to\nattain it. It is true, God has occasionally intimated, by immediate\nrevelation, that he would save some particular persons, and that their\n_names were written in the book of life_, Phil. iv. 3. but this was a\nspecial and extraordinary instance of divine condescension, that some\nshould be described by name, in scripture, who had obtained this\nprivilege; though it is not designed hereby that others should expect to\nattain it this way; and therefore it will be hard to prove that the\napostle Paul, and others whom he speaks of, who were assured of their\nsalvation, though they received the knowledge of other things by\ninspiration, were led into the knowledge of their own state in such a\nway, much less may we expect to attain assurance by extraordinary\nrevelation. And this leads us to consider the ordinary means whereby we\nmay attain it, which is, in this answer, said to be, by faith, grounded\non the truth of God\u2019s promises, and the Spirit\u2019s testimony, whereby we\nare enabled to discern in ourselves those graces which accompany\nsalvation; accordingly we must consider,\n1. That in order to our arriving to a comfortable persuasion that we\nshall be saved, there must be promises of life and salvation revealed,\nwhich are contained in the gospel; these are remotely necessary\nthereunto; for without a promise of salvation we can have no hope of it;\nbut notwithstanding these promises are contained therein, yet many are\ndestitute of it.\n2. It is also necessary, in order to our attaining assurance, that there\nshould be some marks and evidences revealed in the word of God, as a\nrule for persons to try themselves by, in order to their knowing that\nthey are in a state of grace. Now we may say concerning this, as well as\nthe former, to wit, the promises of salvation recorded, that though it\nbe necessary to assurance; yet it is only an objective means for our\nattaining it, inasmuch as we are hereby led to see what graces\nexperienced, or duties performed by us, have the promise of salvation\nannexed to them; and therefore let me add,\n3. That it is necessary that we should discern in ourselves those marks\nand evidences of grace to which the promise of salvation is annexed;\notherwise we have no right to lay claim to it; accordingly it is our\nduty to look into ourselves, and observe what marks of grace we have,\nfrom whence we may, by the Spirit\u2019s testimony with ours, discern\nourselves to be in a state of grace; which leads us to consider,\n(1.) That in order to our attaining assurance, we must exercise the duty\nof self-examination.\n(2.) What we may truly call a mark or evidence of grace, whereby we may\ndiscern that we are in a state of salvation.\n(3.) Notwithstanding this we are to depend on, hope, and pray for, the\ntestimony of the Spirit with our spirits, that we are the children of\nGod, and that these evidences are found in us.\n(1.) In order to our attaining assurance, it is necessary that we\nexercise the duty of self-examination, which is God\u2019s ordinance for this\nend. And in order hereunto, let it be considered,\n[1.] That it is certainly a duty and privilege for us to know ourselves,\nnot only what we do, but what we are; for without this, whatever\nknowledge we may have of other things, we are chargeable with great\nignorance in a matter of the highest importance; neither can we be\nsufficiently humble for those sins we commit, or thankful for the\nmercies we receive. If we reckon it an advantage to know what is done in\nthe world, and are very inquisitive into the affairs of others, it is\nmuch more necessary and reasonable for us to endeavour to know what more\nimmediately relates to ourselves; or if we are very desirous to know\nthose things that concern our natural or civil affairs in the world;\nwhether we are in prosperous or adverse circumstances therein, ought we\nnot much more to enquire, how matters stand with us, as to what concerns\na better world?\n[2.] We cannot know the state of our souls, without impartial\nself-examination. This is evident from the nature of the thing. As\nenquiry is the means for our attaining knowledge; so looking into\nourselves is a means of attaining self-acquaintance.\n[3.] Self-examination is a duty founded on a divine command, and an\nordinance appointed for our attaining the knowledge of our state. Thus\nthe apostle says, _Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove\nyour ownselves_, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. and whatever duty God has commanded us\nto engage in, as expecting any spiritual privilege to attend it, that is\nproperly an ordinance for the attaining that privilege; and if so, then\nit is an argument to enforce the performance of that duty. Having\ntherefore proved self-examination to be a christian\u2019s duty, we shall now\nconsider how it ought to be performed. And here let it be observed, that\nas it is God\u2019s ordinance, we are to have a due regard to his presence,\nand consider him as an heart searching God, and depend on his\nassistance, without which it cannot be performed to any great advantage;\nbut more particularly,\n_1st_, We are to engage in this duty deliberately. It cannot well be\nperformed while we are in an hurry of business. As every thing is\nbeautiful in its seasons, so time ought to be redeemed, and we to retire\nfrom the world, to apply ourselves to this as well as other secret\nduties, and the rather, because a rash and hasty judgment concerning any\nthing, is generally faulty, and must be reckoned an argument of weakness\nin him that passes it, and it will be much more so when the thing to be\ndetermined is of such vast importance.\n_2dly_, It ought to be done frequently; not like those things which are\nto be performed but once in our lives, or only upon some extraordinary\noccasions, but often, at least, so often, that no presumptuous sin may\nbe committed, nor any extraordinary judgment inflicted on us, or mercy\nvouchsafed to us, without a due observation thereof, in order to our\nimproving them aright to the glory of God, and our own edification:\nNevertheless, we cannot exactly determine what relates to the frequency\nof this duty, any more than we can prescribe to those who are in a way\nof trade and business in the world, how often they are to cast up their\naccounts, and set their books in order, that they may judge whether they\ngo forward or backward in the world: Notwithstanding, as the neglect\nhereof has been detrimental to many, as to their worldly affairs; so the\nneglect of self-examination has been often found an hindrance to our\ncomfortable procedure in our christian course: However, so far as we may\nadvise concerning the frequency of this duty, it would redound much to\nthe glory of God and our own advantage, if, at the close of every day,\nwe would call to mind the experiences we have had, and observe the frame\nof spirit with which we have engaged in all the business thereof. This\nthe Psalmist advises when he says, _Commune with your own heart upon\nyour bed, and be still_, Psal. iv. 4.\nMoreover, it is adviseable for us to perform this duty whenever we\nengage in other solemn stated religious duties, whether public or\nprivate, that we may know what matter we have for prayer, or praise,\nwhat help we want from God, against the prevalency of corruption or\ntemptation, or what answers of prayer we have received from him, or what\nsuccess we have had under any ordinance, in which we have engaged, as\nwell as what the present frame of our spirit is, when drawing nigh to\nGod in any holy duty.\n_3dly_, It ought to be performed with great diligence, inasmuch as it is\nno easy matter to arrive to such a knowledge of ourselves, and the\nsecret working of our hearts and affections, in what respects things\ndivine and heavenly, or to discern the truth of grace, so as not to\nmistake that for a saving work, which has only the external shew of\ngodliness, without the power of it; this requires great diligence and\nindustry to know: Accordingly the Psalmist, in speaking concerning the\nperformance of this duty, says, _I commune with mine own heart, and my\nspirit made diligent search_, Psal. lxxvii. 6. The thing to be enquired\ninto is not barely, whether we are sinners in general, or exposed to\nmany miseries in this life, as the consequence thereof? for this is\nsufficiently evident by daily experience. But we are to endeavour after\na more particular knowledge of ourselves, and accordingly are to\nenquire; whether sin hath dominion over us to such a degree, so that all\nthe powers and faculties of our souls are enslaved thereby, and we\ncommit sin in such a way, as denominates us, as our Saviour expresses\nit, _servants of sin_? John viii. 34. or, whether sin be loathed and\nabhorred, avoided and repented of? and as to our state, we are to\nenquire; whether we have ground to conclude that we are justified, and\nthereby delivered from the guilt of sin, and the condemning sentence of\nthe law? or, whether we remain in a state of condemnation, and the wrath\nof God abideth on us? We must enquire, whether the work of grace be\nreally begun, so that we are effectually called, and enabled to put\nforth spiritual actions from a renewed nature? and whether this work is\ngoing forward or declining? what is the strength or weakness of our\nfaith? Also we are to enquire, what is the general tenor of our actions?\nwhether the ends we design in all religious duties are right and\nwarrantable? whether our improvement in grace bears any proportion to\nthe means we are favoured with?\nMoreover, we are to examine ourselves; whether we perform all those\nrelative duties that are incumbent on us, so as to glorify God in our\nconversation with men, whereby we endeavour to do good to, and receive\ngood from them, and accordingly improve our talents to the glory of God,\nfrom whom we received them? These and such like things are to be\nenquired into, which will be more immediately subservient to the\nattaining this privilege of assurance.\n_4thly_, Self-examination ought to be performed with the greatest\nimpartiality. Conscience, which is to act the part of a judge and a\nwitness, must be faithful in its dictates and determinations, it being a\nmatter of the greatest importance; and therefore, in passing a judgment\non our state, we must proceed according to the rules of strict justice,\nnot denying, on the one hand, what we have received from God, or\nresolutely concluding against ourselves, that there is no hope, when\nthere are many things that afford matter of peace and comfort to us;\nnor, on the other hand, are we to think ourselves something when we are\nnothing.\nTherefore some are obliged to conclude, as the result of this enquiry,\ninto their state, that they are unregenerate and destitute of the saving\ngrace of God. This sentence persons are obliged to pass on themselves,\nwho are grossly ignorant, not sensible of the plague of their own\nhearts, and altogether unacquainted with the way of salvation by Jesus\nChrist, or the method prescribed in the gospel, for the sinner\u2019s\njustification or freedom from the guilt of sin, in a fiducial\napplication of Christ\u2019s righteousness, which is the only means conducive\nthereunto; and who know not what is included in evangelical repentance;\nhow sin is to be mortified, and what it is to depend on Christ in the\nexecution of his offices of prophet, priest, and king, at least, if they\nhave not such a degree of the knowledge of these things, though they\ncannot fully and clearly describe them, as may influence their practice,\nand excite those graces, which all true converts are enabled to\nexercise, they have ground to conclude that they are in a state of\nunregeneracy. And to this we may add, that a person must conclude\nagainst himself, that he is destitute of the grace of God, if he allows\nhimself in the omission of known duties, or the commission of known\nsins, and is content with a form of godliness, without the power\nthereof, or values and esteems the praise of men more than of God; such\nmust conclude that their hearts are not right with him.\n_5thly_, We must examine ourselves concerning our state, with a\nresolution, by the grace of God, to make a right improvement of that\njudgment which we are bound to pass on ourselves. And therefore, if we\napprehend that we are in a state of unregeneracy, we are not to sink\ninto despair; but to wait on God in all his appointed means and\nordinances, in order to our obtaining the first grace, that, by the\npowerful influences of the Spirit, there may be such a true change\nwrought in us, that we may have ground to hope better things concerning\nourselves, even things which accompany salvation. And if we find that we\nhave experienced the grace of God in truth, we may be disposed to give\nhim all the glory; to exercise a continued dependence on him, for what\nis still lacking to complete the work, and as we have received Christ\nJesus the Lord to walk in him.\n_6thly_, This duty must be performed with judgment; and accordingly we\nare to compare our hearts and actions with the rule which is prescribed\nin the word of God, whereby we may know whether we have those marks and\nevidences of grace, from whence we may conclude, that we have a good\nfoundation to build on, and that our hope is such, as shall never make\nashamed; which leads us to consider,\n(2.) What we may truly call a mark or evidence of grace, whereby we may\ndiscern that we are in a state of salvation. In order to our\nunderstanding this, we must consider,\n1. That every thing, which is a mark or evidence of a thing, must be\nmore known than that which is designed to be evinced thereby. The sign\nmust always be more known than the thing signified by it; inasmuch as it\nis a means of our knowing that which we are at present in doubt about.\nAs when the finger is placed in a cross-road, to direct the traveller\nwhich way he is to take.\n2. A mark or evidence of a thing must contain some essential property of\nthat which it is designed to evince: thus the inferring consequences\nfrom premises is an essential property belonging to every intelligent\ncreature, and to none else; therefore it is a mark or evidence thereof;\nso to design the best end, and use those means that are conducive\nthereunto, is an essential property of a wise man, and consequently a\nmark or evidence of wisdom. And, on the other hand, there are some\nthings, which are not essential properties, but accidental, as an\nhealthful constitution is to man, or a particular action, that has some\nappearance of wisdom and goodness, but not all the necessary ingredients\nthereof, to a wise or good man.\nNow to apply these rules to our present purpose, in determining what we\nmay call marks or evidences of grace. With respect to the former of\nthem, _viz._ that a mark must be more known than the thing that is\nevinced thereby; we may conclude, that eternal election, or the Spirit\u2019s\nimplanting a principle of grace in regeneration, cannot be said to be\nmarks or evidences of sanctification, since these are less known than\nthe thing designed to be evinced thereby.\nAnd as to the other rule, _viz._ that a mark must contain an essential\nproperty of that which it evinces: it follows from hence, that our\nengaging in holy duties, without the exercise of grace therein; or our\nextending charity to the poor, when it does not proceed from faith or\nlove to God, &c. is no certain evidence of the truth of grace, since a\nperson may perform these duties and yet be destitute hereof; whereas,\nthat which is essential to a thing, is inseparable from it. Thus\nconcerning marks of grace in general; which I could not but think\nnecessary to premise, inasmuch as some have entertained prejudices\nagainst all marks of grace, and seem to assert, that a believer is not\nto judge of his state thereby; than which, nothing seems more absurd. If\nthey who are thus prejudiced against them, have nothing to say in\ndefence thereof, but that some assign those things to be marks of grace\nwhich are not so, and thereby lead themselves and others, into mistakes\nabout them; what has been premised concerning the nature of a mark, or\nevidence, may, in some measure, fence against this prejudice, as well as\nprepare our way for what may be said concerning them. Therefore we\nshall, _First_, consider those things which can hardly be reckoned marks\nof grace; and, _Secondly_, what marks we may judge of ourselves by.\n_First_, As to the former of these, what are not to be reckoned marks of\ngrace.\n1. We are not to conclude that a person is in a state of grace, barely\nbecause he has a strong impression on his own spirit that he is so;\nsince that is accidental, and not essential to grace, and many are\nmistaken with respect to this matter. It is not to be doubted, but they\nwhom our Saviour represents as saying, _Lord, Lord, have we not\nprophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy\nname done many wonderful works_, Matt. vii. 2. had a strong persuasion\nfounded on this evidence, that they were in a state of grace, till they\nfound themselves mistaken, when he commanded them to _depart from him_?\nNothing is more obvious than that many presume they are something when\nthey are nothing; and, indeed, a persuasion that a person is in a state\nof grace, barely because he cannot think otherwise of himself, the thing\nbeing impressed on his spirit, without any other evidence, lays such an\none too open to the charge of enthusiasm.\n2. An external profession of religion, discovered in the performance of\nseveral holy duties, is no certain sign of the truth of grace; for this\nmany make who are not effectually called. Of such as these Christ\nspeaks, when he says, _Many are called, but few are chosen_, Matt. xx.\n16. And to this we may add, that persons may have some degree of raised\naffections, when attending on the ordinances, some sudden flashes of\njoy, when they hear of the privileges of believers, both in this and a\nbetter world; though their conversation be not agreeable to their\nconfident and presumptuous expectation thereof. And, on the other hand,\nsome have their fears very much awakened under the ordinances, as the\nsubject of their meditations has a tendency thereunto; others have such\na degree of sorrow, that it gives vent to itself in a flood of tears; as\nEsau is said to have _sought the blessing with tears_, Heb. xii. 17. but\nyet there is something else wanting to evince the truth of grace. I do\nnot deny but that it is a great blessing to have raised affections in\nholy duties; but when this is only in particular instances, and they are\nprincipally excited by some external motives or circumstances attending\nthe ordinance they are engaged in; and when the impressions made on\nthem, wear off as soon as the ordinance is over, in this case we can\nhardly determine a person to be in a state of grace hereby. The\naffections, indeed, are warmed in holy duties; but this is like an iron\nheated in the fire, which, when taken out, soon grows cold again; and\nnot like that natural heat that remains in the body of man, which is an\nabiding sign of life.\nBut since this subject is to be treated on with the utmost caution,\ninasmuch as many are apt to conclude, that they have no grace, because\nthey have no raised affections, in holy duties, as well as others\npresume they have grace merely because they are affected therein, let it\nbe farther considered; that when we speak of raised affections, not\nbeing a certain mark of grace, we consider them as being destitute of\nthose other evidences, which contain some essential properties of grace:\nthe affections are often raised by insignificant sounds, or by the tone\nof the voice, when there is nothing in the matter delivered, that is\nadapted to excite any grace, the judgment is not informed thereby, nor\nthe will persuaded to embrace Christ, as offered in the gospel. There\nmay be transports of joy in hearing the word, when, at the same time,\ncorrupt nature retains its opposition to the spirituality thereof. A\nperson may conceive the greatest pleasure in an ungrounded hope of\nheaven, as a state of freedom from the miseries of this life, when he\nhas no savour or relish of that holiness which is its glory, in which\nrespect his conversation is not in heaven; and he may be very much\nterrified with the wrath of God, and the punishment of sin in hell;\nwhen, at the same time, there is not a due sense of the vile and odious\nnature of sin, or an abhorrence of it: such instances of raised\naffections we intend when we speak of them as no marks or evidences of\nthe truth of grace. But, on the other hand, when, together with raised\naffections, there is the exercise of suitable graces, and the impression\nthereof remains, when their fervency is abated or lost, this is a good\nsign of grace; whereas, when they are not accompanied with the exercise\nof any grace, they afford no mark or evidence of the truth thereof.\nNow that we may not be mistaken as to this matter, let us enquire, not\nonly what it is that has a tendency to raise the affections; but whether\nour understandings are rightly informed in the doctrines of the gospel,\nand our wills choose and embrace what is revealed therein. And if we\nfind it a difficult matter for our affections to be raised in holy\nduties, let us farther enquire, whether this may not proceed from our\nnatural constitution? and if the passions are not easily moved with any\nother things in the common affairs of life; we have then no reason to\nconclude that our being destitute hereof in the exercise of holy duties,\nis a sign that we have not the truth of grace, especially if Christ and\ndivine things are the objects of our settled choice, and our hearts are\nfixed trusting in him.\n3. The performance of those moral duties, which are materially good, is\nno certain sign of the truth of grace; I do not say that this is not\nnecessary; for when we speak of a mark of grace, as containing in it\nwhat is essential thereunto, we distinguish between that which is a\nnecessary pre-requisite, without which, none can have grace; and that\nwhich is an essential ingredient in it. Where there is no morality,\nthere is certainly no grace; but if there be nothing more than this,\nthere is an essential ingredient wanting, by which this matter must be\ndetermined. A person may abstain from gross enormities, such as murder,\nadultery, theft, reviling, extortion, covetousness, &c. and, in many\nrespects, perform the contrary duties, and yet be destitute of faith in\nChrist. The Pharisee, whom our Saviour mentions in the gospel, had as\nmuch to say on this subject as any one; yet his heart was not right with\nGod; nor was his boasting hereof approved of by Christ. There are\nmultitudes who perform many religious duties, when it comports with\ntheir secular interests; they adhere to Christ in a time of prosperity;\nbut in a time of adversity they fall from him; and then, that which\nseemed to be most excellent in them is lost, and then they appear to be,\nwhat they always were, destitute of the truth of grace. We now proceed\nto consider,\n_Secondly_, What are those marks by which persons may safely conclude\nthemselves to be in a state of grace. In order to our determining this\nmatter, we must consider what are the true and genuine effects of faith,\nwhich we find mentioned in scripture, namely, those other graces that\naccompany or flow from it; as when it is said to _work by love_, Gal. v.\n6. or as we are hereby enabled to _overcome the world_, 1 John v. 4. or\nto despise the honours, riches, and pleasures thereof; especially when\nstanding in competition with Christ; or our hearts are thereby drawn\naside from him: this effect it produced in Moses, when he _refused to be\ncalled the son of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, choosing rather to suffer\naffliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin\nfor a season, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the\ntreasures in Egypt_, Heb. xi. 24-26. and in others, who _confessed that\nthey were strangers and pilgrims on the earth_, ver. 13, 16. who\n_desired a better country_, that is, _an heavenly_; whose _conversation\nwas in heaven_, Phil. iii. 10. Moreover, we are to enquire whether it\nhas a tendency to _purify the heart_, Acts xv. 9. and so puts us upon\nabhorring, flying from, watching, and striving against every thing that\ntends to corrupt and defile the soul! and whether it tends to excite us\nto universal obedience, which is called _the obedience of faith_, Rom.\nxvi. 26. and a carefulness to _maintain good works_, Tit. iii. 6. which\nproceed from, and are evidences of the truth of it? as the apostle says,\n_Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by\nmy works_, James ii. 18. or, as our Saviour says, _The tree is known by\nhis fruit_. But that we may more particularly judge of the truth of\ngrace by the marks and evidences thereof, we must consider its beginning\nand progress, or with what frame of spirit we first embraced and closed\nwith Christ; and what our conversation has been since that time.\n1. As to the former of these, to wit, our judging of the truth of grace\nby the first beginning thereof. Here we are to enquire, what were the\nmotives and inducements that inclined us to accept of Christ? Did we\nfirst see ourselves lost and undone, as sinful, fallen creatures; and\nwere we determined hereupon to have recourse to him for salvation, as\nthe only refuge we could betake ourselves to? Did we first consider\nourselves as guilty; and did this guilt set very uneasy upon us; and in\norder to the removal of it, did we betake ourselves to Christ for\nforgiveness? and did we consider ourselves as weak and unable to do what\nis good, and so apply ourselves to him for strength against indwelling\nsin, and victory over the temptations which prevailed against us?\nMoreover, let us enquire, whether it was only a slavish fear and dread\nof the wrath of God, and the punishment of sin in hell, that gave the\nfirst turn to our thoughts and affections, so as to put us on altering\nour course of life? or, whether, besides this, we saw the evil of sin\narising from its intrinsic nature, and its opposition to the holiness of\nGod; and was this attended with shame and self-abhorrence? and, at the\nsame time, did we see the excellency and loveliness of Christ? was he\n_precious_ to us _as he is to them that believe_? 1 Pet. ii. 7.\nAgain, let us farther enquire, what were the workings of our spirits\nwhen we first closed with Christ? did we do this with judgment, duly\nweighing what he demands of us in a way of duty, as well as what we are\nencouraged to expect from him? were we made willing to accept of him in\nall his offices, and to have respect to all his commandments? were we\nearnestly desirous to have communion with him here, as well as to be\nglorified with him hereafter? were we content to submit to the cross of\nChrist, to bear his reproach, and to count this preferable to all the\nglories of the world? were we willing to be conformed to an humbled\nsuffering Jesus, and to take our lot with his servants, though they may\nbe reckoned the refuse and off-scouring of all things? And let us\nfarther enquire; whether we did this with reliance on his assistance, as\nbeing sensible of the treachery and deceitfulness of our own hearts, and\nour utter inability to do what is good, without the aids of his grace?\ndid we accordingly give up ourselves to him in hope of obtaining help\nfrom him, in order to the right discharge of every duty? did we reckon\nourselves nothing, and Christ to be all in all, that all our springs are\nin him? This was a good beginning of the work of grace, which will\nprepare the way for this grace of assurance, which we are now\nconsidering.\n_Obj._ Some will object against what has been said concerning our\nenquiring into, or being able to discern the first acts of faith, or\nthat frame of spirit wherewith we then closed with Christ, that they\nknow not the time of their conversion, if ever they were converted; they\ncannot remember or determine what was the particular ordinance or\nprovidence, that gave them the first conviction of sin, and of their\nneed of Christ, and induced them to close with him; much less can they\ntell what were the workings of their hearts at such a time: It is\nimpossible for them to trace the footsteps of providence, so as to point\nout the way and manner in which this work was at first begun in their\nsouls. This therefore is not to be laid down as a mark or evidence of\ngrace, which so few can make use of.\n_Answ._ I am not insensible that this is the case of the greatest number\nof believers. There are very few, who, like the apostle Paul, can tell\nthe time and place of their conversion, and every circumstance leading\nto it; or like those converts, who, when the gospel was first preached\nby Peter, _were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the\nrest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?_ Acts ii. 37.\nor like the jailor, who broke forth into an affectionate enquiry, not\nmuch unlike to it; _Sirs, what must I do to be saved?_ chap. xvi. 30.\nthough the ordinance leading to it was of a different nature. Sometimes,\nthe way of the Spirit of God in the soul at first, is so discernable,\nthat it cannot but be observed by them who are brought into a state of\ngrace; but others know nothing of this, especially they who have not run\ninto all excess of riot, and been stopped in their course on a sudden,\nby the grace of God; in whom the change made in conversion, was real,\nthough it could not, from the nature of the thing be so plainly\ndiscerned in all its circumstances. Some have been regenerate from the\nwomb; others have had a great degree of restraining grace, and been\ntrained up in the knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel from their\nvery childhood, and retain the impressions of a religious education;\nthese cannot so easily discern the first beginnings of the work of grace\nin their souls; yet they may, and ought to enquire, whether ever they\nfound, in the course of their lives, such a frame of spirit as has been\nbefore described, which believers have when the work of grace is first\nbegun, and it is not very material for them to be able to discern\nwhether these were the first actings of grace or no? The main thing to\nbe determined is; whether they have ground to conclude, that ever they\nexperienced the grace of God in truth? In this case, the most that some\ncan say concerning themselves, is as the blind man says in the gospel,\nwhen the Pharisees were inquisitive about the restoring his sight, and\nthe way and manner in which this was done; this is all that I know\nconcerning myself, that _whereas I was blind, now I see_, John ix. 25.\nso the true convert says; whereas I was once dead in trespasses and\nsins, I am now alive, and enabled to put forth living and spiritual\nactions, to the glory of God. This evidence will give as much ground to\nconclude that they are in a state of grace, as though they were able to\ndetermine when they were first brought into it.\n2. We may judge of the truth of grace by the method in which it has been\ncarried on, whether we are able to determine the way and manner in which\nit was first begun, or no, as a farther evidence of the truth thereof.\nSanctification is a progressive work; therefore it is not enough for us\nto set our faces heaven-ward; but we must make advances towards it, and\nbe found in the daily exercise of grace, in order to our concluding that\nwe are in a state of grace. A believer must not only set out in the\nright way, but he must hold on therein; he must live by faith if he\nwould conclude that the work of faith is begun in truth. It is not\nsufficient to call upon God, or implore help from him, when under some\ndistressing providences, and afterwards to grow remiss in, or lay aside\nthis duty; but it must be our constant work. A true christian is\ndistinguished from an hypocrite, in that it is said, concerning the\nlatter, _Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call\nupon God?_ Job xxvii. 20. denoting that a true believer will do so. He\nis either habitually or actually inclined to it; and that in such a way\nas is attended with the daily exercise of those graces, which are the\nfruits and effects of faith, whereby he may conclude that he is in a\nstate of grace. Thus far we have considered those marks or evidences of\ngrace, which, in order to our attaining assurance, we must be able to\ndiscern in ourselves. But inasmuch as a believer may understand what are\nthe marks of grace contained in scripture, and, at the same time,\nenquire into the state of his soul, to know whether he can apprehend in\nhimself any evidences of the truth of grace; and not be able to arrive\nto a satisfaction as to this matter, so as to have his doubts and fears\nremoved; let it be considered,\n3. That he must depend on, hope, and pray for the testimony of the\nSpirit, with his spirit, that he is a child of God. It will be a\ndifficult matter for us to conclude that we have the truth of grace,\ntill the Spirit is pleased to shine on his own work; which, when he\ndoes, all things will appear clear and bright to us, though before this\nwe might walk in darkness, and have no light. In speaking concerning the\ninward testimony of the Spirit (which is necessary to enable a believer\nto discern in himself the marks of grace, on which his assurance of\nsalvation is founded) let it be premised; that as it is a branch of the\nSpirit\u2019s divine glory, by his internal influence, to deal with the\nhearts of his people; so he does this various ways, according to the\nvarious faculties of the soul, which are the subjects thereof;\nparticularly, when by his power, he renews the will, and causes it to\nact those graces which are the effects of his divine power; then he is\nsaid to sanctify a believer. But when he deals with the understanding\nand conscience, enabling us to discern the truth of the work of grace,\nthat we may take the comfort of it, then he is described, in scripture,\nas a witness hereunto, or as witnessing with our spirits, that we are in\na state of grace, the consequence of which is, that _the eyes of_ our\n_understanding being enlightened_, we _may know what is the hope of his\ncalling_, Eph. i. 18. accordingly he gives us to discern that he has\ncalled us by his grace; and, as the result thereof, granted us a hope of\neternal life.\nThis is a privilege plainly mentioned in scripture; and we must not\nsuppose that none had it but those who had extraordinary revelation,\nsince it is so necessary to a believer\u2019s attaining that peace and joy\nwhich the church, in this present dispensation, is certainly not less\npossessed of, than it was in former ages. And that the Spirit gives his\ntestimony to the work of grace in the souls of believers, though\nextraordinary revelation be ceased, is evident from what is matter of\ndaily experience; since there are many instances of those who have used\ntheir utmost endeavours in examining themselves, to know whether they\nhad any marks of grace, who have not been able to discern any, though\nthey have been thought to be sincere believers by others, till, on a\nsudden, light has broke forth out of darkness, and their evidences for\neternal life cleared up, so that all their doubts have been removed; and\nthis they could not but attribute to a divine hand, inasmuch as before\nthis they could meditate nothing but terror to themselves; and, in this\ncase, what the apostle prays for, with respect to the church, _That the\nGod of hope would fill them with all joy and peace in believing, that\nthey might abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost_, Rom.\nxv. 13. is experienced by them: And on this account they are said, to be\n_sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise_, Eph. i. 13. whereby their\nhope is established, and that is now confirmed to them by this means,\nwhich they were before in perplexity about; so that we have as much\nground to conclude that the Spirit is the author of assurance in\nbelievers, as we have that he is the author of sanctification.\nBut that this doctrine may not appear liable to the charge of\nenthusiasm, let it be farther considered, that the Spirit never gives\nhis testimony to the truth of grace in any, in whom he has not first\nwrought it; for that would be, as it were, a setting his seal to a\nblank. And to this we may add, that he, at the same time, excites the\nlively exercise of grace, whereby they are enabled to discern that it is\ntrue and genuine; so that their assurance, though it be not without some\ninternal, impressive influences, which they are favoured with; yet it is\nnot wholly dependent on them: Therefore, if you demand a reason of the\nhope that is in them, though they ascribe the glory hereof to the Holy\nSpirit, as enabling them to discern the truth of grace; yet they are\nable to prove their ownselves, after having examined themselves, whether\nthey are in the faith, by discovering their evidences of the faith of\nGod\u2019s elect; which argues that their assurance is no delusion.\nFootnote 104:\n  _See Quest._ lxvii: _Pag. 15 ante._\nFootnote 105:\n  _See page 54, 55, ante._\nFootnote 106:\n  _See Quest._ lxxxiii.\n    QUEST. LXXXI. _Are all true believers, at all times, assured of\n    their present being in the estate of grace; and that they shall be\n    saved?_\n    ANSW. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of\n    faith, true believers may wait long before they obtain it; and after\n    the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted through\n    manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions; yet are they\n    never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God,\n    as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.\nHaving considered some believers as favoured with assurance of their\nbeing in a state of grace, we are, in this answer, led to speak of\nothers who are destitute of it. And the general method in which it may\nbe considered, is,\nI. That there is something supposed, namely, that assurance of grace and\nsalvation is not of the essence of saving faith.\nII. Some things are inferred from this supposition, namely,\n1. That true believers may wait long before they obtain assurance. And,\n2. That after the enjoyment thereof it may be weakened and intermitted;\nthe reasons whereof are assigned, _viz._ bodily distempers, sins,\ntemptations, and divine desertions; yet it is farther added, that they\nare never left without the support of the Spirit of God; whereby they\nare kept from sinking into utter despair.\nI. As to the thing supposed in this answer, _viz._ that assurance of\ngrace and salvation is not of the essence of faith. There are many who,\nin other respects, explain the nature of faith, in such a way as is\nunexceptionable, who, notwithstanding, assert that assurance is of the\nessence thereof; in which we cannot but think they express themselves\nvery unwarily, at least, they ought to have more clearly discovered what\nthey mean by faith, and what by assurance, being of the essence of\nfaith; if they mean that no one has saving faith but he who has an\nassurance of his own salvation; they not only assert what is contrary to\nthe experience of many believers, but lay a stumbling-block in the way\nof weak Christians, who will be induced from hence to conclude, that\nbecause they cannot tell whether they are true believers or no,\ntherefore they are destitute of saving faith; upon which account it is\nnecessary for us to enquire how far this supposition is to be allowed\nof, and in what respect denied.\nIt is certain, that there are many excellent divines, in our own and\nforeign nations, who have defined faith by assurance; which they have\nsupposed so essential to it, that without it no one can be reckoned a\nbeliever. It may be they might be inclined thus to express themselves by\nthe sense in which they understood several texts of scripture, in which\nassurance seems to be considered as a necessary ingredient in faith; as\nit is said, _Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of\nfaith_, Heb. x. 22. and when the apostle speaks of assurance, as a\nprivilege that belonged to the church to which he wrote, _We know that\nif our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a\nbuilding of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens_,\n2 Cor. v. 1. and elsewhere, he so far blames their not knowing\nthemselves, or being destitute of this assurance, that he will hardly\nallow them to have any faith, who were without it; _Know ye not your\nownselves, how that Jesus, Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates_,\nchap. xiii. 5. From such like expressions as these, they who plead for\nassurance being of the essence of faith, are ready to conclude, that\nthey who are destitute of it, can hardly be called believers.\nBut, that this matter may be set in a true light, we must distinguish\nbetween assurance of the object, _viz._ the great and important\ndoctrines of the gospel, being of the essence of faith; and assurance of\nour interest in Christ being so. The former of these we will not deny;\nfor no one can come to Christ, who is not assured that he will receive\nhim, nor trust in him till he is fully assured that he is able to save\nhim: but the latter we must take leave to deny; for if no one is a\nbeliever but he that knows himself to be so, then he that doubts of his\nsalvation, must be concluded to be no believer; which is certainly a\nvery discouraging doctrine to weak Christians. And also, when we lose\nthe comfortable persuasion we once had, of our interest in Christ, we\nare bound to question all our former experiences, and to determine\nourselves to be in a state of unregeneracy, which is, in effect to deny\nto give God the glory of that powerful work which was formerly wrought\nin us, which we then thought to be a work of grace.\nIf they, indeed, mean by assurance, being of the essence of faith, that\nan assurance of our interest in Christ is essential to the highest or\nmost comfortable acts of faith, designing thereby to put us upon\npressing after it, if we have not attained to it; and that hereby God is\nvery much glorified, and a foundation laid for our offering praise to\nhim, for the experience we have had of his grace, which a doubting\nChristian cannot be said to do; we have nothing to say against it. Or,\nif they should assert, that doubting is no ingredient in faith, nor a\ncommendable excellency in a Christian; this we do not deny. All that we\nare contending for is, that there may be a direct act of faith, or a\nfaith of reliance, in those who are destitute of assurance that they are\nin a state of grace; which is the thing supposed in this answer, when it\nis said, that assurance is not of the essence of faith. That this may be\nbetter understood, and we be led into the sense of those scriptures that\ndescribe believers as having assurance, such as those but now mentioned,\nand others to the like purpose, let it be considered, that there are\nmany scriptures, in which believers are said to have such an assurance,\nas only respects the objects of faith, _viz._ the person, offices, and\nglory of Christ, the truth of the gospel, and the promises thereof;\nwhich we do not deny to be of the essence of faith. Thus, when the\napostle prays for the church, _That their hearts might be comforted,\nbeing knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance\nof understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of\nthe Father, and of Christ_, Col. ii. 2. and when elsewhere he says, _Our\ngospel came to you in much assurance_, 1 Thess, i. 5. and when he\nexhorts persons to _draw near_ to God, _with a true heart, in full\nassurance of faith_, Heb. x. 22. it is probable, that he means in these,\nand several other scriptures of the like import, no more than an\nassurance of the object of faith. And as for that scripture but now\nmentioned, in 2 Cor. xiii. 5. where he seems to assert, that all who are\ndestitute of this privilege are reprobates; some understand the word,\nwhich we translate _reprobates_, as only signifying injudicious\nChristians; and if so, this is not inconsistent with the character of\nbelievers: but others, with an equal degree of probability, render it\n_disapproved_;[107] and so the meaning is, that if you know not your\nownselves, to wit, that Christ is in you, you are greatly to be blamed,\nor disapproved; especially because this proceeds from your neglect of\nthe duty of self-examination; by which means you have no proof of\nChrist\u2019s being in you, who are so ready to demand a proof of his\nspeaking in his ministers, as in verse 3. Therefore it does not appear\nfrom this text, that every one who endeavours to know that he is in a\nstate of grace, by diligent self-examination, but cannot conclude that\nhe is so, must be determined to be destitute of faith; which would\nnecessarily follow from our asserting that assurance of our interest in\nChrist, is of the essence of saving faith.\nThere are other scriptures which speak of assurance as a distinguishing\ncharacter of Christians in general; which are usually brought to prove,\nthat assurance is of the essence of faith, _viz._ 2 Cor. v. 1. _We know\nthat if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a\nbuilding of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens_;\nand, 1 John v. 19. _we know that we are of God_: and in several places\nin the New Testament, in which the apostle addresses his discourse to\nwhole churches, as having assurance, as well as the grace of faith: thus\nthe apostle Peter, 1 Pet. i. 8, 9. speaks of them as _loving Christ,\nbelieving in him, rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory, and\nreceiving the end of their faith, even the salvation of their soul_;\nwhich could hardly be said of them, if they were destitute of assurance\nof their own salvation. All that I would infer from these and such-like\nscriptures is, that it seems probable that assurance was a privilege\nmore commonly experienced in that age of the church than it is in our\nday; and there may be two reasons assigned for this,\n(1.) Because the change that passed upon them, when they were converted,\nwas so apparent, that it was hardly possible for it not to be discerned.\nThey turned from dead idols, and the practice of the vilest\nabominations, to serve the living God; which two extremes are so\nopposite, that their being brought from one to the other could not but\nbe remarked by, and consequently more visible to themselves, than if it\nhad been otherwise; but,\n(2.) That which may be assigned as the principal reason of this is,\nbecause the church was called, at this time, to bear a public testimony\nto the gospel, by enduring persecutions of various kinds; and some of\nthem were to resist unto blood. Therefore, that God might prepare them\nfor these sufferings, and that he might encourage others to embrace the\nfaith of the gospel, which was then in its infant state, he was pleased\nto favour them with this great privilege. And it may be hereafter, if\nGod should call the church to endure like trials, he may in mercy grant\nthem a greater degree of assurance than is ordinarily experienced.\nNevertheless, it may be questioned; whether those scriptures which speak\nof assurance, as though it were a privilege common to the whole church,\nare not to be understood as applicable to the greater part of them,\nrather than to every individual believer among them. For though the\napostle, in one of the scriptures before-mentioned, considers the church\nat Corinth, as enjoying this privilege, and concluding that it should go\nwell with them in another world, when this earthly tabernacle was\ndissolved; yet he speaks of some of them, in the same epistle, as not\nknowing their ownselves, how that Jesus Christ was in them. And the\napostle John, notwithstanding what he says to the church, _We knew that\nwe are of God_, in 1 John v. 19. which argues that many of them had\nassurance, plainly intimates that all had it not, from what he says,\nver. 13. _These things have I written unto you, that believe on the name\nof the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life_: and\nthough in another scripture, but now mentioned, the apostle Peter speaks\nto the church to which he writes, as having _joy unspeakable and full of\nglory_ consequent upon their faith, which argues that they had\nassurance; yet he exhorts others of them _to give diligence to make\ntheir calling and election sure_, 2 Pet. i. 10. these therefore are\nsupposed, at that time, not to have it: from all which it may be\nconcluded, that assurance of grace and salvation, is not of the essence\nof saving faith; which is the thing supposed in this answer.[108]\nII. We proceed to consider those things that are inferred from this\nsupposition, viz.\n1. That a believer may wait long before he attains it: this appears from\nwhat is matter of daily experience and observation. The sovereignty of\nGod discovers itself herein, as much as it does when he makes the\nordinances effectual to salvation, in giving converting grace unto those\nwho attend upon them. Some are called early to be made partakers of that\nsalvation that is in Christ, others late. The same may be said with\nrespect to God\u2019s giving assurance. Some are favoured with this privilege\nsoon after, or when first they believe; others are like those whom the\napostle speaks of, _who, through fear of death, are all their life-time\nsubject to bondage_, Heb. ii. 15. Many have often enquired into the\nstate of their souls, that cannot discern any marks or evidences of\ngrace in themselves; whose conversation is such, that others cannot but\nconclude them to be true believers; their spirits are deprest, doubts\nand fears prevail, and tend to make their lives very uncomfortable; they\nwait and pray for the evidence and sense of God\u2019s love to them, but\ncannot immediately find it: this the Psalmist speaks of, either in his\nown person, or thereby represents the case of many who had the truth of\ngrace, but not the assurance thereof, when he says, _O Lord God of my\nsalvation, I have cried day and night before thee; I am afflicted and\nready to die from my youth up; while I suffer thy terrors I am\ndistracted_, Psal. lxxxviii. compared with the xv. God suffers it to be\nthus with them for wise ends. Hereby he lets them know, that assurance\nof his love is a special gift and work of the Spirit; without which they\nremain destitute of it, and cannot take comfort, either from their\nformer or present experiences.\n2. They who once enjoyed assurance, may have it weakened and\nintermitted; whether it may be entirely lost will be considered under a\nfollowing head, when we speak concerning the supports that believers\nhave, and how far they are kept hereby from sinking into utter despair:\nit is one thing to fall from the truth of grace, another thing to lose\nthe comfortable sense thereof. The joy of faith may be suspended, when\nthe acts and habits of faith remain firm and unshaken. The brightest\nmorning may afterwards be followed with clouds and tempests; even so our\nclearest discoveries of our interest in the love of God may be followed\nwith the withdrawment of the light of his countenance, and we be left\nunder many discouraging circumstances concerning our state, having lost\nthe assurance we once had.\nIf it be inquired, what reason may be assigned for this? I answer, that\nit must, in a great measure, be resolved into the sovereignty of God,\nwho will bring his people which way he pleases, to heaven; and may take\nthose comforts which had their first rise from himself; and, at the same\ntime, none must say, why dost thou thus? However, we may observe some\nparticular reasons, which the providence of God points out to us, to\nwhich we may in other respects, ascribe our want of assurance; and these\nmay be reduced to four heads, particularly mentioned in this answer.\n(1.) It is sometimes occasioned by manifold distempers, or bodily\ndiseases: the soul and body are so closely joined to, and dependant on\neach other, that the one can hardly suffer without the other. Hence it\nis that bodily distempers affect the mind, excite and give disturbance\nto the passions; which is a great addition to the uneasiness that ensues\nhereupon. When the spirits are deprest, and we are under the prevalency\nof a melancholy disposition, we are oftentimes inclined to think that we\nare not in a state of grace; and though we were before this disposed to\ncomfort others in like cases, we are at this time unable to take the\nleast encouragement ourselves. All things look black and dismal; our\nformer hope is reckoned no other than delusive, and we brought to the\nvery brink of despair. And it may be observed, that these sad and\nmelancholy apprehensions concerning our state, increase or abate, as the\ndistemper that gives occasion thereunto more or less prevails.\nNow that we may be able to determine whether our want of assurance\nproceeds from some natural cause or bodily distemper, we must enquire;\nwhether, before this, we have endeavoured to walk in all good conscience\nin the sight of God? to hate every false way, and make religion the\ngreat business of life, so that we cannot assign any reigning sin as the\ncause of our present desponding frame? And also, whether we have been\ndiligent in performing the duty of self-examination, and have been\nsensible that we stood in need of the Spirit\u2019s witness with ours, in\norder to our arriving to a comfortable persuasion that we are in a state\nof grace? And if, as the result of these enquiries, we cannot see any\ncause leading to this dejection of spirit, but the unavoidable\ninfirmities, which we are daily liable to, then we may probably\nconclude, that it arises from a distemper of body. And, in order to our\ndetermining this matter, we must farther inquire; whether some\nafflictive providence has not had an influence upon us, to bring us into\na melancholy temper? and whether this does not appear in what relates to\nour secular, as well as our spiritual concerns? and if this be the case,\nthough it be very afflictive, it is not attended with that guilt as it\nwould be, had it been occasioned by some presumptuous sin; and there are\nother medicines to be used when it arises from this cause, besides those\nwhich are of a spiritual nature, that are contained in the gospel; but\nwhat they are, it is not our business, in this place, to determine.\n(2.) There are many sins which are the occasion of a person\u2019s being\ndestitute of assurance. As all the troubles of life are brought upon us\nby sin; so are all our doubts and fears, arising from the want of a\ncomfortable sense of, or interest in, the love of God. It pleases God,\nin the method of his providence, thus to deal with his people, that he\nmay humble them for presumptuous sins; more especially those that are\ncommitted against light and conviction of conscience, that he may bring\nto remembrance their sins of omission, or neglect to exercise those\ngraces in which the life of faith consists, that hereby they may feel\nthe effect of their stupidity, indifferency, and carnal security, or\ntheir engaging in religious duties, in their own strength, without\ndependence on the Spirit and grace of God, or a due sense of their\ninability to perform any duty in a right way. Or, sometimes, as has been\nbefore observed, they want assurance, because they do not examine\nthemselves, which is God\u2019s ordinance for the attaining this privilege;\nor, if they do, they neglect to give that glory to the Holy Spirit which\nis due to him, by depending on his enlightening influence, whereby they\nmay arrive to a comfortable persuasion of their interest in Christ.\n(3.) Assurance is oftentimes weakened and intermitted through manifold\ntemptations. Satan is very active in this matter, and shews his enmity\nagainst the interest of Christ in the souls of his people, as much as\nlies in his power, with this intent, that though it is impossible for\nhim to ruin the soul, by rooting out that grace that is implanted in it;\nyet he may disturb its peace, and weaken its assurance, and, if not\nprevented, hurry it into despair. In this case the general design of his\ntemptations is to represent God as a sin-revenging Judge, a consuming\nfire, and to present to our view, the threatenings whereby his wrath is\nrevealed against sinners; and to endeavour to set aside the promises of\nthe gospel, from which alone relief may be had.\nMoreover, he puts us upon considering sin, not only as heinously\naggravated, (which may, for the most part be done with justice) but also\nas altogether unpardonable; and, at the same time pretends to insinuate\nto us that we are not elected, or that Christ did not die for us; and\ntherefore, what he has done and suffered will not redound to our\nadvantage. Now there is apparently the hand of Satan in this matter;\ninasmuch as he attempts, by false methods of reasoning, to persuade us\nthat we are not in a state of grace, or that God is an enemy to us; and\ntherefore our condition is desperate; in which he uses the arts of the\nold serpent, that he may deceive us by drawing conclusions against\nourselves from false premises, _e. g._ because we daily experience the\ninternal workings of corrupt nature, which inclines us to many sins,\nboth of omission and commission; therefore there is no room for us to\nexpect mercy and forgiveness from God. And from our barrenness and\nunprofitableness under the means of grace, our improvements not being\nproportioned to the obligations we have been laid under. Or because we\nhave had great reason to charge ourselves with many declensions and\nbackslidings, which afford matter for deep humiliation, and should put\nus upon sincere repentance, he endeavours to persuade us that we are\naltogether destitute of special grace. And whenever we are unprepared or\nindisposed for the right performance of holy duties, and our affections\nare not suitably raised, but grow stupid, remiss, and careless therein;\nhe puts us upon concluding that it is a vain thing for us to draw nigh\nto God, and that he has utterly rejected, both our persons and services.\nOr, if we are not favoured with immediate returns of prayer, and\nsensible communion with God therein; he tempts us to infer, that we\nshall never obtain the blessing we are pressing after; and therefore we\nmay as well lay aside this duty, and say, why should I wait on the Lord\nany longer? And if by this method he cannot discourage us from engaging\nin holy duties, he sometimes injects blasphemous thoughts or unbecoming\nconceptions of the divine Majesty, which fills the soul with the\ngreatest grief and uneasiness, that hereby he might give us occasion to\nconclude that we sin in persisting therein; and by all these temptations\nhe endeavours to plunge us into the depths of despair.\nAs to what concerns the purpose of God relating to the event of things:\nwhen we are led to determine that we are not elected, this is alleged\nwithout sufficient ground, and therein he deceives us, by pursuing the\nsame false methods of reasoning, and puts us upon presuming to enter\ninto those secret things which do not belong to us, because we deserve\nto be cast off by him for our sins, instead of giving diligence to make\nour calling and election sure. It is one thing not to be able to\nconclude that we are elected; and another thing to say that we are not\nso: the former of these is the consequence of our present doubts and\ndesponding apprehensions concerning our state; the latter is plainly a\ntemptation of Satan: this we are often subject to, when we have lost\nthat assurance of our interest in Christ that we once enjoyed,\n(4.) A believer\u2019s want of assurance is, for the most part, attended\nwith, and arises from divine desertion; not that we are to suppose that\nGod will cast off his people, whom he has foreknown, effectually called\nand preserved hitherto, so as to forsake them utterly; for that is\ninconsistent with his everlasting love, and the promises of the covenant\nof grace, which respect their salvation. But that which we understand by\ndivine desertions, is God\u2019s withdrawing his comforting presence, and\nwithholding the witness of his Spirit to the work of grace in the soul,\nfrom whence arises those doubts and fears which attend the want thereof;\nas God says to his people, _For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but\nwith great mercies will I gather thee_, Isa. liv. 7. In this respect\nthey are destitute of God\u2019s comforting presence; though at the same time\nthey may be favoured with his supporting presence, and those powerful\ninfluences which are necessary to maintain the work of grace; which, at\npresent, appears to be very weak and languishing.\nAnd this leads us to consider the last thing mentioned in this answer,\n_viz._ That though they are thus described, they are not left without\nsuch a presence and support of the Spirit of God, as keeps them from\nsinking into utter despair. This observation ought to be explained and\nconsidered, with certain limitations, lest while on the one hand, we\nassert that which affords matter of encouragement to believers, when\nthey have some degree of hope, we should, on the other hand, throw\ndiscouragements in the way of others, who will be apt to imagine, when\nthey are ready to sink into despair, that this is wholly inconsistent\nwith any direct act of faith. I dare not say that no believer was ever\nso far deserted as to be left to despair of his interest in Christ:\ninasmuch as scripture and daily experience give us instances of some,\nwhose conversation in many respects discovers them to have had the truth\nof grace; whom God has been pleased for wise ends, to leave to the\nterror of their own thoughts, and they have remained for some time, in\nthe depths of despair; and others have gone out of the world under a\ncloud, concerning whom there has been ground to hope their state was\nsafe. Therefore it is somewhat difficult to determine what is meant in\nthis answer, by a believer\u2019s being kept from sinking into utter despair:\nif the meaning is, that they have the supports of the Spirit of God, so\nas to be kept from relapsing into a state of unregeneracy, in their\ndespairing condition, that may be easily accounted for; or, if we are to\nunderstand by it, that believers are not generally given up to the\ngreatest degree of despair; especially such as is inconsistent with the\nexercise of any grace, that is not to be denied. But I would rather say,\nthat though a believer may have despairing apprehensions concerning his\nstate, and the guilt of sin lie upon him like a great weight, so as to\ndepress his spirits, yet he shall not sink into endless misery; for\nthough darkness may continue for a night, light and joy shall come in\nthe morning; and accordingly we may consider,\n[1.] That though there are many who are far from having assurance, yet\nthey are at some times, favoured with a small glimmering of hope, which\nkeeps them from utter despair.\n[2.] If they are in deep despair, yet they are not so far left as not to\ndesire grace, though they conclude themselves to be destitute of it, or\nnot to lament the loss of those comforts, and their being unable to\nexercise those graces which once they thought themselves possessed of.\n[3.] A believer, when in a despairing way, is notwithstanding enabled,\nby a direct act of faith, to give up himself to Christ, though he cannot\nsee his interest in him, and so, long for those experiences and comforts\nwhich he once enjoyed; and when he is at the worst, he can say with Job,\n_Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him_, Job xiii. 15.\n[4.] In this case a person has generally such a degree of the presence\nof God, as that he is enabled to justify him in all his dealings with\nhim, and lay the blame of all the troubles that he is under, on himself;\nand this is attended with shame and confusion of face, self-abhorrence,\nand godly sorrow.\n[5.] Despairing believers have, notwithstanding, such a presence of God\nwith them, as keeps them from abandoning his interest, or running, with\nsinners, into all excess of riot, which would give occasion to others to\nconclude that they never had the truth of grace.\nFrom what has been said concerning true believers being destitute of\nassurance, and yet having some degree of the presence of God with them\nat the same time, we may infer,\n_1st_, That this is not inconsistent with what has been said concerning\na believer\u2019s perseverance in grace; yet it must be considered with this\nlimitation, that though the truth of grace shall not be lost, yet the\ncomforts and evidences thereof may, and often are.\n_2dly_, This should put us upon circumspect walking and watchfulness\nagainst presumptuous sins, which, as has been before observed, are often\nthe occasion of the loss of assurance; and also on the exercise of a\nfaith of reliance on Christ, for the maintaining the acts of grace, as\nwell as restoring the comforts thereof.\n_3dly_, This should instruct believers what to do when destitute of this\nprivilege of assurance. We have observed that this is attended with\ndivine desertion, which is generally occasioned by sins committed.\nTherefore let us say with Job, _Shew me wherefore thou contendest with\nme_, chap. x. 2. let me know what are those secret sins by which I have\nprovoked thee to leave me destitute of thy comforting presence; enable\nme to be affected with, humbled for, and unfeignedly repent of them; and\nexercise that faith in Christ which may be a means of my recovering that\nhope or assurance which I am, at present, destitute of.\n_4thly_, What has been said concerning a believer\u2019s being destitute of\nassurance, should put us upon sympathizing with those who are in a\ndespairing way, and using endeavours to administer comfort to them,\nrather than censure them, or conclude them to be in an unregenerate\nstate; as Job\u2019s friends did him, because the hand of God had touched\nhim, and he was destitute of his comforting presence.\n_5thly_, From what has been said concerning that degree of the presence\nof God which believers enjoy, which has a tendency to keep them from\nutter despair, at least, from sinking into perdition, how disconsolate\nsoever their case may be at present; we may be induced to admire the\ngoodness and faithfulness of God in his dealings with his people, who\nwill not lay more on them than he will enable them to bear; though they\nare comfortless and hopeless, yet they shall not be destroyed; and, in\nthe end, they shall be satisfied with God\u2019s loving kindness; and when\nthe clouds are all dispersed, they shall have a bright and glorious day\nin his immediate presence, where _there is fulness of joy_, and at his\n_right hand_ where _there are pleasures for evermore_, Psal. xvi. 11.\nFootnote 107:\n  _The word_ \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, _though it be sometimes used to signify such as\n  are rejected as objects of God\u2019s hatred, as in Heb._ vi. 8. _and\n  consequently is inconsistent with the character of believers; yet, in\n  other places it may be taken according to the grammatical construction\n  thereof, as opposed to_ \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9; _which signifies persons approved_, 2\n  Tim. ii. 15. _and so it signifies a person whose conduct is\n  blame-worthy, or whose actions are not to be approved of; and this may\n  be applied to some who are not altogether destitute of faith_, _though\n  they are not able to vindicate themselves in all respects as\n  blameless. That the apostle uses the word in this sense here, seems\n  probable from the application he makes of it to himself; it is said,\n  ver. 3._ Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5;\n  _and verse 6. he says_, I trust that ye shall know that we are not\n  reprobates; _so we render the words_ \u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5 o\u03c4\u03b9 h\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9; _but it would be more agreeable to what is said in\n  verse 4. if we should render them, I trust that ye shall know that we\n  are not disapproved, or that ye shall find a proof of Christ speaking\n  in us: and in verse 7. he farther says_, I pray to God, not that we\n  should appear approved. \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 i\u03bd\u03b1 h\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, _that is, I am\n  not so much concerned about your finding a proof of Christ speaking in\n  us_; but that ye should do that which is honest, _q. d._ _I am more\n  concerned for you than myself, though we be as reprobates_, h\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\n  w\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd _that is, whether you think we have a proof of\n  Christ\u2019s speaking in us or no, or his approving us in the course of\n  our ministry, my great concern is, that you may be approved; so that\n  it is plain the apostle uses the word_ \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, _as signifying\n  disapproved; and therefore as it is applied to those he speaks of in\n  verse 5. the meaning is this; you seek to know whether we are approved\n  of God as ministers; therefore I would advise you to examine\n  yourselves, whether you be in the faith, and to prove your ownselves:\n  and if you know not yourselves, you are in this respect blame-worthy,\n  or to be disapproved; especially because you seem to have been\n  negligent as to the duty of self-examination. Whether he who is\n  diligent in the exercise of this duty, and yet cannot apprehend that\n  he is in a state of grace, be, in this respect to be disapproved or\n  no, it is certain, that he who is a stranger to himself, because of\n  the neglect hereof, is disapproved._\nFootnote 108:\n  Vide Bellamy\u2019s Works, 3 Vol. p. 81-83.\n    QUEST. LXXXII. _What is the communion in glory, which the members of\n    the invisible church have with Christ?_\n    ANSW. The communion in glory, which the members of the invisible\n    church have with Christ, is, in this life, immediately after death;\n    and at last perfected at the resurrection and day of judgment.\nAfter having considered believers, or the members of the invisible\nchurch, as enjoying this privilege of union with Christ, and, as the\nimmediate consequence hereof, communion with him. It has been farther\nobserved, that this communion with him, is either in grace, or glory.\nTheir communion with him in grace consists in their partaking of the\nvirtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, and\nsanctification; which have been particularly considered, together with\nother graces and comforts that accompany or flow from them. We are now\nled to speak concerning the communion which they have with him in glory;\nwhich contains the highest privilege they are capable of receiving;\nconsisting in his giving them some right discoveries of the glory which\nthey behold and enjoy by faith, in this life, and also of that which\nshall be immediate, and, in some respects, complete, after death; and,\nat the resurrection and day of judgment, be brought, in all respects, to\nthe utmost degree of perfection; when their joy, as well as their\nhappiness, shall be full, and continued throughout all the ages of\neternity. These are the subjects insisted on in several following\nanswers, which remain to be considered in this first part of the\nCatechism.\n    QUEST. LXXXIII. _What is the communion in glory, with Christ, which\n    the members of the invisible church enjoy in this life?_\n    ANSW. The members of the invisible church have communicated to them\n    in this life, the first-fruits of glory with Christ, as they are\n    members of him their head, and so, in him, are interested in that\n    glory which he is fully possessed of; and as an earnest thereof,\n    enjoy the sense of God\u2019s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy\n    Ghost, and hope of glory; as, on the contrary, the sense of God\u2019s\n    revenging wrath, horror of conscience, and a fearful expectation of\n    judgment, are, to the wicked, the beginning of their torments which\n    they shall endure after death.\nThere are two sorts of persons mentioned in this answer, namely, the\nrighteous and the wicked, and the different condition of each of them\nconsidered,\nI. With respect to the righteous, who are here styled the members of the\ninvisible church. There are several invaluable privileges which they are\nmade partakers of in this life, in which they are said to have a degree\nof communion in glory with Christ; particularly as they enjoy the\nfirst-fruits or earnest of that glory which they shall have with him\nhereafter: And that,\n1. As they are members of him, their head; and accordingly may be said,\nin some respects, to be interested in that glory which he is fully\npossessed of.\n2. As they have a comfortable sense of his love to them, attended with\npeace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and an hope of glory.\nII. We have an account, on the other hand, of the dreadful condition of\nimpenitent sinners, when God sets their iniquities in order before them;\nwhich is represented in a very moving way. Thus they are said to be\nfilled with a sense of God\u2019s revenging wrath, horror of conscience, and\na fearful expectation of judgment; which is considered as the beginning\nof those torments which they shall endure after death.\nI. There are several invaluable privileges which the righteous enjoy in\nthis life, that are styled the first-fruits or earnest of glory. Though\nChrist has reserved the fulness of glory for his people hereafter, when\nhe brings them to heaven; yet there are some small degrees thereof,\nwhich they enjoy in their way to it. The _crown of righteousness_, as\nthe apostle speaks, is _laid up for them, which the righteous Judge\nshall give them at that day_, 2 Tim. iv. 8. to wit, when we shall come\nto judgment; then their joy shall be full; they shall be satisfied in\nhis likeness, and made compleatly blessed: Nevertheless there are some\nprelibations, or foretastes, which they have hereof, for their support\nand encouragement, while they are in this imperfect state. For the\nunderstanding of this it may be premised,\n1. That we are not to suppose that the present enjoyments which\nbelievers experience in the highest degree, do fully come up to those\nthat are reserved for them. There is a great difference as to the degree\nthereof. As a child that is newly born has something in common with what\nhe shall have when arrived at a state of manhood; but there are several\ndegrees, and other circumstances, in which he falls short of it: or, as\na few drops are of the same nature with the whole collection of water in\nthe ocean; yet there is a very small proportion between one and the\nother: so the brightest discovery of the glory of God, which we are\ncapable of enjoying in this world; or the comfortable foretastes that\nbelievers have of heaven, fall very much short of that which they shall\nbe possessed of, when they are received into it. And there are very\ngreat allays, and many things that tend to interrupt and abate their\nhappiness, agreeably to the imperfection of this present state. Whatever\ngrace they are enabled to act, though in an uncommon degree, is attended\nwith a mixture of corruption; and as their graces are imperfect, so are\nthe comforts that arise from thence, which are interwoven with many\nthings very afflictive; so that they are not what they shall be, but are\ntravelling through this wilderness to a better country, and exposed to\nmany evils in their way thither.\n2. All believers do not enjoy these delights and pleasures that some are\nfavoured with in their way to heaven; the comforts, as well as the\ngraces, of the Holy Spirit, are bestowed in a way of sovereignty, to\nsome more, and to others less: Some have reason to say with the apostle,\n_Thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ_, 2\nCor. ii. 14. others are filled with doubts concerning their interest in\nhim, and go mourning after him all the day; and if they have, at some\ntimes a small glimpse of his glory, by which they conclude themselves to\nbe, as it were, in the suburbs of heaven, they soon lose it, and find\nthemselves to be in the valley of the shadow of death, as the disciples,\nwhen they were with Christ at his transfiguration, which was an emblem\nof the heavenly blessedness, when his _face did shine as the sun, and\nhis raiment was white as the light_; which occasioned them to say, _it\nis good for us to be here_; before they had done speaking, or had time\nto reflect on their present enjoyment they were deprived of it when _the\ncloud overshadowed them_, Matt. xvii. 2,-5. so the believer is not to\nexpect uninterrupted communion with God, or perfect fruition with him\nhere. However, that which we are at present to consider, is that degree\nthereof which some enjoy; which is here called the first-fruits and\nearnest of glory. The scripture sets it forth under both these\nexpressions.\n(1.) They are said to receive the first-fruits thereof; or as the\napostle styles it, _The first-fruits of the Spirit_, Rom. viii. 23. that\nis, the graces and comforts of the Holy Ghost, which are the\nfirst-fruits of that blessedness, that they are said to wait for; which\nis called _the adoption_, viz. those privileges which God\u2019s children\nshall be made partakers of; or, _the glorious liberty_ which they shall\nhereafter enjoy. This is styled, the _first-fruits_, as alluding to the\ncluster of grapes, which they who were sent to spy out the land of\nCanaan, were ordered to bring to the Israelites in the wilderness, that\nhereby they might be encouraged in their expectation of the great plenty\nthat was to be enjoyed when they were brought to it. Or, it has\nreference to the feast of ingathering, before the harvest, when they\nwere to bring the sheaf which was first to be cut down, and _wave it\nbefore the Lord_, Lev. xxiii. 10, 11. compared with Deut. xxvi. 10, 11.\nwith thankfulness and joy, in expectation of the full harvest, which\nwould be the reward of the industry and labour of the husbandman. Thus\nbelievers are given not only to expect, but to rejoice in hope of the\nglory of God.\n(2.) This is also called an earnest of glory. Thus believers are said to\nbe _sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of\ntheir inheritance_, Eph. i. 13, 14. and elsewhere it is said, _God hath\ngiven us the earnest of his Spirit_, 2 Cor. i. 5. An earnest is a small\nsum, given in part of payment; whereby they who receive it, are\nencouraged hereafter to expect the whole: So a believer may conclude,\nthat as sure as he now enjoys those spiritual privileges that accompany\nsalvation, he shall not fail of that glory which they are an earnest of.\nIn this respect God is pleased to give his people a wonderful instance\nof his condescending love, that they may hereby be led to know what the\nhappiness of the heavenly state is, in a greater degree than can be\nlearned from all the descriptions that are given of it, by those who are\ndestitute of this privilege. Heaven is the port to which every believer\nis bound, the reward of all those labours and difficulties which he\nsustains in his way to it; and to quicken him to the greater diligence\nin pursuing after it, it is necessary that he should have his thoughts,\nmeditation, and conversation there. The reason why God is pleased to\ngive his people some foretastes thereof, is, that they may love and long\nfor Christ\u2019s appearing, when they shall reap the full harvest of glory.\nNow this earnest, prelibation, or first-fruits of the heavenly\nblessedness which believers enjoy in this life, is considered in this\nanswer.\n[1.] As it is included in that glory which Christ is possessed of as\ntheir head and Mediator.\n[2.] As they have those graces wrought in them, and comforts flowing\nfrom thence, which bear some small resemblance to what they shall\nhereafter be made partakers of.\n[1.] Christ\u2019s being possessed of the heavenly blessedness, as the head\nof his people, is an earnest of their salvation. For the understanding\nof which, let it be considered, that our Lord Jesus sustained this\ncharacter, not only in what he suffered for them, that he might redeem\nthem from the curse of the law; but in the glory which he was afterwards\nadvanced to: _Thus it is said, that he is risen from the dead, and\nbecome the first-fruits of them that slept_, 1 Cor. xv. 20. and\naccordingly they are said to be _risen with him_, Col. iii. 1. as\nrespecting that communion which they have with him herein; and when,\nafter this, he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of\nthe Majesty on high, his people are said _to sit together in heavenly\nplaces in him_, Eph. ii. 6. not that we are to suppose that they are\nmade partakers of any branch of his mediatorial glory, or joined with\nhim in the work which he there performs, as their exalted head: But his\nbeing considered as their representative, appearing in the presence of\nGod for them, is a foundation of their hope that they shall be brought\nhither at last; and therefore, when he is about to depart out of this\nworld, he gave an intimation to his people, whom he left behind him in\nit, that he went _to prepare a place for them_, John xiv. 3. and assures\nthem, that _because he lives they shall live also_, ver. 19.\n[2.] The graces and comforts of the Holy Spirit, which believers are\nmade partakers of, may also be said to be a pledge and earnest of\neternal life. Heaven is a state in which grace is brought to perfection,\nwhich, at present, is only begun in the soul: nevertheless, the\nbeginning thereof affords ground of hope that it shall be compleated. As\na curious artist, when he draws the first lines of a picture, does not\ndesign to leave it unfinished; or he that lays the foundation of a\nbuilding, determines to carry it on gradually, till he has laid the\ntop-stone of it; so the work of grace, when begun by the Spirit, is a\nground of hope that it shall not be left unfinished. As God would never\nhave brought his people out of Egypt with an high hand and an\noutstretched arm, and divided the red sea before them, if he had not\ndesigned to bring them into the promised land; so we may conclude, that\nwhen God has magnified his grace in delivering his people from the\ndominion of darkness, and translating them into the kingdom of his dear\nSon; when he has helped them hitherto, and given them a fair and\nbeautiful prospect of the good land to which they are going, he will not\nleave his work imperfect, nor suffer them to fall and perish in the way\nto it. Christ, in believers, is said to be _the hope of glory_, Col. i.\n27. and the joy which they have in believing, is said not only to be\n_unspeakable_, but _full of glory_, 1 Pet. i. 8. that is, it bears a\nsmall resemblance to that joy which they shall be filled with, when\nbrought to glory, and therefore may well be styled the earnest or\nfirst-fruits of it.\nNow, that this may farther appear, let it be considered, that the\nhappiness of heaven consists in the immediate vision and fruition of\nGod, where the saints behold his face in light and glory[109], and enjoy\nall those comfortable fruits and effects that arise from thence, which\ntend to make them compleatly happy. Thus it is said, _They shall see him\nas he is_, 1 John iii. 2. and they are said to _enter into the joy of\ntheir Lord_, Matt. xxv. 21. Believers, it is true, are not in all\nrespects, said to be partakers of this blessedness here; and their\nhighest enjoyments bear but a very small proportion to it: Yet, when we\nspeak of some as having the foretastes of it, we must consider, that\nthere is something in the lively exercise of faith, and the joy that\narises from it, when believers have attained the full assurance of the\nlove of God, and have those sensible manifestations of his comfortable\npresence with them, that bears some small resemblance to a life of\nglory.\nThat which in some respects resembles the beatific vision, is a sight of\nGod\u2019s reconciled face, and of their interest in all the blessings of the\ncovenant of grace, by faith. It is true, the views which they have of\nthe glory of God here, are not immediate, but at a distance; and\ntherefore they are said to _behold_, _as in a glass, the glory of the\nLord_, 2 Cor. iii. 18. Thus we see things at a distance, as through a\nperspective glass, which enlarges the object[110], and brings it, as it\nwere, near to the eye, though in reality, it be at a great distance from\nit; and so gives us a clear discerning of that which could otherwise\nhardly be discovered: So faith gives us clearer views of this glory than\nwe could have any other way. Hereby we are said _to see him that is\ninvisible_, Heb. xi. 27. Thus, when God bade Moses go up to the top of\nPisgah, and strengthened his sight, he took a view of the whole land of\nCanaan, though without this he could only have beheld a small part\nthereof: So when God not only gives an eye of faith, but strengthens it\nin proportion to the views he designs it shall take of the heavenly\nstate, that lies at so great a distance, the soul is enabled to see it,\nand herein has a faint emblem of the beatific vision.\nMoreover, as heaven is a state, in which the saints have the perfect\nfruition of those blessings which tend to make them compleatly happy;\nthe view which a believer is enabled, by faith, to take of his interest\nin Christ, and the glory he shall be made partaker of with him, is\nsometimes attended with such an extasy of joy and triumph, as is a kind\nof anticipation of that glory which he is not yet fully possessed of.\nSuch an one is like an heir who wants but a few days of being of age;\nwho does not look upon his estate with that distant view which he before\ndid, but with the satisfaction and pleasure that arises from his being\nready to enter into the possession of it; or like one who after a long\nand tedious voyage, is within sight of his harbour, which he cannot but\nbehold with a pleasure, which very much resembles that which he shall\nhave when he enters into it; this is more than a bare hope of heaven; it\nis a full assurance, attended with a kind of sensation of those joys\nwhich are inexpressible, which render the believer a wonder to himself,\nand afford the most convincing proof to others, that there is something\nreal and substantial in the heavenly glory, whereof God is pleased to\nfavour some of his people with the prelibations. That some have enjoyed\nsuch-like manifestations of the divine love to them, and been filled\nwith those raptures of joy, accompanying that assurance which they have\nhad of their salvation, is evident from the experience which they have\nhad of it in some extraordinary and memorable occurrences in life; and\nothers at the approach of death.\nOf this there are multitudes of instances transmitted to us in history:\nI shall content myself with a brief extract of some passages which we\nmeet with in the life and death of some who appear to have had as\ncomfortable a foretaste of the joys of heaven, as it is possible for any\none to have in this world. And the first that I shall mention is that\neminently learned and pious Dr. Rivet; who, in his last sickness seemed\nto be in the very suburbs of heaven, signifying to all about him, what\nintimate communion he had with God, and fore-views of the heavenly\nstate; his assurance of being admitted into it; and how earnestly he\nlonged to be there: and, in the very close of life, one who stood by him\ncould not forbear expressing himself to this purpose; I cannot but think\nthat he is now enjoying the vision of God, which gave him occasion to\nsignify that it was so, as well as he was able to express himself, which\naccount, and much more to the same purpose, is not only mentioned by the\nauthor of his last hours, but is taken notice of in a public funeral\noration, occasioned by his death.[111]\nAnd what a very worthy writer observes,[112] concerning that excellent\nservant of Christ, Mr. Rutherford, who recites some of his last words to\nthis purpose, is very remarkable, who says, \u201cI shall shine, I shall see\nhim as he is, and all the fair company with him, and shall have my large\nshare. It is no easy thing to be a Christian; but as for me, I have got\nthe victory; and Christ is holding forth his arms to embrace me. I have\nhad my fears and faintings, as another sinful man, to be carried through\ncreditably; but as sure as ever he spake to me in his word, his Spirit\nwitnessed to my heart, saying, Fear not; he had accepted my suffering,\nand the outgate should not be matter of prayer, but of praise.\u201d And a\nlittle before his death, after some fainting, he said, \u201cNow I feel, I\nbelieve, I enjoy, I rejoice, I feed on manna, I have angels\u2019 food, my\neyes shall see my Redeemer; I know that he shall stand, at the latter\nday, on the earth, and I shall be caught up in the clouds to meet him in\nthe air. I sleep in Christ; and when I awake I shall be satisfied with\nhis likeness; O for arms to embrace him!\u201d And to one speaking concerning\nhis painfulness in the ministry, he cried out, \u201cI disdain all; the port\nI would be in at, is redemption and forgiveness of sins through his\nblood.\u201d And thus, full of the Spirit; yea, as it were overcome with\nsensible enjoyment, he breathes out his soul, his last words being\nthese; \u201cGlory, glory dwelleth in Emmanuel\u2019s land.\u201d\nTo this I may add the account given of that great man Dr. Goodwin, in\nsome memoirs of his life, composed out of his own papers published by\nhis son,[113] who intimates that he rejoiced in the thoughts that he was\ndying, and going to have a full and uninterrupted communion with God; \u201cI\nam going, said he, to the three Persons with whom I have had communion;\nthey have taken me, I did not take them; I shall be changed in the\ntwinkling of an eye; all my lusts and corruptions I shall be rid of,\nwhich I could not be here; those croaking toads will fall off in a\nmoment.\u201d And mentioning those great examples of faith, Heb. xi. said he,\n\u201cAll these died in faith. I could not have imagined I should ever had\nsuch a measure of faith in this hour; no, I could never have imagined\nit. My bow abides in strength. Is Christ divided? No, I have the whole\nof his righteousness; I am found in him, not in my own righteousness,\nwhich is of the law; but in the righteousness which is of God, which is\nby faith of Jesus Christ, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Christ\ncannot love me better than he doth; I think I cannot love Christ better\nthan I do; I am swallowed up in God:\u201d and then he says, \u201cNow shall I\never be with the Lord.\u201d With this assurance of faith, and fulness of joy\nhis soul left this world, and went to see and enjoy the reality of that\nblessed state of glory.\nThere is also an account, in the life and death of Mr. John Janeway, of\nthe great assurance and joy which he had in his last sickness, in which\nhe expresses himself to this purpose; \u201cI am, through mercy, quite above\nthe fears of death, and am going unto him whom I love above life. O that\nI could let you know what I now feel! O that I could shew you what I\nsee! O that I could express the thousandth part of that sweetness which\nnow I find in Christ! you would all then think it worth the while to\nmake it your business to be religious. O my dear friends, you little\nthink what a Christ is worth upon a death-bed! I would not, for a world,\nnay, for millions of worlds, be now without Christ and a pardon. O the\nglory! the unspeakable glory that I behold! My heart is full, my heart\nis full; Christ smiles and I cannot choose but smile. Can you find in\nyour heart to stop me, who am now going to the complete and eternal\nenjoyment of Christ? Would you keep me from my crown? The arms of my\nblessed Saviour are open to embrace me; the angels stand ready to carry\nmy soul into his bosom. O did you but see what I see, you would all cry\nout with me, How long dear Lord, come Lord Jesus, come quickly? Or why\nare his chariot-wheels so long a coming?\u201d Much more to the same purpose\nmay be found in the life of that excellent man, which is exceedingly\naffecting.\nAnd there is another who does not come short of him in his death-bed\ntriumphs;[114] who says concerning himself, \u201cDeath is not terrible, it\nis unstinged; the curse of the fiery law is done away: I bless his name\nI found him; I am taken up in blessing him; I am dying rejoicing in the\nLord; I long to be in the promised land; I wait for thy salvation; how\nlong! Come sweet Lord Jesus, take me by the hand; I wait for thy\nsalvation, as the watchman watcheth for the morning; I am weary with\ndelays; I faint for thy salvation: Why are his chariot-wheels so long a\ncoming? What means he to stay so long? I am like to faint with delays.\u201d\nAfter that he said, \u201cO Sirs, I could not believe that I could have born,\nand born cheerfully this rod so long: This is a miracle, pain without\npain. And this is not a fancy of a man disordered in his brain, but of\none lying in full composure: O blessed be God that ever I was born; O if\nI were where he is! And yet, for all this, God\u2019s withdrawing from me\nwould make me as weak as water: all this I enjoy, though it be a miracle\nupon miracle, would not make me stand without new supply from God; the\nthing I rejoice in is, that God is altogether full; and that in the\nMediator Christ Jesus, there is all the fulness of the Godhead, and it\nwill never run out. I am wonderfully helped beyond the power of nature,\nthough my body be sufficiently teazed, yet my spirit is untouched.\u201d Much\nmore to this purpose we have in the latter part of his life, which I\nshall close with one thing that is very remarkable. When he was\napprehensive that he was very near his death, he said, \u201cWhen I fall so\nlow that I am not able to speak, I\u2019ll shew you a sign of triumph, when I\nam near glory, if I be able;\u201d which accordingly he did, by lifting up\nhis hands, and clapping them together, when he was speechless, and in\nthe agonies of death.\nMany more instances might have been given to illustrate this argument,\nwhereby it will evidently appear, that God is pleased, sometimes, to\ndeal familiarly with men, by giving them extraordinary manifestations of\nhis presence, before he brings them into the immediate enjoyment of\nhimself in heaven; which may be well called an earnest or prelibation\nthereof.[115] And it may serve as a farther illustration of an argument\nbefore insisted on,[116] to prove that assurance of God\u2019s love is\nattainable in this life, from the various instances of those who have\nbeen favoured with it. This assurance, as it may be observed, is\naccompanied with the lively acts of faith, by which it appears to be\nwell grounded; so that, as the apostle says, _The God of hope_ is\npleased to _fill them with all joy and peace in believing_; whereby they\n_abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost_, Rom. xv. 13. in\nwhich respect it may be said, to use the prophet\u2019s words, that _they joy\nbefore thee, according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when\nthey divide the spoil_, Isa. ix. 3. This is like the appearing of the\nmorning-star, which ushers in a bright and glorious day, and gives a\nfull discovery to themselves and others, that there is much of heaven\nenjoyed in the way to it, by those whom God delights to honour. Thus\nconcerning the communion in glory, which the members of the invisible\nchurch sometimes enjoy in this life; which leads us to consider,\nII. The miserable condition of the wicked in this life, when God is\nprovoked, as a sin-revenging Judge, to fill them with a sense of his\nwrath; from whence arises horror of conscience, and a fearful\nexpectation of judgment; which is the beginning of those torments which\nthey shall endure after death, as it is observed in the latter part of\nthis answer. We have many instances in scripture, of the punishment of\nsin in this world, in whom God is said _to reprove and set_ their\niniquities _in order before their eyes_, Psal. l. 21. which fills them\nwith horror of conscience,[117] and leaves them in utter despair. They\nwho once thought themselves in a prosperous condition, concerning whom\nit is said, _Their eyes stand out with fatness, they have more than\nheart could wish_, Psal. lxxiii. 7. yet their end was terrible, when it\nappears that they were _set in slippery places_, being _cast down into\ndestruction, brought into desolation as in a moment, and utterly\nconsumed with terrors_, ver. 18, 19.\nWe have a sad instance of this in Cain, after he had slain his brother,\nand fell under the curse of God, whereby he was sentenced to be a\nfugitive and vagabond in the earth. He separated himself indeed from the\npresence of the Lord, and the place in which he was worshipped; but\ncould not fly from the terrors of his own thoughts, or get any relief\nunder the uneasiness of a guilty conscience; which made him fear that he\nshould be slain by the hand of every one that met him; and complain, _My\npunishment is greater than I can bear_, Gen. iv. 13.\nAnd some understand that expression of Lamech in the same sense, when he\nsays, _I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If\nCain shall be avenged seven-fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven-fold_,\nGen. iv. 23, 24. The wrath of God was also denounced against Pashur; as\nit is said, the _Lord hath not called thy name Pashur, but\nMagor-missabib; for thus saith the Lord, I will make thee a terror to\nthyself, and to all thy friends_, Jer. xx. 3, 4.\nAnd Judas, after he had betrayed our Saviour, was filled with the\nterrors of an accusing conscience, which forced him to confess, not as a\nbelieving penitent, but a despairing criminal; _I have sinned in that I\nhave betrayed the innocent blood_; after which it is said, _He departed,\nand went and hanged himself_, Matt, xxvii. 4, 5. Nothing is more\nterrible than this remorse of conscience, which renders sinners\ninexpressibly miserable. This is a punishment inflicted on those who sin\nwilfully, presumptuously, and obstinately against the checks of\nconscience and rebukes of providence, and various warnings to the\ncontrary, who treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath;\nwho are _contentious, and do not obey the truth_; that is, they are so\nfar from obeying it, that they persecute and oppose it; and, on the\nother hand, _obey unrighteousness_: to these belong, as the apostle\nsays, _indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish_, Rom. ii. 5, 8,\n9. This not only waits for them, as _laid up in store, and sealed up\namong God\u2019s treasures, to whom vengeance belongeth_, Deut. xxxii. 34,\n35. but they are made to taste the bitterness of that cup, which shall\nafterwards be poured forth without mixture. In this world _their eyes\nshall see their destruction, and_ afterwards _they shall drink of the\nwrath of the Almighty_, Job xxi. 20. This is a most affecting subject;\nhow awful a thing is it to see a person surrounded with miseries, and,\nat the same time, shut up in darkness, and left destitute of hope! With\nwhat horror and anguish was the soul of Saul filled, when he uttered\nthat doleful complaint; _I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make\nwar against me, and God is departed from me_, 1 Sam. xxviii. 15. much\nmore for a person to apprehend himself fallen into the hands of the\nliving God, who is a consuming fire; and having nothing left but the\nfearful expectation of future judgment, and an abyss of woes that will\nensue hereupon. These are the evils that some endure in this life; which\nis no less terrible to them than the comfortable foretastes of the love\nof God are joyful to the saints.\nFrom the different view of the end of the wicked, and the righteous,\nmany useful instructions may be learned.\n1. When we consider the wicked as distressed with the afflicting sense\nof what they feel, and with the dread of that wrath which they would\nfain flee from, but cannot, we may infer,\n(1.) That a state of unregeneracy, whatever advantages may attend it, as\nto the outward blessings of common providence, is a very sad and\ndeplorable condition, far from being the object of choice to those who\nduly consider the consequences hereof. The present amusements that arise\nfrom the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, from whence the sinner\nconcludes himself to be happy, is the most miserable instance of\nself-deceit, and will appear to be so, if we consider the end thereof,\nor that _the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the\nhypocrite but for a moment_, Job xx. 5. and after that, nothing shall\nremain but what wounds his spirit, and makes his misery intolerable.\n(2.) When we meet with instances of persons sunk in the depths of\ndespair, and tormenting themselves with the fore views of hell and\ndestruction, let this be a warning to others to flee from the wrath to\ncome. I would not be peremptory in passing a judgment on the state of\nthose who apprehend themselves to be irretrievably lost, and feel those\nterrors in their consciences which no tongue can express. A person can\nhardly read the account of the despair of poor Spira, soon after the\nreformation; and how much his sentiments concerning himself, resembled\nthe punishment of sin in hell, without trembling: he was, indeed, a sad\ninstance, of the wrath of God breaking in upon conscience; and is set up\nas a monument to warn others, to take heed of apostacy; and in this, and\nsuchlike instances, we have a convincing proof of the reality of a\nfuture state of misery; or, that the punishment of sin in hell is not an\nungrounded fancy: nevertheless, it is not for us to enter into those\nsecrets which belong not to us, or to reckon him among the damned in\nanother world, because he reckoned himself among them in this. And as\nfor any others that we may see in the like circumstances, we are not so\nmuch to pass a judgment concerning their future state, as to infer the\ndesperate estate of sinners, when left of God, and to bless him that it\nis not our case. And on the other hand, let not unregenerate sinners\nthink that they are safe, merely because their consciences are quiet, or\nrather stupid, since that false peace, which they have, is no better\nthan _the hope of the hypocrite_, which _shall perish_, and be _cut\noff_; and his _trust shall be as a spider\u2019s web_, if he continue in his\npresent condition.\nFrom what has been said concerning the happiness of the righteous, in\nthe enjoyment they have of the first fruits of the heavenly glory, we\nmay learn,\n(1.) That this may afford farther conviction to us, that there is a\nstate of complete blessedness reserved for the saints in another world;\nsince, besides the arguments we have to prove this taken from scripture,\nwe have others founded in experience, so far as it is possible for any\nto attain to the joys of heaven before they come there. Though the\ninstances we have here given thereof are uncommon, yet this inference\nfrom them is just, and may afford matter of conviction to those who are\nwholly taken up with earthly things, and have no taste of, nor delight\nin things spiritual, that religion has its own rewards attending it, and\nconsequently that a believer is the only happy man in the world.\n(2.) This may serve as an encouraging motive to induce Christians to\nhold on their way. Whatever difficulties or distressing providences they\nmay meet with in this life, if they have the earnest and foretastes of\nheaven at any time, this will make their afflictions seem light;\ninasmuch as they work for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight\nof glory. And if they are rather waiting and hoping for them, than\nactually enjoying them, let them adore and depend on the sovereignty of\nGod, who dispenses these comforts when he pleases: and if they are\ndestitute of the joy of faith, let them endeavour to be found in the\nlively exercise of the direct acts thereof, trusting in Christ, though\nthey have not such sensible communion with him as others have; and let\nthem bless God, (though they have not those foretastes of the heavenly\nglory, which accompany a full assurance thereof,) if they have a quiet,\ncomposed frame of spirit, and are not given up to desponding thoughts,\nor unbelieving fears, and have ground to conclude, that though their\nstate be not so comfortable as that of others; yet it is no less safe,\nand shall, at last, issue into the fruition of that felicity of which\nothers have the first-fruits here on earth.\n(3.) Let them who are at any time favoured with this privilege of\nassurance, and the joy that arises from it, walk very humbly with God,\nas being sensible that this frame of spirit is not owing to themselves,\nbut to the quickening and sealing influences of the Holy Ghost; and if,\nby neglecting to depend on him for the continuance thereof, we provoke\nhim to leave us to ourselves, we shall soon lose this desirable frame,\nand be left in darkness: since as without him we can do nothing, so\nwithout his continued presence we can enjoy none of those privileges\nwhich tend to make our lives comfortable, and give us an anticipation of\nfuture glory.\nFootnote 109:\n  _See Quest._ lxxxvi. xc.\nFootnote 110:\n  Reflecting as mirrors, or beholding as by mirrors.\nFootnote 111:\n  _Vid. Dauberi orat. Funeb. ad front. & Hor. Noviss. ad calc. Tom. 3.\n  Riveti operum: in which he is represented as saying, Nolite mei causa\n  dolere, ultima h\u00e6c momenta nihil habent funesti; corpus languet\n  quidem, at anima robore & consolatione plena est, nec impedit paries\n  iste intergerinus, nebula ista exigua, quo minus lucem Dei videam.\n  Atq; exinde magis magisque optavit dissolvi & cum Christo esse.\n  Sufficit mi Deus exclamabat subinde, sufficit, suscipe animam meam:\n  Non tamen moram impatienter fero. Expecto, credo, persevero, dimoveri\n  nequeo, Dei Spiritus meo spiritui testatur, me ex filiis suis esse. O\n  amorem ineffabilem! id quod sentio, omnem expressionem alte\n  transcendit. Veni Domine Jesu, veni, etenim deficio, nan quidem\n  impatiens Domine, sed anima mea respicit te ut terra sicca. Preces &\n  votum, ut Deus Paradisum aperiret, & huic fideli servo suo faciem suam\n  ostenderet; his verbis supplevit; cum animabus justorem sanctificatis;\n  Amen, Amen. Exinde lingua pr\u00e6pedita verbo affirmare; mox ad vocem\n  adstantium, ipsum jam visione Dei frui, annuere; paulo post sub mediam\n  decimam matutinam placide in Domino obdormiit._\nFootnote 112:\n  _See Fleming\u2019s Fulfilling of the Scripture, in fol. Part 1. page 287._\nFootnote 113:\n  _See Dr. Goodwin\u2019s Works, Vol. 5. in his life, page 19._\nFootnote 114:\n  _See the Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Halyburton, Cap. 6._\nFootnote 115:\n  _See this argument improved by Mr. Fleming_, _in his Fulfilling of the\n  Scripture_, _Edit. in Fol. page 394_, & seq. _in which he takes\n  several remarkable passages out of Melchoir Adam\u2019s Lives, and gives\n  several instances of that extraordinary communion which some have had\n  with God, both in life and death; whose conversation was well known in\n  Scotland; so that he mentions it as what is a matter undeniably true:\n  and he relates other things concerning the assurance and joy which\n  some have had; which has afforded them the sweetest comforts in\n  prisons and dungeons, and given them a foretaste of heaven, when they\n  have been called to suffer death for Christ\u2019s sake._\nFootnote 116:\n  _See Page 252, ante._\nFootnote 117:\n  _See Vol. II. page 151._\n    QUEST. LXXXIV. _Shall all men die?_\n    ANSW. Death being threatened as the wages of sin, it is appointed\n    unto all men once to die; for that all have sinned.\n    QUEST. LXXXV. _Death being the wages of sin, why are not the\n    righteous delivered from death, seeing all their sins are forgiven\n    in Christ?_\n    ANSW. The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last\n    day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it;\n    so that, although they die, yet it is out of God\u2019s love, to free\n    them perfectly from sin and misery; and to make them capable of\n    farther communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon.\nIn these answers we have an account,\nI. Of the unalterable purpose of God, or his appointment that all men\nonce must die; which is also considered as the wages of sin.\nII. It is supposed, that death has a sting and curse attending it with\nrespect to force.\nIII. It is the peculiar privilege of the righteous, that though they\nshall not be delivered from death, yet this shall redound to their\nadvantage: For,\n1. The sting and curse of it is taken from them.\n2. Their dying is the result of God\u2019s love to them; and that in three\nrespects,\n(1.) As they are thereby freed from sin and misery.\n(2.) As they are made capable of farther communion with Christ in glory,\nbeyond what they can have in this world.\n(3.) As they shall immediately enter upon that glorious and blessed\nstate when they die.\nI. God has determined, by an unalterable purpose and decree, that all\nmen must die. Whatever different sentiments persons may have about other\nthings, this remains an incontestable truth. We have as much reason to\nconclude that we shall leave the world, as, at present, we have that we\nlive in it. _I know_, says Job, _that thou wilt bring me to death, and\nto the house appointed for all living_, Job xxx. 23. and upon this\naccount the Psalmist says, _I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner,\nas all my fathers were_, Psal. xxxix. 12. And if scripture had been\nwholly silent about the frailty of man, daily experience would have\nafforded a sufficient proof of it. We have much said concerning man\u2019s\nmortality in the writings of the heathen; but they are at a loss to\ndetermine the origin or first cause of it; and therefore they consider\nit as the unavoidable consequence of the frame of nature, arising from\nthe contexture thereof, as that which is formed out of the dust must be\nresolved into its first principle; or that which is composed of flesh\nand blood, cannot but be liable to corruption. But we have this matter\nset in a true light in scripture, which considers death as the\nconsequence of man\u2019s first apostacy from God. Before this he was\nimmortal, and would have always remained so, had he not violated the\ncovenant, in which the continuance of his immortality was secured to\nhim; the care of providence would have prevented a dissolution, either\nfrom the decays of nature, or any external means leading to it. And\ntherefore some of the Socinian writers have been very bold in\ncontradicting the express account we have hereof in Scripture, when they\nassert that death was, at first, the consequence of nature;[118] for\nwhich reason man would have been liable to it, though he had not sinned;\nwhereas the apostle says, _By one man sin entered into the world, and\ndeath by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have\nsinned_, Rom. v. 12.\nWe have a particular account of this in the sentence God passed on our\nfirst parents immediately after their fall; when having denounced a\ncurse upon the ground for their sake, he says, _Dust thou art, and unto\ndust shalt thou return_, Gen. iii. 19. And it may be observed, that as\nthis is unavoidable, pursuant to the decree of God, so the constitution\nof our nature, as well as the external dispensations of providence, lead\nto it. This sentence no sooner took place, but the temperament of human\nbodies was altered,[119] the jarring principles of nature, on the due\ntemperament whereof life and health depends, could not but have a\ntendency by degrees to destroy the frame thereof; if there be too great\na confluence of humours, or a defect thereof; if heat or cold\nimmoderately prevails; if the circulation of the blood and juices be too\nswift or slow: or if the food on which we live, or the air which we\nbreathe be not agreeable to the constitution of our nature, or any\nexternal violence be offered to it; all these things have a necessary\ntendency to weaken the frame of nature, and bring on a dissolution.\nDavid includes the various means by which men die, in three general\nheads, speaking concerning Saul, _The Lord shall smite him, or his day\nshall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish: the Lord\nshall smite him_, 1 Sam. xxvi. 10. denotes a person\u2019s dying by a sudden\nstroke of providence, in which there is the more immediate hand of God;\nand his _falling into battle_, a violent death by the hands of men; in\nboth which respects men die before that time which they might have lived\nto, according to the course of nature; and what is said concerning his\n_day\u2019s coming to die_; that is, a person\u2019s dying what we call a natural\ndeath, or when nature is so spent and wasted that it can no longer\nsubsist by all the skill of the physicians, or virtue of medicine; and\nthen the soul leaves its habitation, when it is not longer able to\nperform the functions of life.\nWe might here consider those diseases that are the fore-runners of\ndeath, which sometimes are more acute; and by this means, as one\nelegantly expresses it, nature feels the cruel victory before it yields\nto the enemy. As a ship that is tossed by a mighty tempest, and by the\nconcussion of the winds and waves, loses its rudder and masts, takes\nwater in every part, and gradually sinks into the ocean: so in the\nshipwreck of nature, the body is so shaken and weakened by the violence\nof a disease, that the senses, the animal and vital operations decline,\nand, at last, are extinguished in death.[120] This seemed, so formidable\nto good Hezekiah, that he utters that mournful complaint, _Mine age is\ndeparted and removed from me as a shepherd\u2019s tent: I have cut off like a\nweaver, my life; he will cut me off with pining sickness: from day even\nto night, wilt thou make an end of me. I reckoned till the morning, that\nas a lion, so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt\nthou make an end of me_, Isa. xxxvii. 12, 13.\nWe might here consider the empire of death as universal; as the wise man\nsays, _One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh_,\nEccl. i. 4. and then they pass away also, like the ebbing and flowing of\nthe sea. Death spares none; the strongest constitution can no more\nwithstand its stroke, than the weakest; no age of man is exempted from\nit. This is beautifully described by Job; _One dieth in his full\nstrength, being wholly at ease and quiet: his breasts are full of milk,\nand his bones are moistened with marrow: and another dieth in the\nbitterness of his soul; and never eateth with pleasure: they shall lie\ndown alike in the dust, and the worms shall cover them_, Job xxi. 23-26.\nWe might also consider the body after death, as a prey for worms, the\nseat of corruption; and lodged in the grave, the house appointed for all\nliving; and then an end is put to all the actions, as well as enjoyments\nof this life; and, as the Psalmist speaks, _In that very day_ all _their\nthoughts perish_, Psal. cxlvi. 4. Whatever they have been projecting,\nwhatever schemes they have laid, either for themselves or others, are\nall broken: as the historian observes concerning the Roman emperor, that\nwhen he had formed great designs for the advantage of the empire,[121]\ndeath broke all his measures, and prevented the execution thereof.\nWe might also consider it as putting an end to our present enjoyments,\nremoving us from the society of our dearest friends, to a dismal and\nfrightful solitude. This was one of the consequences thereof, that was\nvery afflictive to Hezekiah, when he says, _I shall behold man no more\nwith the inhabitants of the world_, Isa. xxxviii. 11. It also strips us\nof all our possessions, and the honours we have been advanced to in this\nworld, as the Psalmist speaks, _When he dieth he shall carry nothing\naway, his glory shall not descend after him_, Psal. xlix. 27.\nWe might also consider the time of life and death as being in God\u2019s\nhand. As we were brought into the world by the sovereignty of his\nprovidence, so we are called out of it at his pleasure; concerning whom\nit is said, _Our times are in his hand_, Psal. xxxi. 15. So that as\nnothing is more certain than death, nothing is more uncertain to us than\nthe time when. This God has concealed from us for wise ends. Did we know\nthat we should soon die, it would discourage us from attempting any\nthing great in life; and did we know that the lease of life was long,\nand we should certainly arrive to old age; this might occasion the\ndelaying all concerns about our soul\u2019s welfare, as presuming that it was\ntime enough to think of the affairs of religion and another world, when\nwe apprehend ourselves to be near the confines thereof; and therefore,\nGod has by this, made it our wisdom, as well as our duty, to be waiting\nall the days of our appointed time, till our change come.\nFrom what has been said under this head, we may learn,\n1. The vanity of man as mortal. Indeed, if we look on believers as\nenjoying that happiness which lies beyond the grave, there is a very\ndifferent view of things; but as to what respects the world we have\nreason to say as the Psalmist does, _Verily, every man at his best\nestate is altogether vanity_, Psal. xxxix. 5. We may see the vanity of\nall those honours and carnal pleasures which many pursue with so much\neagerness, as though they had nothing else to mind, nothing to make\nprovision for but the flesh, which they do at the expence of that which\nis in itself most excellent and desirable: We may also infer,\n2. That this affords an undeniable and universal motive to humility;\nsince death knows no distinction of persons, regards the rich no more\nthan the poor; puts no mark of distinction between the remains of a\nprince and a peasant; and not only takes away every thing that men value\nthemselves upon, but levels the highest part of mankind with common\ndust: They who boast of their extract, descent, and kindred, are\nobliged, with Job, to say, _to corruption, Thou art my father; to the\nworm, Thou art my mother and my sister_, Job xvii. 14. Shall we be proud\nof our habitations, _who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in\nthe dust?_ chap. iv. 19. Are any proud of their youth and beauty? this\nis, at best, but like a flower that does not abide long in its bloom,\nand when cut down, it withers. The finest features are not only spoiled\nby death, but rendered unpleasant and ghastly to behold; and accordingly\nare removed out of sight, and laid in the grave.\n3. From the consideration of man\u2019s liableness to death, and those\ndiseases that lead to it, as the wages of sin, we may infer; that sin is\na bitter and formidable evil. The cause is to be judged of by its\neffects. As death, accompanied with all those diseases which are the\nforerunners of it, is the greatest natural evil that we are liable to;\nsin, from whence it took its rise, must be the greatest moral evil; we\nshould never reflect on the one without lying low before God in a sense\nof the other. The Psalmist, when meditating on his own mortality, traces\nit to the spring thereof; and ascribes it to those rebukes with which\n_God corrects men for their iniquities_, that they die, and their\n_beauty consumes away like a moth_, Psal. xxxix. 11. And elsewhere, when\nhe compares the life of man to the _grass_, which _in the morning\nfourisheth, and groweth up; and in the evening is cut down and\nwithereth, he immediately adds; thou hast set our iniquities before\nthee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance_, Psal. xc. 6, 8.\nAnd when Hezekiah had an intimation of his recovery, after he had the\nsentence of death within himself, he speaks of his deliverance from the\n_pit of corruption_, Isa. xxxviii. 17. as that which was accompanied\nwith God\u2019s _casting all his sins behind his back_. And since we cannot\nbe delivered from these sad effects of sin, till the frame of nature is\ndissolved, and afterwards rebuilt; it should put us upon using those\nproper methods whereby we may be freed from the guilt and dominion\nthereof; and accordingly it should have a tendency to promote a life of\nholiness in us.\n4. From the uncertainty of life, let us be induced to improve our\npresent time, and endeavour so to live, as that, when God calls us\nhence, we may be ready. And therefore, we ought to pray with the\nPsalmist, _So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts\nunto wisdom_, Psal. xc. 12. that by this means, that which deprives us\nof all earthly enjoyments, may give us an admission into a better world,\nand be the gate to eternal life. This leads us to consider,\nII. That death has a sting and curse annexed to it, with respect to\nsome. Thus the apostle expressly says, _The sting of death is sin_, 1\nCor. xv. 56. As sin at first brought death into the world; so it is the\nguilt thereof, lying on the consciences of men, which is the principal\nthing that makes them afraid to leave the world; not but that death is,\nin itself, an evil that nature cannot think of without some reluctancy.\nAnd therefore the apostle Paul, although he expresses that assurance\nwhich he had of happiness in another world, which he _groaned_ after,\nand _earnestly_ longed to be possessed of; yet had it been put to his\nchoice, he would have wished that he could have been _clothed upon with\nthe house which is from heaven_, 2 Cor. v. 2. that is, had it been the\nwill of God, that he might have been brought to heaven without going the\nway of all the earth, this would have been more agreeable to nature. But\nwhen the two evils of death meet together, namely, that which is\nabhorrent to nature, and the sting which makes it much more formidable,\nthis is, beyond measure, distressing. In this answer, the sting and\ncurse of death are both put together, as implying the same thing.\nAccordingly, it is that whereby a person apprehends himself liable to\nthe condemning sentence of the law, separated from God, and excluded\nfrom his favour, so that death appears to him to be the beginning of\nsorrows; this is that which tends to embitter it, and fills him with\ndread and horror at the thoughts of it. Which leads us,\nIII. To shew that it is the peculiar privilege of the righteous, that\nthough they shall not be delivered from death, yet this shall redound to\ntheir advantage. That they shall not be exempted from death is evident;\nbecause the decree of God relating hereunto, extends to all men. We\nread, indeed, of two that escaped the grave, viz. Enoch, who was\ntranslated that he should not see death, and Elijah, who was carried to\nheaven in a fiery chariot; but these are extraordinary instances, not\ndesigned as precedents, by which we may judge of the common lot of\nbelievers. And the saints that shall be found alive at Christ\u2019s second\ncoming, shall undergo a change[122], as the apostle speaks; which though\nit be equivalent to death, it cannot properly be styled a dying;\ninasmuch as he opposes it thereunto, when he says, _We shall not all\nsleep, but we shall all be changed_, 1 Cor. xv. 51. and he speaks of it\nas a future dispensation of providence, which does not immediately\nconcern us in this present age. Therefore we must not conclude that\nbelievers are delivered from the stroke of death; nevertheless, this is\nordered for their good, as the apostle says, with a particular\napplication to himself, _For me to die is gain_, Phil. i. 21. And when\nhe speaks of the many blessings that believers have in possession or in\nreversion, he says, _Death is yours_; as though he should say, it shall\nredound to your advantage; and this it does if we consider,\n1. That the sting of death is taken away from them. This is the result\nof their being in a justified state; for since a person\u2019s being liable\nto the condemning sentence of the law is the principal thing that has a\ntendency to make him uneasy, and may be truly called the sting that\nwounds the conscience; so a sense of his interest in forgiveness through\nthe blood of Christ, tends to give peace to it; such an one can say, who\nshall lay any thing to my charge? It is God that justifieth; or though I\nhave contracted guilt, which renders me unworthy of his favour; yet I am\npersuaded that this guilt is removed; and therefore iniquity shall not\nbe my ruin; and even death itself shall bring me to the possession of\nthose blessings that were purchased for me by the blood of Christ, which\nI have been enabled to apply to myself by faith; and with this\nconfidence he can say with the apostle, _O death, where is thy sting? O\ngrave, where is thy victory?_ 1 Cor. xv. 55.\n2. Their dying is an instance of God\u2019s love to them. As those whom\nChrist is said to have _loved in the world, he loved unto the end_ of\nhis life; so he loves them to the end of theirs, John xiii. 1. And as\nnothing has hitherto separated them from this love, nothing shall be\nable to do it. There are _three_ instances wherein the love of God to\ndying believers discovers itself.\n(1.) In that they are hereby freed from sin and misery; this they never\nwere, nor can be till then. As for sin, there are the remainders thereof\nin the best of men, which give them great disturbance, and occasion for\nthat daily conflict which there is between flesh and spirit, as has been\nbefore observed. But at death the conflict will be at an end, and the\nvictory which they shall obtain over it, compleat. There shall be no law\nin the members warring against the law of the mind; no propensity or\ninclination to what is evil; nor any guilt or defilement contracted;\nwhich would be inconsistent with a state of perfect holiness. And as it\nis a state of perfect happiness, there is an entire freedom from all\nthose miseries which sin brought into this lower world. These are either\ninternal or external, personal or relative; none of which shall occur to\nallay, or give any disturbance to the saints\u2019 blessedness after death.\nBut more of this will be considered under a following answer; in which\nwe shall be led to speak of the happiness of the righteous at the day of\njudgment, both in soul and body[123]; and therefore we proceed to\nconsider,\n(2.) That the death of a believer appears to be an instance of divine\nlove, in that hereby he is made capable of farther communion with Christ\nin glory. Persons must be made meet for heaven before they are admitted\nto it. Though our present season and day of grace is a time in which God\nis training his people up for glory; and there is an habitual\npreparation for it, when the work of grace is begun; which is what the\napostle intends when he speaks of some who are _made meet to be made\npartakers of the inheritance of the saints in light_, Col. ii. 12. when\nthey were first translated into Christ\u2019s kingdom: nevertheless this\nfalls very short of that actual meetness which the saints must have when\nthey are brought to the possession of the heavenly blessedness. Then\nthey shall be made perfect in holiness, as will be observed in the next\nanswer; otherwise there can be no perfect happiness.\nAnd besides this, the soul must be more enlarged, that hereby it may be\nenabled to receive the immediate discoveries of the divine glory, or to\nconverse with the heavenly inhabitants, than it can be here. The frame\nof nature must be changed; which is what the apostle intends, when he\nsays, _Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth\ncorruption inherit incorruption_, 1 Cor. xv. 50. accordingly he adds,\nver. 53. _This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal\nmust put on immortality_; whereby he intimates, that frail, mortal, and\ncorruptible man, is not able to bear that glory which is reserved for a\nstate of immortality. Therefore the soul must be so changed as to be\nrendered receptive thereof; and in order thereto, all its powers and\nfaculties must be greatly enlarged; otherwise it can no more receive the\nimmediate rays of the divine glory, than the weak and distempered eye\ncan look steady on the sun shining in its meridian brightness. In this\nworld our ideas of divine things are very imperfect, by reason of the\nnarrowness of our capacities, and God condescends to reveal himself to\nus in proportion thereto; but when the saints shall see him as he is, or\nhave a perfect and immediate vision and fruition of his glory, they\nshall be made receptive of it; this is done at death; whereby they are\nrendered capable of farther communion with Christ in glory.[124]\n(3.) At death believers immediately enter upon, and are admitted into\nthe possession of this glory. At the same time that the soul is enlarged\nand fitted for the work and enjoyment of heaven, it is received into it;\nwhere it shall have an uninterrupted communion with Christ in glory;\nwhich is the subject insisted on in the following answer.\nFootnote 118:\n  _Sequela natur\u00e6._\nFootnote 119:\n  _Before this there was what some call_ temperamentum ad pondus, _which\n  was lost by sin; and a broken constitution, leading to mortality\n  ensued thereupon_.\nFootnote 120:\n  _See Dr. Bates on Death, chap._ ii.\nFootnote 121:\n  _Vid. Sueton. in Vit. Jul. C\u00e6s. Talia agentem atq; meditantem mors\n  pr\u00e6venit._\nFootnote 122:\n  _See more of this in Quest._ lxxxvii.\nFootnote 123:\n  _See Quest._ xc.\nFootnote 124:\n  The belief of a separate state is very ancient. Cicero and Seneca have\n  asserted, that all nations believed the immortality of the soul. Yet\n  we know there were not only individuals, but sects who were\n  exceptions. Saul the first king of Israel believed that the soul\n  survived the death of the body, or he would neither have made laws\n  against necromancers, nor have applied to one in his distresses. If\n  Samuel was raised, it is a fact, directly in point, but the words\n  though express, are probably an accommodation to the sentiments of\n  men. The son of Sirach who lived two hundred years before Christ, says\n  that Samuel prophesied after he was dead. (Ecclus. c. 46. v. 20.) And\n  Josephus in his account of the life of Saul, shows his belief to be\n  that Samuel actually arose. The same feats of apparitions which the\n  disciples had, still exist with the common people, and are proofs that\n  they entertain the same sentiment.\n  Some of the Pharisees, who are represented as believing a separate\n  state, thought souls might return to other bodies. This was the\n  opinion of Josephus with respect to the virtuous; and also of those\n  Jews, who supposed that Jesus was Elijah or Jeremiah; but the question\n  of the disciples, whether a man had been born blind for his own sins,\n  implies a possibility of a return also of the wicked into other\n  bodies. Nevertheless the prevailing opinion of the Pharisees was of a\n  separate state; otherwise Paul\u2019s professing their sentiments, which\n  must have been known to him, was disingenuous; nor, if they had known\n  the difference, would they have protected him. The approbation of the\n  multitude when he proved the doctrine from the words of Jehovah to\n  Moses at the bush, (Matt. xxii. 32.) and the parable of Lazarus and\n  the rich man, evince that the common opinion was such.\n  This subject, has been enlightened, not first brought to light,\n  through the Gospel, but plainly asserted: _this day shalt thou be with\n  me in paradise. At home in the body, and absent from the Lord, absent\n  from the body, and present with the Lord_, is descriptive but of two\n  states. The desire _to depart to be with Christ_, shows an immediate\n  expectation. And otherwise it cannot be said that the spirits of just\n  men are _made perfect_.\n  The Jews, Greeks, and Romans assigned the Heaven to the gods, earth to\n  men, and under the earth (\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, inferi) to the dead. The\n  passages \u201cthe spirit shall return to God,\u201d and \u201cthe spirit of a man\n  goeth upwards\u201d are not exceptions, for then they would prove that the\n  evil, as well as the good, went to heaven. That the spirit is disposed\n  of by God, and that the spirit of a man survives the death of the\n  body, seem to be all that is respectively implied. Samuel was believed\n  to come out of, and return to his place under the earth; and Saul was\n  to be with him, below the earth; but, possibly, in a different\n  apartment. Thus Abraham and Lazarus were in sight of, and only divided\n  from the man in torments by a gulph.\n  Under the gospel the place of separate saints is represented to be in\n  Heaven. Heaven had been always assigned to God among the Jews, and\n  even the heathens thought it the most honourable place: Virgil\n  assigned it to C\u00e6sar. Jesus declared he came from thence, and would\n  return thither; and for the comfort of his disciples, told them, he\n  would prepare a place for them, and take them to himself. They saw him\n  actually ascend. He is to come from thence, and to bring them with him\n  to judgment.\n  This change of representation implies no contradiction, for pure\n  spirits are not confined to place. Our souls are connected with our\n  bodies, and therefore go and come with, or rather in them. But when\n  the connexion is broken, the soul cannot be said to be in one place\n  more than another, except as it is occupied with material objects. It\n  can attend to one thing only at once, and therefore when in, it cannot\n  be out of the body, and must be wherever occupied, but not in any\n  _place_, except concerned with material objects. The infinite Spirit\n  had no connexion with space in all the eternity which preceded\n  creation; since time began as every thing is known and supported by\n  him, he is said to be in all places. But the idea of place is not\n  necessary to our conceptions of Spirit.\n  To speak of the planets as the residence of spirits, and to talk of\n  souls flying through the _visible_ Heavens in quest of paradise is\n  idle. If all souls must ascend to Heaven, from India they go in a\n  direction opposite to our course thither.\n  There is no sun nor moon enjoyed by saints in glory; the Lord is their\n  light. And spiritual bodies are not flesh and blood, nor belly, nor\n  meats; nor corruptible nor mortal; but fit for the society of spirits.\n  The soul at death is discharged from the prison of these bodies, and\n  not confined to place. It receives new faculties, which entertain it\n  with more than substitutes for the sensations it had in the body; it\n  obtains a perception of light more vivid than in dreams, and\n  permanent. It enjoys the discernment, society, and communion of other\n  Spirits; the presence of God and the Redeemer; and progresses in the\n  knowledge and love of God, and so in holiness and happiness forever.\n    QUEST. LXXXVI. _What is the communion in glory with Christ, which\n    the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?_\n    ANSW. The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the\n    invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their\n    souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the\n    highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and\n    glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which, even\n    in death, continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in\n    their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their\n    souls: Whereas the souls of the wicked are at death cast into hell,\n    where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies\n    kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and\n    judgment of the great day.\nHaving considered the soul as separated from the body by death; the next\nthing that will be enquired into, is what becomes of it, and how it is\ndisposed of in its separate state? and here we find that there is a vast\ndifference between the righteous and the wicked in this respect: the\nformer have communion with Christ in glory, the latter are in a state of\nbanishment and separation from him; being cast into hell, and there\nremaining in torments and utter darkness. Both these are particularly\ninsisted on in this answer. In speaking to which, we must consider,\nI. That there is something supposed; namely, that the soul of man is\nimmortal; otherwise it could not be capable of happiness or misery.\nII. We shall consider the happiness which the members of the invisible\nchurch enjoy; which is called communion with Christ in glory.\nIII. The misery which the souls of the wicked endure at death; which is\ncontained in the latter part of the answer.\nI. To speak concerning the thing supposed in this answer; namely, that\nthe soul of man is immortal. This is a subject of that importance, that\nwe must be first convinced of the truth of it before we can conclude\nthat there is a state of happiness or misery in another world. But\nbefore we proceed to the proof of it, it is necessary for us to explain\nwhat we are to understand thereby; accordingly let it be premised,\n1. That we read, in scripture, of the death of the soul, in a spiritual\nsense, as separated by sin, from God, the fountain of life and\nblessedness, and as being destitute of a principle of grace; whereby it\nis utterly indisposed to perform any actions that are spiritually good,\nas much as a dead man is unable to perform the functions of life. In\nthis sense we are to understand the apostle\u2019s words, _She that liveth in\npleasure is dead while she liveth_, 1 Tim. v. 6. And in this respect\nunregenerate persons are said to be _dead in trespasses and sins_, Eph.\nii. 1. and a condemned state, which is the consequence hereof, is a\nstate of death. Now that which is opposed hereunto, is called, in\nscripture, a spiritual life, or immortality; but this is not the sense\nin which we are to consider it in our present argument.\n2. Immortality may be considered as an attribute peculiar to God, as the\napostle says, _he only hath immortality_, 1 Tim. vi. 16. the meaning of\nwhich is, that his life, which includes his Being, and all his\nperfections, is necessary and independent; but in this respect no\ncreature is immortal; but their life is maintained by the will and\nprovidence of God, which gave being to it at first.\n3. When we speak of creatures being immortal, we must consider them\neither as not having any thing in the constitution of their nature, that\ntends to a dissolution, which cannot be effected by any second cause; or\ntheir eternal existence, pursuant to the will of God, who could, had he\npleased, have annihilated them. It is in both these senses that we are\nto consider the immortality of the soul.\nThat it is in its own nature immortal, has been allowed by many of the\nHeathens, who have had just conceptions of the spirituality of its\nnature, possessed due regards to the providence of God, and those marks\nof distinction that he puts between good and bad men, as the consequence\nof their behaviour in this life. That the soul survives the body, has\nbeen reckoned, by some of the Heathens, as an opinion that has almost\nuniversally obtained in the world[125]. Thus Plato introduces\nSocrates[126] as discoursing largely on this subject, immediately before\nhis death: and, in some, other of his writings, not only asserts, but\ngives as good proofs of this doctrine as any one, destitute of\nscripture-light, could do. One of his followers, in the account he gives\nof his doctrine, recommends and insists on an argument which he brings\nto prove it, which is not without its weight, namely, that the soul acts\nfrom a principle seated in its own nature, and not by the influence of\nsome external cause, as things material do[127]. And Strabo speaks of\nthe ancient Brachmans, among the Indians, as entertaining some notions\nof the immortality of the soul, and the judgment passed upon it in its\nseparate state; agreeable to what Plato advances on that subject[128].\nSome, indeed, have thought that this notion took its rise from Thales,\nthe Milesian, who lived between two and three hundred years before\nPlato, and about six hundred years before the Christian \u00c6ra, from an\noccasional passage mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, in his life, which is\nhardly sufficient to justify this supposition; which he brings in only\nas matter of report[129]: And Cicero[130] supposes it was first\npropagated by Pherecydes, who was cotemporary with him; though Diogenes\nLaertius makes no mention of it. But it may be inferred from many things\nin Homer, the oldest writer in the Greek tongue, who lived above three\nhundred years before Thales, that the world had entertained some\nconfused ideas of it in his time: As we often find him bringing in the\nsouls of the deceased heroes appearing in a form, and speaking with a\nvoice like that which they had when living, to their surviving friends.\nAnd he not only supposes, but plainly intimates that their souls existed\nin a separate state[131]. And in other places he represents some\nsuffering punishment for their crimes committed here on earth[132];\nwhich plainly argues, whatever fabulous account we have of the nature of\npunishment, or the person suffering it, that it was an opinion,\ngenerally received at that time, that the soul existed in a separate\nstate.\nAnd, indeed, this maybe inferred from the doctrine of D\u00e6mons, or the\nsuperstitious worship of the heathens, which they paid to the souls of\nthose heroes who formerly lived on earth, and had done some things which\nthey thought rendered them the peculiar favourites of God, and the\nobjects of worship by men; and that their souls existed with God in\ngreat honour and favour in a separate state[133]. But passing this by,\nit may be farther observed, that whatever notions some of the heathens\nhad of the immortality of the soul in general; they were very much at a\nloss, many of them, in determining the place, or many things relating to\nthe state in which they were; and therefore many of them, with\nPythagoras, asserted the doctrine of transmigration of souls, or their\npassing from one body to another; and being condemned to reside in vile\nand dishonourable bodies; which, though it perverts, yet doth not\noverthrow the doctrine of the soul\u2019s immortality; and others seemed to\ndoubt whether, after four or five courses of transmigration of souls\nfrom one body to another, they might not at last shrivel into nothing.\nIt must also be acknowledged, that there was a considerable party among\nthe heathen that adhered to the sentiments of Epicurus, who denied the\nimmortality of the soul, as supposing it to be material. And the\nSadducees are represented, in scripture, as imbibing that notion; who\nare said to deny both angels and spirits, Acts xxiii. 8. In this respect\nthey gave into his philosophy, as to what concerns his denying the\nimmortality of the soul, or its existence in a future state[134]: But\npassing this by, we may observe, that notwithstanding all that has been\nsaid concerning this doctrine, by the better and wiser part of the\nheathen in their writings; yet their notions seem very defective, if we\ntrace them farther than what concerns the bare separate existence of the\nsoul; or, if they attempt to speak any thing concerning its happiness in\na future state, they then discover that they know but little of this\nmatter; and many of them, though they cannot deny the soul\u2019s\nimmortality, yet they seem to hesitate about it; and therefore we may\nsay with the apostle, that _life and immortality is brought to light\nthrough the gospel_, 2 Tim. i. 10. that is, if we would be sure of the\nimmortality of the soul, and know its state and enjoyments in another\nworld, we must look farther than the light of nature for it: and in\nseeking for arguments in scripture, we shall find great satisfaction\nconcerning this matter, which we cannot do from the writers before\nmentioned.\nThat some of the heathen were in doubt about this important truth, is\nvery evident from their writings; for Plato himself[135],\nnotwithstanding the many things which he represents Socrates as saying,\nconcerning a state of immortality after death, endeavouring to convince\nhis friend Cebes about that matter, and apprehending that he had so far\nprevailed in the argument, as that his antagonist allowed that the soul\nsurvived the body, but yet held the transmigration of souls into other\nbodies; this he seems to allow him, and adds, that it is uncertain\nwhether the soul, having worn out many bodies, may not at last perish\nwith one that it is united to[136]. And he farther says to him, that I\nmust now die, and you shall live; but which of us is in the better state\nGod only knows[137].\nAs for Aristotle, though, in many places of his writings, he seems to\nmaintain the immortality of the soul; yet in others it appears that he\nis in doubt about it; and seems to assert, that neither good nor evil\nhappens to any man after his death[138]. And the Stoicks, who did not\naltogether deny this doctrine; yet they supposed that in process of\ntime, it would be dissolved[139]. And even Cicero himself,\nnotwithstanding all that he says, by which he seems to give into this\ndoctrine; yet sometimes speaks with great hesitation about it[140]. And\nnotwithstanding what Seneca says concerning the immortality of the soul,\nas has been often before observed; yet he speaks doubtfully of it[141];\nso that we must have recourse to scripture, and those consequences that\nare deduced from it, as well as those things that may be inferred from\nthe nature of the soul to prove that it is immortal. And,\n(1.) For the proof of this doctrine, let it be considered, that the soul\nis immaterial; which appears from its being capable of thought, whereby\nit is conversant about, and takes in ideas of things divine and\nspiritual, which no creature below man can do. It has a power of\ninferring consequences from premises, and accordingly is the subject of\nmoral government, capable of conversing with God here, and expecting\nrewards or punishments from him hereafter; all this cannot be produced\nby matter or motion: As for matter, that is in itself altogether\nunactive; and when motion is impressed upon it, the only change that is\nmade therein, is in the situation and contexture of its parts, which\ncannot give it life, sensation or perception, much less a power of\njudging and willing, or being conversant about things spiritual and\nimmaterial.\n(2.) This power of thinking or reasoning was not derived from the body\nto which it was united; for that which has not in itself those superior\nendowments, cannot communicate them to another: Its union with the soul\ncannot impart them to it; for whatever sensation the body has, (which is\nbelow the power of reasoning,) is derived from the soul, as appears from\nits being wholly destitute thereof, when the union between the soul and\nbody is broken: And therefore, since those superior powers, or\nexcellencies of the soul, are produced by another cause, we must\nconclude, that they are immediately from God: This evidently appears\nfrom scripture; the body of Adam was first formed, and then it is said,\n_God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life_, Gen. ii. 7. that\nis, he put into it that soul which was the spring and fountain of all\nliving actions; and then it follows, man became a living soul: And it is\nconsidered as a peculiar display of the glory of God, that he _formeth\nthe spirit of man within him_, Zech. xii. 2.\n(3.) It follows from hence, that the dissolution of the body makes no\nalteration in the powers and faculties of the soul; which is not hereby\nrendered subject to death. For, as it did not derive those powers from\nthe body, as was before observed, it could not be said to lose them in\nthe ruin of the body: Thus our Saviour speaks of the soul as not being\naffected with those injuries that tend to the bodies destruction, when\nhe says, _Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill\nthe soul_, Mat. x. 28.\n(4.) We have a particular account in scripture, of the soul when\nseparated from the body, as disposed of in a different way from it; it\ndoes not go down to the earth as the body does, from whence it was, but\n_returns to God who gave it_, Eccl. xii. 7. Its return to God supposes\nthat it was accountable to him for its actions performed in the body, or\nthe way and manner in which the faculties were exerted; and accordingly,\nwhen separate from it, it is represented as returning to God to give an\naccount of its behaviour in the body, and to reap the fruits and effects\nthereof. And as it is said to return to God; so believers breathe forth\ntheir souls, and resign them by faith into the hand of God, as our\nSaviour expresses it, _Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit_, Luke\nxxiii. 46. or, as Stephen says, _Lord Jesus receive my spirit_, Acts\n(5.) The soul\u2019s immortality may be proved from the extent of the\ncapacities thereof, and the small improvement men make of them in this\nworld, especially the greatest part of mankind. What a multitude are\nthere who never had the faculties of the soul deduced into act, in whom\nthe powers of reasoning were altogether useless, while in this world; I\nmean in those whose souls are separated from their bodies as soon as\nthey are born; others die in their childhood, before reason comes to\nmaturity; and how great a part of the world live to old age, whose souls\nhave not been employed in any thing great or excellent, in proportion to\ntheir capacities? Were these made in vain? or did God design, when he\nbrought them into, or continued them either a longer or a shorter time\nin the world, that they should never be employed in any thing that is\nworthy of these noble faculties? Therefore we must conclude that there\nis another state, in which the soul shall act more agreeably to those\ncapacities which it is endowed with.\n(6.) This may be farther proved, not only from the natural desires,\nwhich there are in all men, of immortality; but more especially those\ndesires, which the saints have, of enjoying some things in God, which\ncannot be attained in this life. The natural desire of immortality is\nwhat belongs to all: With what reluctancy does the soul and body part;\nwhich arises from a natural aversion to a dissolution, unless there be a\nwell-grounded hope of a life of blessedness that shall ensue? Moreover\nthere is not only a desire but an expectation of the soul\u2019s living for\never, when separated from the body, in a state of happiness; which\nbelievers are made partakers of, as a peculiar blessing from God:\nTherefore we must conclude, that he that gave them will satisfy them; so\nthat as they have a thirst after happiness, which is the effect of a\nsupernatural power, they shall not be disappointed or destitute of it;\nwhich they must be if the soul does not survive the body.\n(7.) The immortality of the soul may be proved from the justice of God\nas the Governor of the world. This divine perfection renders it\nnecessary that rewards and punishments should be distributed according\nto men\u2019s behaviour in this life. We observe, under a foregoing head,\nthat man is supposed to be accountable to God, from the consideration of\nthe spirit\u2019s returning to him: And it also follows, from what was said\nunder another head, concerning the soul\u2019s being the subject of moral\ngovernment: But this argument will be farther improved under a following\nanswer, when we consider our Saviour\u2019s coming to judge the world[142].\nAll the use therefore that we shall at present make thereof, is, that\nthe soul being thus accountable to God, has reason to expect some\npeculiar marks of favour beyond what it receives in this world; or to\nfear some punishment as the consequence of crimes committed, from the\nhand of the supreme Judge of all: Thus it is said, _God will render to\nevery man according to his deeds_, Rom. ii. 6. And elsewhere, _Every one\nshall receive according to what he hath done in the body, whether it be\ngood or bad_, 2 Cor. v. 10. Now that which makes for our present\nargument, is, that the best men in the world do not receive those\npeculiar marks of divine favour, as to what respects their outward\ncondition therein, as some of the vilest men often do: This the prophet\nJeremiah takes notice of, when he says, _Righteous art thou, O Lord,\nwhen I plead with thee; yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments:\nWherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they\nhappy that deal very treacherously?_ Jer. xii. 1. And the Psalmist, when\nobserving the prosperity of the wicked, says, _They are not in trouble\nlike other men; neither are they plagued like other men_, Psal. lxxiii.\n5. that is, not exposed to those rebukes of providence, as to what\nconcerns outward things, as good men are.\nThat which is alledged by some to solve this difficulty, is, that virtue\nhas its own reward; and therefore, the good man cannot but be happy,\nwhatever troubles he meets with in this life, since he has something\nwithin himself that makes him so. But to this it may be replied, that\nthis cannot give the least satisfaction, that the divine distributions\nare just and equal, to those who are destitute of this inward comfort;\nand the principal ingredient in that internal happiness which arises\nfrom the exercise of religion and virtue, consists in the divine\napprobation, and the interest which such have in that love, which shall\ndiscover itself more fully, when the soul, being separate from the body,\nshall enjoy the happiness resulting from it in another world: Therefore,\nthis is so far from militating against the doctrine we are maintaining,\nthat it affords a considerable argument to support it.\nIf it be objected also, on the other hand, that sin brings its own\npunishment along with it, in that uneasiness which the wicked find in\ntheir own breasts; concerning whom it is said, _They are like the\ntroubled sea when it cannot rest; whose waters cast up mire and dirt_,\nIsa. lvii. 20. This also proves the immortality of the soul; inasmuch as\nthis fear arises from a sense of guilt, whereby persons are liable to\npunishment in another world, who are not in the least concerned about\nthe punishment of sin in this, and are ready to conclude themselves out\nof the reach of human judicature; therefore, that which they are afraid\nof, is God\u2019s righteous judgments in another world, which they cannot, by\nany means, free themselves from the dread of. We must therefore conclude\nthat this is as natural to man, considered as sinful, as the hope of\nfuture blessedness is to one that is righteous; and both these are the\nresult of a divine impression enstamped on the souls of men, which\naffords an evident proof of their immortality.\nThe objections against this doctrine, are generally such as carry in\nthem the lowest and most abject thoughts of human nature in those who\nmay truly be said to despise their own souls. When they pretend, as was\nbefore observed, that they are material, this is to set the soul on a\nlevel with the body; for matter, how much soever it be refined, when it\nis resolved into the particles of which it consists, has no excellency\nabove other material beings.\nAs to the objections that are brought against this doctrine from\nscripture, by which the frailty of this present life is set forth: These\ndo not in the least tend to overthrow the immortality of the soul. Thus,\nwhen it is said in Eccles. iii. 19, 20. _That which befalleth the sons\nof men, befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: As the one\ndieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man\nhath no pre-eminence above a beast; all go unto one place; all are of\nthe dust, and all turn to dust again._ It is plain, that Solomon here\nspeaks of the inferior part of man, in which he has no pre-eminence\nabove the beasts, as the body is resolved into dust, as well as the\nbodies of the brute creatures; but then the following words sufficiently\nconfute the objection, in which it is said, _the spirit of man goeth\nupward_; whereby he asserts, not only the superior excellency, but the\nimmortality of the soul.\nAgain, when it is said in chap. ix. 5. _The living know that they must\ndie, but the dead know not any thing; neither have they any more a\nreward; for the memory of them is forgotten._ This is sufficiently\nanswered by only reading the following words; by which it appears, that\ntheir memory is forgotten; and they are said to have no farther reward\nin this world; or, as it is expressed, _They have no more any portion\nfor ever, in any thing that is done under the sun_; but this does not in\nthe least intimate that they have no portion in what respects the things\nof another world; and, indeed, their labour being unrewarded here,\naffords us an incontestible argument, that they shall have it hereafter,\nwhen the soul leaves this world.\nAnd as for other scriptures, that seem to intimate as though death put\nan end to all those actions of religion which were performed by good men\nin this life, as in Psal. xxx. 9. \u2018When I go down to the pit, shall the\ndust praise thee, shall it declare thy truth?\u2019 and, \u2018The dead praise not\nthe Lord; neither any that go down into silence,\u2019 Psal. cxv. 17. and\nwhat Hezekiah says to the same purpose, \u2018The grave cannot praise thee;\ndeath cannot celebrate thee; they that go down to the pit cannot hope\nfor thy truth,\u2019 Isa. xxxviii. 18. These and such-like expressions intend\nnothing else but this; that the praises of God cannot be celebrated by\nthose who are in the state of the dead, in such a way as they were by\nthem while they lived in this world, _viz._ in the assemblies of his\nsaints, from which they are separated, being no longer considered as\nmembers of the militant church; neither are they apprized of, or\naffected with the things done in this lower world, in which respect they\nare said to know nothing: But this does not in the least, militate\nagainst their praising God with the church triumphant, and having those\nprivileges conferred upon them, which are adapted to a state of\nimmortality and eternal life.\nAs to what is farther objected by others, that the immortality of the\nsoul respects only the righteous; because the apostle says in 1 John ii.\n17. \u2018The world passes away, and the lust thereof, but he that doth the\nwill of God abideth for ever.\u2019 This sense given of the words contradicts\nall those scriptures that speak of the punishment of sin in another\nworld; for if none are said to _abide for ever_, but the righteous, or\nthey who do the will of God; the wicked must necessarily go unpunished.\nTherefore we must understand the word _abiding_ in the same sense as the\nPsalmist does, when he says, \u2018The ungodly shall not stand in the\njudgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous,\u2019 Psal. i. 5.\nwhich does not signify their not existing in a future state, but not\nbeing admitted into the congregation of the righteous, or made happy\nwith them therein.[143]\nII. We shall consider the happiness that the members of the invisible\nchurch enjoy; which is called communion with Christ in glory, as it\nincludes in it perfect holiness; accordingly we read of _the spirits of\njust men made perfect_, Heb. xii. 23. This perfection consists in the\nrooting out all those remainders of corruption, and those habitual\ninclinations to sin, that they were never wholly freed from in this\nworld. The most that can be said concerning a believer at present, is,\nthat he has a principle of spiritual life and grace, which inclines him\nto oppose, and stand his ground against, the assaults of sin that\ndwelleth in him, whereby it is mortified, but not wholly destroyed. The\nwork of sanctification is daily growing to perfection, though it does\nnot fully attain to it: But when the soul leaves the world, it arrives\nto perfection in a moment; so that the power which man had at first, to\nyield sinless obedience, which was lost by the fall of our first\nparents, is regained with great advantage. For this perfection of\nholiness not only denotes a sinless state, but the soul\u2019s being\nconfirmed therein; and accordingly it is said to be received into the\nhighest heaven, the place into which no unclean thing can enter; where\nthere is spotless purity, as well as everlasting happiness; and here\nthey are described as beholding the face of God in light and glory.\nThese things need not be particularly insisted on in this place, since\nthe same privileges are said, in a following answer, to belong to\nbelievers after the day of judgment, both in their souls and bodies,\nwhen they shall be received into heaven, and be made perfectly holy and\nhappy, and be blest with the immediate vision of God[144]; Therefore all\nthat we shall consider at present, with relation hereunto, is,\n1. That the soul is immediately made partaker of this blessedness on its\nseparation from the body.\n2. It is farther described as waiting for the full redemption of the\nbody, which is still supposed to continue under the dominion of death,\nthough united to Christ, and consequently under his special protection:\nUpon which account believers are said, when they die, to rest in their\ngraves as in their beds, till their bodies are again united to their\nsouls at the last day.\n1. We shall consider that the soul is made partaker of this blessedness\nimmediately after its separation from the body, as it is observed in\nthis answer; which seems to militate against three opinions that have\nbeen advanced relating to the state of separate souls.\n[1.] That of the Papists, who maintain that the soul is not made perfect\nin holiness at death, but enters into a middle-state, which they call\npurgatory, in which it is to endure exquisite torments, designed partly\nas a punishment inflicted for those sins committed in this life, which\nhave not been expiated by satisfaction made by them, and partly to free\nthem from the sin which they brought with them into that state.\n[2.] Another opinion which seems to be opposed in this answer, is what\nwas maintained by some of the ancient Fathers; namely, that the souls of\nbelievers do not immediately enter into the highest heaven before they\nare reunited to their bodies, but into paradise; not to suffer, as the\nPapists pretend that they do who are in purgatory; but to enjoy those\npleasures which are reserved for them in a place not much inferior to\nheaven.\n[3.] There is another opinion which is subversive of the doctrine\ncontained in this answer; namely, that the soul, at its separation from\nthe body, sleeps till the resurrection; and consequently, in that\nintermediate space of time in which it is separate, it is no more\ncapable of happiness or misery than the body that lies in the grave. The\nabsurdity of these opinions we shall take occasion farther to consider.\nAnd,\n[1.] That of the Papists concerning a middle-state, into which they\nsuppose, souls enter at death, in order to their being cleansed from the\nremainders of sin, whereby they are made meet for heaven. This doctrine,\nhow ludicrous and ungrounded soever it may appear to be, they are so\nfond of, that it will be as hard a matter to convince them of the\nabsurdity thereof, as it was of old to convince the worshippers of Diana\nat Ephesus, of their stupid idolatry; because it tends to promote their\nsecular interest. They first endeavour to persuade the poor deluded\npeople, that they must suffer very great torments after death, unless\nthey be relieved by the prayers of their surviving friends; and then, to\ninduce them to shew this favour to them, as well as that they may merit\nsome abatement of these torments or a speedy release from them, they\ntell them, that it is their duty and interest to leave their estates, by\ntheir last will and testament to pious uses; such as building of\nchurches, endowing of monasteries, &c. by which means they have got a\ngreat part of the estates of the people into their own hands. And to\ncarry on this cheat, they give particular instances, in some of their\nwritings, of souls being released from this dreadful place by their\nprayers.\nThe account they give of this middle-state, between heaven and hell, is\nnot only that they are not admitted into the immediate presence of God;\nbut are exposed to grievous torments by fire, little short of those that\nare endured in hell; and if they are not helped by the prayers of the\nchurch, they are in danger of being sent from thence directly to hell,\nfrom whence there is no release. They also add, that the punishment, in\nthis state, is either longer or shorter, in proportion to the crimes\ncommitted in this world; for which satisfaction has not been made by\npenances endured, or money given to compensate for them. Some, indeed,\nare allowed, by them, to pass immediately into heaven, without being\ndetained here; namely, those who have performed works of supererogation;\nor if by their entering into a vow of poverty, they have parted with\ntheir estates, while living in the world, for the use of the church, in\nwhich case no end could be answered, by telling them of this fable of\npurgatory. Others are told that they may escape it, by entering into a\nvow of chastity and canonical obedience; which belongs more especially\nto the priests, when entering into holy orders; whereby they take care\nto make provision for themselves, that so the deluded people may have a\ngreater regard to their prayers, since they will find none in purgatory\nto perform that service for them. This is so vile and absurd an opinion,\nthat it cannot but expose the church of Rome to the scorn and contempt\nof all who are not given up to strong delusions.\nBut though it sufficiently appears, that secular interest is the main\nfoundation of this doctrine; yet there are some arguments, which they\ntake from scripture, to support it; which is the only thing that\nrequires our notice.\nOne scripture brought to this purpose, is in Isa. iv. 4. where the\nprophet speaks concerning the _Lord\u2019s purging the blood of Jerusalem\nfrom the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of\nburning_; supposing that this should have its accomplishment when the\nsoul left the body, and was detained in this place of torment. But this\nis very remote from the design of the Holy Ghost herein; for it only\ncontains a metaphorical description of some judgments which God would\ninflict on people in this life, and as a means to reclaim them from\nthem: therefore we often read, in the prophets, of God\u2019s refining his\npeople _in the furnace of affliction_, Isa. xlviii. 10. and accordingly\nit is said, that _the Lord\u2019s fire is in Zion, and his furnace in\nJerusalem_, chap. xxxi. 9. denoting the sore judgments they should\nundergo in this world, as a punishment for their idolatry.\nAnother scripture, which is miserably perverted, to support this\ndoctrine, is that in Zech. ix. 11. _By the blood of thy covenant have I\nsent forth thy prisoners, out of the pit wherein is no water_; which\nthey suppose, is to be understood of some state after this life; because\nit is called _the pit_; and it is also described as a place of misery,\ninasmuch as there is no water, that is, no refreshing comforts; and they\nadd, that the prophet does not speak of hell because some persons are\ndescribed as _sent forth_, or released from it; therefore it must needs\nbe understood of this middle-state, between heaven and hell. But this is\nfar from being the sense of the text, since it contains a prediction of\ntheir being delivered from the Babylonish captivity, which, in a\nmetaphorical way of speaking, is called _the pit, wherein is no water_,\nto denote the great distress that the people were to be brought under\ntherein; thus the prophet Isaiah, speaking of their deliverance from the\ncaptivity, says, _The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and\nthat he should not die in the pit_, Isa. li. 14. Or else it denotes some\nfuture deliverance, which the church was to expect after great\ncalamities undergone by them; and this is said to be _by the blood of\nthe covenant_, denoting that all the happiness the church shall enjoy in\nthis world, as well as the other is founded in the blood of Christ,\npursuant to the covenant of grace: and if the text must necessarily be\nunderstood of a deliverance from evil after death, it may be considered\nas a prediction of our being delivered from eternal destruction, by the\nblood of Jesus.\nAgain, another scripture which they bring to support this fabulous\ndoctrine, is in 1 Cor. iii. 13, 14, 15. _Every man\u2019s work shall be made\nmanifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by\nfire; and the fire shall try every man\u2019s work, of what sort it is, If\nany man\u2019s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a\nreward. If any man\u2019s work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he\nhimself shall be saved; yet so as by fire_. The reason why this\nscripture is forced into that cause which they maintain, is, because we\nread of persons being _saved so as by fire_; and this they suppose to\nrespect that which should follow after the particular judgment of every\none at death in which, a scrutiny shall be made concerning their works,\nor their behaviour in this world; and if they are found faulty, they\nmay, notwithstanding, be saved after they have endured those sufferings\nwhich are there allotted for them.\nBut there is nothing in the text that gives the least countenance to\nthis notion, since the apostle seems to be speaking concerning those\nministers who preach false doctrines, that is, propagate errors not\ndirectly subversive of the fundamental articles of faith, but such as\ntend to embarrass the consciences of men, and, in many respects, lead\nthem out of the way; or of others, who have been perverted by them, and\nhave embraced pernicious errors, which, in their consequences, are\nsubversive of the faith, but yet do not hold those consequences: these\nmay be saved, but their salvation shall be attended with some\ndifficulty, arising from the mistaken notions which they have imbibed.\nSome compare this to a person whose house is in flames, and he saves his\nlife with difficulty, being scorched thereby. God will, in his own time,\ntake some method to discover what notions we have received in religion;\nand he is said to do it by fire. Whether this, as a learned writer\nobserves, is to be understood of the clear gospel-dispensation,[145] or\nelse respects some trying dispensation of providence, accompanied with a\ngreater measure of the effusion of the Spirit, that shall lead men into\nthe knowledge of their mistakes, and set them in the right way, I will\nnot determine. But whether the one or the other of these senses of the\ntexts seems most agreeable to the mind of the apostle, it is\nsufficiently evident that no countenance is given, either in this or any\nother scripture, to this absurd doctrine of the Papists.\nAnother scripture which they bring for the proof of this doctrine, is in\n1 Pet. iii. 19. in which it is said, that our Saviour _went and preached\nunto the spirits in prison_. The sense they give of that text, compared\nwith the foregoing verse, is, that as our Saviour, after his death,\nvisited those repositories, where the Old Testament-saints were lodged,\nand preached the gospel to them, which they embraced; and pursuant\nhereupon, were admitted into heaven: so he went down into this\nsubterraneous prison, and preached to them also; but whether this was\nattended with the same success, or no, they pretend not to determine;\nbut only allege this as a proof that there is such a place: and to give\ncountenance to this sense they say, that by the prison here spoken of,\nthe prison of hell cannot be intended; inasmuch as there is no hope of\nsalvation there, and consequently no preaching of the gospel. And it\ncannot be meant of his preaching to any in this world; for they suppose,\nthat he went after he left the world, and _preached to spirits_, that\nis, to persons, whose souls were separate from their bodies; therefore\nhe went, as they argue, and preached to those that are in purgatory: but\nin giving this sense of the text, they are obliged to take no notice of\nwhat follows, which, if duly considered, would plainly overthrow it.\nThe meaning of this scripture therefore is this, that our Saviour\npreached by his Spirit, to the old world, in the ministry of Noah, while\nhe was preparing the ark; but they being disobedient, were not only\ndestroyed by the flood, but shut up in the prison of hell; in which\nrespect it is said he preached to those that are now in prison: so that\nthis scripture makes nothing for that doctrine which we are opposing;\nnor any other that is or can be brought; so that all the arguments\npretended to be taken from it, are a manifest perversion thereof.\nHowever, there is one method of reasoning which they make use of, that I\ncannot pass over; inasmuch as they apprehend that it contains a\n_dilemma_ that is unanswerable; namely, that there is some place in\nwhich persons are perfectly freed from sin, which must be either this\nworld, or heaven, or some middle state between them both. It is allowed\nby all, that there is no perfect freedom from sin in this world; and to\nsuppose that persons are perfectly freed from sin after they come to\nheaven, is to conclude that that is a state of probation, in which the\ngospel must be preached, and persons that attend upon it, inclined to\nembrace it, which is not agreeable to a state of perfection: and this is\ncontrary to scripture, which speaks of no unclean thing entering\ntherein. Therefore it follows, that the state in which they are fitted\nfor it, must be this which they plead for, to wit, a middle-state, in\nwhich they are first purged, and then received into heaven.\nBut to this it may be replied, that it is true, believers are not\nperfectly freed from sin in this world, nor do they enter into heaven,\neither with the guilt or pollution of their sins upon them; but they are\nmade perfect in an instant, in passing out of this world into heaven:\nthe same stroke which separates the soul from the body takes away the\nremainders of corruption, and fits it for the heavenly state; it passes\nout of this world perfect, though it was imperfect while in it; in like\nmanner as the body being raised out of the grave is rendered\nincorruptible thereby, so that we have no occasion to invent a middle\nstate, into which the saints are brought. Therefore it follows, as it is\nexpressed in this answer, that the souls of believers, immediately after\ndeath, are made perfect in holiness.\n[2.] There is another opinion embraced by some of the Jews, and several\nof the Fathers, in which they are followed by some modern writers;\nnamely, that the souls of believers, at death, enter into paradise,\nwhere they continue till they are reunited to their bodies, and, after\nthe day of judgment, are received into the highest heaven: thus they\nunderstand our Saviour\u2019s words to the penitent thief on the cross, _To\nday thou shalt be with me in paradise_, in a literal sense, as\ncontra-distinguished from heaven. And these assert, that the soul of our\nSaviour, when separate from his body, went immediately into paradise,\nand not into heaven, till after his resurrection. This is supposed to\nimport the same thing as _Abraham\u2019s bosom_ does in the parable; and\nindeed, the Greek word,[146] in the metaphorical sense thereof, which we\ntranslate _bosom_, signifies a port or haven; which is, as it were, a\nbosom for shipping.\nThis is described as very distinct from the Popish doctrine of\npurgatory; for it is not a place of suffering, but of delight and\npleasure. Tertullian, who gave into this notion,[147] describes it as a\nplace of divine pleasure, designed for the reception of the spirits of\nholy men, being separate either from the world, or other places near it,\nby an inclosure of fire, designed to keep the wicked out.\nThis is what they suppose the apostle Paul speaks of when he says, that\nhe was _caught up into paradise_, 2 Cor. xii. 5. and they conclude that\nthis vision or rapture which he mentions, includes in it what he\nexperienced at two several times; and that this is agreeable to what he\nmentions in verse 1. where he speaks not of one single vision, but of\n_visions_ and _revelations_. Accordingly they suppose that he had first\nof all a vision of the glory of heaven, and then he had another of\nparadise: thus a late writer understands the text.[148] However, I\ncannot think that this can be sufficiently inferred from the apostle\u2019s\nwords, which are, as it were, a preface to introduce the account which\nhe gives of himself, when he says, _I will come to visions and\nrevelations_; that is, I will now tell you how God sometimes favours his\npeople with extraordinary visions and revelations: then he proceeds to\ngive an instance hereof in himself, as being _caught up into the third\nheaven_, or into paradise; for I cannot suppose that he speaks of two\nvisions, or distinguishes paradise from heaven; and therefore I am\nobliged not to pay that deference to the sentiments of the Fathers he\nmentions, as he does, but must conclude the notion to be altogether\nungrounded, though it is supported by the credit of Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian,\nEpiphanius, Methodius, as well as of several Jewish writers; such as\nPhilo, and some others,[149]\n[3.] We shall now consider another doctrine, maintained by some, which\nis inconsistent with what is said in this answer, concerning the souls\nof believers being made perfect in holiness, and entering immediately\ninto heaven, when separate from their bodies, _viz._ that at death the\nsoul sleeps as well as the body, till the resurrection, when one shall\nbe raised, and the other awakened out of its sleep. These do not suppose\nthat the soul ceases to exist; but that it enters into, and continues\nin, a state of inactivity, without any power to exercise the faculty of\nthinking, and, as a consequence thereof, whilst remaining in this state,\nit must be incapable either of happiness or misery. These do not assert\nthat there shall be no rewards and punishments in a future state; but\nthat there will be a deferring thereof until the last day.\nThis doctrine was generally maintained by the Socinians, as may be seen\nin several of their writings referred to by a learned author, who\nopposes them;[150] and the arguments by which it is usually supported,\nare taken partly from the possibility of the soul\u2019s being destitute of\nthought, and partly from those scriptures that compare death to a sleep;\nby which they understand not only a cessation of action in the body, but\nlikewise in the soul. In defence of the former of these, _viz._ that it\nis possible for the soul to be without the exercise of thought, they\nargue, that the soul of a new-born infant, (or, at least, before it is\nborn,) has no ideas: though there be a power of reasoning, which is\nessential, to the soul; yet this is not deduced into act, so as to\nproduce thought, or actual reasoning, from whence moral good or evil\nwould proceed, and a sense of happiness or misery, arise from it. And\nthis notion is carried somewhat farther by a late celebrated\nwriter;[151] who, though he takes no notice of the tendency of his\nassertion to support this opinion concerning the soul\u2019s sleeping at\ndeath; yet others make a handle of it, to defend it with a greater shew\nof reason than what was formerly discovered in maintaining this\nargument.\nHe asserts, that the souls of those that are adult do not always think;\nand particularly when a person is in a sound sleep, that he has no\nthought; how much soever there may be the exercise of thought, though\nconfused and irregular, in those who, between sleeping and waking, not\nonly dream a thousand things which they never thought of before, but\nalso remember those dreams when they awake. That a person, in a sound\nsleep, has no dreams, and consequently is destitute of thought, he\nattempts to prove; inasmuch as when any one is suddenly waked out of a\nsound sleep, he can give no account of what he had been thinking of; and\nhe supposes it impossible for a person who was thinking, to forget the\nnext moment what his thoughts were conversant about. This is the\nprincipal argument whereby he supports this notion; and he has so far\nthe advantage thereof, as that it is impossible for us to prove the\ncontrary from any thing that we know or experience concerning ourselves:\nNevertheless, it will not appear very convincing, when we consider that\nthere are innumerable thoughts which we have when awake, that we can\nhardly give an account of the next minute: And if the thoughts are very\nactive in those that dream, (who are as much asleep as others that do\nnot dream; though the sleep may not be so refreshing as if it were\notherwise,) I cannot see how this consequence can be inferred, that\nsleep is inconsistent with thought. Moreover, a person who is delirious,\nor distracted, undoubtedly thinks, though his thoughts are disordered;\nbut when the _delirium_ or distraction is over, he can no more remember\nwhat he thought of, than a person that is waked out of the soundest\nsleep: This argument therefore tends rather to amuse, or embarrass the\ncause they maintain, than to give sufficient conviction.\nNow from this method of reasoning it is inferred, that when the soul is\nseparated from the body, it is altogether destitute of the exercise of\nthought, which is what they mean by the soul\u2019s sleeping: And to give\nfarther countenance to this matter, they produce several scriptures, in\nwhich death is compared to a sleep; as when God speaks of the death of\nMoses, he says, _Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers_, Deut. xxxi.\n26. and Job speaks of _sleeping in the dust_, Job vii. 21. And\nconcerning the resurrection after death, he says, _That man lieth down\nand riseth not, till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be\nraised out of their sleep_, chap. xiv. 12. and David prays, _Lighten\nmine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death_, Psal. xiii. 3. and our\nSaviour, speaking concerning Lazarus, when dead, says, _Our friend\nLazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep_, John xi.\n11. which he afterwards explains, ver. 14. when he says, _Lazarus is\ndead_. There are several other scriptures to the like purpose, they\nbring to prove that the soul sleeps in death, taking the word in the\nliteral sense thereof.\nBut to this it may be replied, that as to what respects the possibility\nof the soul\u2019s being rendered incapable of thinking, when separate from\nthe body; it is no just way of reasoning to infer from the possibility\nof a thing, the actual being of it: Therefore if it could be proved to a\ndemonstration, (as the author above-mentioned supposes he has done,\nthough, I think, without sufficient ground,) that sleep deprives a\nperson of thought; yet it will not follow from hence, that the soul,\nwhen separate from the body, ceases to think. When the powers and\nfaculties of the soul are deduced into act, experience tells us, that\nthey are greatly improved and strengthened; and therefore the exercise\nthereof cannot be so easily impeded as is pretended; especially when we\nconsider that it does not derive this from the body, which contributes\nvery little to those ideas it has of things immaterial, which are not\nthe objects of sense; and how much soever bodily diseases may weaken or\ninterrupt the soul in its actings, we do not find that they so far\ndestroy those powers, but that, when the distemper ceases, the former\nactings return, like the spring of a watch, which may be stopped by\nsomething that hinders the motion of the wheels, which, when it is\nremoved, continues to give motion to them as it had done before: The\nbody, at most, can be considered but as a clog and impediment to the\nactivity of the soul; and consequently it may be argued from thence,\nthat in a state of separation the soul is so far from being impeded in\nits actings, that it becomes more active than before.\nBut that which I would principally insist on, as what will sufficiently\noverthrow this doctrine, is, the account which we have in many\nscriptures; and several just consequences which may be deduced from\nthem, by which it will appear, that nothing that has been said\nconcerning the possibility of the soul\u2019s being unactive, when separate\nfrom the body, can enervate the force of the argument taken from thence\nto support the contrary doctrine. It is true, the scripture oftentimes\nrepresents death as a _sleep_, as in the places before-mentioned; and it\nis sometimes described as a state of rest, which is of the same import\nwith sleep; but this is explained as a state of peace, holiness, and\nhappiness, and not a cessation from action. Thus it is said, _He shall\nenter into peace, they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his\nuprightness_, Isa. lvii. 2. which is plainly meant of the death of the\nrighteous, as appears from the preceding verse, where it is said, _The\nrighteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart_. Now these are said\nto _enter into peace_; which supposes that they are capable of the\nenjoyment of those blessings which the soul shall then be possessed of,\nand they are said to _walk in their uprightness_; which signifies their\nbeing active in what respects the glory of God, which is very\ninconsistent with the soul\u2019s sleeping, when separate from the body. Rest\nand sleep are metaphorical expressions, when applied to this doctrine;\nand nothing is more common than for such figurative ways of speaking to\nbe used in the sacred writings; and therefore it is very absurd for us\nto understand the words otherwise in this instance before us.\nWe will now proceed to consider those proofs we have from scripture, of\nthe soul\u2019s being in a state of activity when separate from the body.\nThe first scripture that may be brought to prove this, is what the\napostle says in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4. when speaking concerning himself as\n_caught up into the third heaven_; and not knowing whether he was at the\nsame time, _in, or out of the body_. If he was in the body, his senses\nwere locked up, and he must be supposed to have been in a trance; which\nmilitates against the supposition that the soul\u2019s power of acting may be\nimpeded either by sleep or some bodily disease, in which there is not\nthe exercise of the senses. Or if, on the other hand, he was _out of the\nbody_, his _hearing unspeakable words_ plainly proves our argument,\n_viz._ that the soul is capable of action, and consequently of enjoying\nthe heavenly glory, when separate from the body.\nMoreover, this is evident from our Saviour\u2019s words to the penitent thief\non the cross, _Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in\nparadise_, Luke xxiii. 43. To _be in paradise_ is certainly to be in\nheaven in a state of compleat blessedness, where the soul delights\nitself in the enjoyment of God, which is altogether inconsistent with a\nstate of insensibility. Were it otherwise, it ought rather to have been\nsaid, thou shalt be with me in paradise after the resurrection of the\nbody, than to day. The method which some take to evade the force of the\nargument, who say, that _to day_, refers not to the time of his being\nadmitted into heaven, but to the time when Christ spake these words, is\nso low and trifling, that it doth not deserve an answer.\nThere is another scripture which fully proves this doctrine, namely,\nwhat the apostle says, _I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to\ndepart and to be with Christ, which is far better_, Phil. i. 23. In\nwhich he takes it for granted, that as soon as he departed out of this\nworld, he should be with Christ; which denotes that he should be in his\nimmediate presence, beholding his glory; which is inconsistent with the\nsupposition that the soul sleeps at death. And this is farther evident\nfrom what he says, that this is _far better_, which could not be said to\nbe, if the notion we are opposing were true; for it is so much better\nfor a saint to be serving Christ\u2019s interest in this world, and made so\neminently useful in promoting his glory, as the apostle was, than to be\nin a state of inactivity, wherein the soul is not capable of doing any\nthing for him, nor enjoying any thing from him, that there is no\ncomparison between them; and whereas he was _in a strait_ which of these\ntwo he should chuse, had it been referred to him, the matter might\neasily have been determined in favour of his continuing in this world;\nfor there he was useful; whereas, in the other, he would not only be\nuseless, but incapable of enjoying those privileges which he was made\npartaker of here.\nMy next argument shall be taken from what is said in 2 Cor. v. 8. _We\nare confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and\nto be present with the Lord_; where one infers the other, without any\nintimation of his waiting till the soul is united again to the body,\nbefore he is admitted into Christ\u2019s presence.\nAgain, this farther appears from the words of Solomon, in Eccl. iv. 2.\n_I praised the dead which are already dead, more than the living which\nare yet alive._ By which we are to understand, that the state of\nbelievers, when they die, is much more happy than it can be in this\nlife; which supposes that they are capable of happiness, and\nconsequently that the soul, when separated from the body, is not in a\nstate of insensibility; which is altogether inconsistent with happiness.\nAnd to all this we may add what our Saviour says in the parable of the\nrich man and Lazarus; the _beggar died, and was carried by angels into\nAbraham\u2019s bosom: The rich man also died and was buried, and in hell he\nlifted up his eyes, being in torments_, Luke xvi. 22, 23. In which\nparable we have an account of the different state of the souls of the\nrighteous and wicked at death, and not barely what shall follow upon the\nresurrection of the body; for when the rich man is represented as being\nin torments, he says, in a following part of the parable, _I have five\nbrethren_; and he would have _had Lazarus sent to testify to them, lest\nthey should also come into that place of torment_; to which it is\nreplied, _They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them_, ver.\n28, 29. which plainly intimates, that the parable refers to the state of\nseparate souls, before the resurrection, whilst others enjoyed the means\nof grace; and consequently it proves that the soul, when separate from\nthe body, is capable of happiness or misery; and which is more, is fixed\nin one or the other of them.\nAs to those scriptures that speak of the happiness or misery of men, as\ndeferred to the end of the world. It is intimated in the parable of the\ntares, that _the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from the\njust_, Mat. xiii. 9. and the former are said to be _cast into a furnace\nof fire_, ver. 49, 50. and the latter, _viz._ the righteous, to _shine\nforth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father_, ver. 43. which\nrespects the dealings of God with man, in the end of time. Moreover our\nSaviour speaks of his people as _blessed and recompensed at the\nresurrection of the just_, Luke xiv. 14. And the apostle Paul expresses\nhis hope of a _crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous\nJudge, should give him at that day_, 2 Tim. iv. 8. that is, the day of\nhis coming to judgment; and several other scriptures that speak of what\nis consequent to the resurrection. To this it may be replied, that these\nscriptures respect not the beginning, but consummation of the happiness\nof the saints, or their compleat blessedness in soul and body, which is\nnot inconsistent with the happiness that separate souls enjoy before the\nresurrection. Nor is the misery that is consequent upon the\nresurrection, inconsistent with that which sinners endure before it,\nwhen their souls are separate from their bodies. Thus concerning the\nhappiness of the souls of believers at death; which leads us to\nconsider,\n2. What is farther observed in this answer, concerning the soul\u2019s\nwaiting for the full redemption of the body; which though it continues\nunder the dominion of death, is notwithstanding united to Christ; and\naccordingly believers are said to rest in their graves as in their beds,\ntill the resurrection.\nThe souls of believers are described as waiting for the full redemption\nof their bodies; which is the same expression that the apostle uses,\nRom. viii. 23. where redemption denotes a full discharge from that\nprison, or state of confinement in the grave; in which the body was\nrendered incapable of answering the end for which it was redeemed by\nChrist, and, at the same time, the soul was destitute of that happiness\nwhich its re-union therewith shall convey to it. Its enjoyments were all\nspiritual, and, in their kind perfect; but yet it was naked, or, as the\napostle expresses it unclothed; inasmuch as it wanted that which was\ndesigned to be a constituent part, necessary to compleat the human\nnature; without which it was indisposed for those actions and enjoyments\nwhich arise from its union with the body. This it is said to wait for,\nas a desire of re-union therewith is natural to it. Nevertheless it\nwaits without impatience, or any diminution of its intellectual\nhappiness.\n(2.) As to what respects the bodies of believers, they are said to\ncontinue united to Christ, which is the result of their being redeemed\nby him, and of his condescending to dwell in them by his Spirit.\nAccordingly his love extends itself to their lower part, as well as to\ntheir souls; and, as the apostle says, _Nothing shall separate_ a\nbeliever _from his love_, no, _not death itself_, ver. 38, 39. upon\nwhich account they are said to _sleep in Jesus_, 1 Thes. iv. 14. or to\n_die in the Lord_, Rev. xiv. 14. They are indeed buried in the grave,\nand seem to lie neglected like common dust: nevertheless it is said,\n_Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints_, Psal.\ncxvi. 15. Christ reckons every particle of their dust among _his\njewels_, Mal. iii. 17. and is no more ashamed to own them as his\npeculiar care, than he was when they were in their most flourishing\nstate in this world; and for this reason they are also said to rest in\ntheir graves as in their beds. This is a scripture-expression, as the\nPsalmist says, _My flesh shall rest in hope_, Psal. xvi. 9. and the\nprophet Isaiah, _He shall enter into peace, they shall rest in their\nbeds_, Isa. lvii. 2. The body, indeed, remains, at the same time, under\nthe external part of the curse due to man for sin; yet it is freed from\nthat which is the most bitter ingredient therein; which will be\nabundantly demonstrated when death shall be compleatly swallowed up in\nvictory. In this the bodies of believers have the advantage of all\nothers. The frame of nature indeed is dissolved; there is no visible\nmark of distinction from the wicked put upon them in the grave; yet\nthere is a vast difference in God\u2019s account, which one elegantly\ncompares to the removing of the tabernacle in the wilderness: when the\nIsraelites changed their stations, all the parts thereof were carefully\ntaken down and delivered to the Levites\u2019 charge, in order to its being\nraised again with honour; whereas, the house incurably infected with the\nleprosy, was plucked down with violence, and thrown into an unclean\nplace with execration. The bodies of the saints are committed to the\nbosom of the earth, as the repository Christ has appointed for them;\nfrom whence he will call them forth at last, when their souls shall be\nagain united to them in the glorious morning of the resurrection. This\nleads us to consider,\nIII. The misery which the souls of the wicked endure at death, which is\ncontained in the latter part of this answer.\nWe have here a different scene opened, the final estate of the wicked\ndescribed in words adapted to strike dread and terror into those who\nhave, at present, no sense of their future misery: their souls are\nconsidered as cast into, or shut up in hell; their bodies imprisoned in\nthe grave, and both, the objects of divine wrath. We shall have\noccasion, under a following answer,[152] farther to speak concerning the\npunishment that shall be inflicted on sinners, whose torments shall be\ninexpressible, both in body and soul, after the day of judgment: and\ntherefore we shall, at present, consider the misery which the souls of\nthe wicked shall undergo before they are united to their bodies. The\nsoul, which carries out of the world with it the power of reflecting on\nitself as happy or miserable, immediately sees itself separate from the\ncomfortable presence of God, the fountain of blessedness. And that which\ntends to enhance its misery beyond what it is capable of in this life,\nwill be the enlargement of its faculties; as the apprehension shall be\nmore clear and its sensation of the wrath of God more pungent; when it\nis not oppressed with that drowsiness and stupidity as it was before;\nnor will it be possible for it to delude itself, with those vain hopes,\nwhich it once conceived, of escaping that misery, which it is now\nplunged into; when all the waves and billows of the Almighty shall\noverwhelm and swallow it up. The soul is, in a peculiar manner, the\nsubject of misery, as it is made uneasy by its own thoughts; which are\ncompared to the worm that dieth not. While it looks backwards, and calls\nto mind the actions of his past life, and all his sins are charged upon\nhim, this fills it with such a sense of guilt and confusion as is\ninexpressibly tormenting; and when he looks forward, there is nothing\nbut what administers despair, which increases his misery to the highest\ndegree. These torments the soul endures before it is reunited to the\nbody, and thereby rendered receptive of others, which we generally call\nthe punishment of sense, that are conveyed by it.\nThe place of punishment is the same that is allotted for soul and body,\n_viz._ hell; and this is called utter darkness; which is an expression\nused to signify the greatest degree of misery. As for their bodies, they\ndread the thoughts of being united to them again; inasmuch as that will\nbring with it new accessions of torment. These are considered as liable\nto a double dishonour; not only that which arises from their being in a\nstate of corruption in common with all mankind; but in their being\ndetained in the grave, as prisoners to the justice of God, from whence\nthey shall not be released as persons acquitted or discharged, but\nremanded from that prison to another, from whence there is no\ndeliverance. But more of this under a following answer.\nFootnote 125:\n  _Vid. Senec. Epist. 117. Cum de animarum immortalitate loquimur, non\n  leve momentum apud nos habet consensus hominum, aut timentium inferos,\n  aut colentium. Utor hac persuasione publica. Et. Cic. Tusc. Quest.\n  Lib. 1. permanere animos arbitramur consensu nationum omnium; qua in\n  sede maneant, qualesque sint ratione discendum est._\nFootnote 126:\n  _In Ph\u00e6d._\nFootnote 127:\n  _Vid. Alcin. de doct. Plat. Cap._ xxv. \u0391\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd\u0387\n  \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7\u03c5, \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\nFootnote 128:\n  _Vid. Strab. Geog. Lib._ xv. \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03b3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03b3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u03b1\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3 \u03c4\u03c9\u03b3 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\nFootnote 129:\n  _Vid. Diog. Laert. in Vit. Thal._\nFootnote 130:\n  _Vid. Cic. Tusc. Qu\u00e6st. Lib. 1._\nFootnote 131:\n  _Vid, Hom. Iliad. 23._ _lin. 65. & seq._\n             \u1fcb\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf,\n             \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1fbd \u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1,\n             \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf.\n             \u03a3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd.\n  _In which, after he had killed Hector, he addresses himself to his\n  friend Patroclus, signifying that he had done this to revenge his\n  death; upon which, the poet brings in Patroclus as appearing to him._\nFootnote 132:\n  _Vid. Odys. Lib._ xi. _lin. 575._ & seq. _in which he speaks of the\n  punishment of Tityus and Tantalus. In this, as well as many other\n  things, he is imitated by Virgil. See \u00c6neid. Lib._ vi. _lin. 595_, &\n  seq.\nFootnote 133:\n  _See this argument managed with a great deal of learning and judgment\n  by Mede, in his apostasy of the latter times, who proves that the gods\n  whom the heathens worshipped, were the souls of men deifyed or\n  cannonized after death, from many of their own writers, chap._ iv.\n  _and Voss. de orig. &c. idol. Lib. 1. cap._ xi, xii, xiii. _who refers\n  to Lanct. Lib. 1. de fals. Relig. cap._ v. _his words are these; Quos\n  imperiti, & insipientes, tanquam Deos & nuncupant, & adorant, nemo est\n  tam inconsideratus, qui non intelligat fuisse mortales. Quomodo ergo,\n  inquiet aliquis, Dii crediti sunt? Nimirum quia reges maximi, ac\n  potentissimi fuerunt, ob merita virtutum suarum, aut munerum, aut\n  artium repertarum, cum chari fuissent iis, quibus imperitaverunt, in\n  memoriam sunt consecrati. Quod si quis dubitet, res eorum gestas, &\n  facta, consideret: qu\u00e6 universa tum poet\u00e6, tum historici veteres,\n  prodiderunt. Et August. de Civ. Dei, Lib._ viii. _cap._ v. _Ipsi etium\n  majorum gentium Dii, quos Cicero in Tusculanis, tacitis nominibus\n  videtur attingere, Jupiter, Juno, Saturnus, Vulcanus, Vesta, & alii\n  plurimi, quos Varro conatur ad mundi partes, sive elementa transferre\n  homines fuisse produntur. Et Cic. Lib. 1. de nat. Deor. Quid, qui aut\n  fortes, aut potentes viros tradunt post mortem ad Deos pervenisse;\n  eosq; ipsos quos, nos colere, precari, venerariq; soleamus?_\nFootnote 134:\n  _Some have wondered how the Sadducees could deny angels, and yet\n  receive the five books of Moses, in which there is so frequent mention\n  of the appearance of angels; and it might as well be wondered how they\n  could make any pretensions to religion, who denyed the immortality of\n  the soul; but as to both these, it may be said concerning them, that\n  they were the most irreligious part of the Jewish nation. To make them\n  consistent with themselves, is past the skill of any who treat on this\n  subject. Some suppose that they understand all those scriptures that\n  speak concerning the appearance of angels, as importing nothing else\n  but a bodily shape, appearing for a time, and conversing with those to\n  whom it was sent, moved and actuated by the divine power, and then\n  disappearing and vanishing into nothing._\nFootnote 135:\n  _In Ph\u00e6d._\nFootnote 136:\n  _His words are these_; \u039a\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u1fbd \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b7\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3 \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\nFootnote 137:\n  \u1f49\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b7 \u03c4\u03c9\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9.\nFootnote 138:\n  _Vid. ejusd. moral. Lib._ iii. _cap._ ix.\nFootnote 139:\n  _Vid. Diog. Laert. in Vit. Zen._ \u03a4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n  \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; _upon which occasion Cicero says, That though they\n  assert that they shall continue a great while in being, yet they deny\n  that they shall exist for ever. Vid. ejusd. in Tusc. Qu\u00e6st. Lib. 1.\n  Stoici usuram nobis largiuntur, tanquam cornicibus; diu mansuros\n  animos ajunt; semper negant._\nFootnote 140:\n  _Et ibid. Ea qu\u00e6 vis, ut potero, explicabo, nec tamen quasi Pythius\n  Apollo certa ut sint, & fixa qu\u00e6 dixero, sed ut homunculus unus e\n  multis, probabilia conjectura sequens; ultra enim quo progrediar quam\n  ut verisimilia videam, non habeo; which Lactantius observes, speaking\n  of him as in doubt about it. Vid. Lactant. de Vit. Beat. Lib._ vii. _\u00a7\n  8. And elsewhere he says, in Lib. de Amicitia. Sin autem illa vetiora,\n  ut idem interitus sit animorum, & corporum, nec ullus sensus maneat:\n  Ut nihil boni est in morte, sic certe nihil est mali; & in Lib. de\n  Senect. Quod si in hoc erro, quod animos hominum immortales esse\n  credam, libenter erro: Nec mihi hunc errorem, quo delector, dum vivo,\n  extorqueri volo. Sin mortuus, ut quidam minuti philosophi censent,\n  nihil sentiam; non vereor, ne hunc errorem meum philosophi minuti\n  irrideant: Quod si non sumus immortales futuri, tamen extingui hominem\n  suo tempore, optabile est._\nFootnote 141:\n  _Epist. 102. Credebam opinionibus magnorum virorum rem gratissimam\n  promittentium, magis quam probantium._\nFootnote 142:\n  _See Quest._ lxxxviii, lxxxix.\nFootnote 143:\n  The doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and of the resurrection\n  of the body equally rest upon the will and word of God. But when\n  viewed with the eye of natural reason, they have been deemed to\n  possess very unequal grounds of probability. The properties of matter\n  and of mind are so very different, they have been distinguished by\n  almost all. If the mind be not matter, no argument for its\n  extermination can be drawn from the dissolution of the body; and as\n  its materiality has never been shown, no premises have been found from\n  which its death can be inferred. Some wise men who had not the\n  scriptures, have indeed withholden their belief; but the reason is\n  discernible, they have demanded proofs which the God of nature has not\n  vouchsafed; and their rejection of the preponderating evidence of\n  probability, argues weakness and fastidiousness.\n  The resurrection of the body has been held to be impossible. If so,\n  the impossibility should either consist in the absolute incapacity in\n  the dead body to be raised; but this it does not, for death can only\n  reduce the body to its first element, and the dust which has been a\n  body is not any more unfit to be reanimated, than it was to receive\n  life in the first instance; or it must be owing to some detect of\n  wisdom or power, or of both in him, who should raise the body; but God\n  is unchangeable, and in all respects as able to raise him from the\n  dead, as to create man at the first; and there is no contradiction\n  implied in the thing, which should prevent the exertion of his power;\n  a resurrection is therefore possible.\n  The usual arguments for its probability drawn from analogy to the\n  return of day, of spring, of vegetation, &c. are not conclusive. But\n  those drawn from the resurrection of Christ, from the identity of man\n  considered as a compound from the removal of moral evil, from which\n  natural evils arise, from the earnest expectation of animal nature for\n  a better condition, and from the perfection of the future state, seem\n  to raise a presumption which is probable; yet these are not\n  appreciated by the natural man; hence the world has so generally\n  denied a resurrection of the body.\n  The testimony of the Holy Spirit on both points has been always the\n  same, but not with equal lustre.\n  Jesus Christ explicitly affirmed both, and brought his proofs from the\n  old testament, pressed them as motives of comfort or terror to saints\n  and sinners, and so connected their truth with that of his own\n  character, that every thing which proves the latter, is a proof of the\n  former. Not only did his actually raising the dead, and arising\n  himself, prove that the dead shall rise, but every prophecy\n  accomplished in him, and every miracle wrought by him and his\n  apostles, the continuance of his church, the purity of his system of\n  doctrines, the doctrines of election, redemption, justification,\n  regeneration and perseverance, as well as the express declarations on\n  this subject, both in the old and new testament, all form a solid mass\n  of evidence upon which the hopes of the Christian may firmly rest.\nFootnote 144:\n  _See Quest._ xc.\nFootnote 145:\n  _See Dr. Edward\u2019s exercit. Part II. on 1 Cor._ iii. _15. who, to give\n  countenance to this opinion, produces two scriptures, viz. Mark_ xiv.\n  _54. and Luke_ xxii. _56. where the word_ \u03c6\u03c9\u03c2, _is put for fire; from\n  whence he supposes, that_ \u03c6\u03c9\u03c2 _and_ \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1, _are used promiscuously_.\nFootnote 146:\n  \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Sinus, _a bosom, coast, or haven_.\nFootnote 147:\n  _Vid. Tertull. Apologet. Cap._ xlvii. _Et si paradisum nominemus,\n  locum divin\u00e6 am\u00e6nitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum,\n  materia quadem igne\u00e6 illius Zon\u00e6 segregatum._\nFootnote 148:\n  _See Whitby in loc._\nFootnote 149:\n  _See also his notes on Luke_ xxiii. 43.\nFootnote 150:\n  _Vid. Hoornbeck Socin. Confut. Tom. III. Lib._ v. _Cap. 1. who quotes\n  some passages out of several Socinian writers, among whom I shall only\n  mention what is said by two of them, with whom several others of their\n  brethren agree herein. Vid. Socin. in Epist._ v. _ad Volkel. Tantum id\n  mihi videtur statui posse, post hanc vitam, animam, sive animum\n  hominis non ita per se subsistere ut pr\u00e6mia ulla p\u00e6nasve sentiat; vel\n  etiam ista sentiendi sit capax, qu\u00e6 mea firma opinio facile potest\n  colligi ex multis qu\u00e6 a me dicuntur_, &c. _Et Smalc. in Exam. Error.\n  Pag. 33. Animam vel spiritum hominis post mortum aliquid sentire, vel\n  aliqua re perfrui, nec ratio permittit nec scriptura testatur: ut enim\n  corpus sine anima, sic etiam anima sine corpore, nullus operationes\n  exercere potest; & perinde sic ac si anima illorum nulla esset, etiam\u00e6\n  suo modo sit, quia scilicet nullius rei sensum habeat, aut per se\n  voluptate aliqua fr\u00e6 possit. And elsewhere the same author is so hardy\n  as to term the contrary doctrine no other than a fable, in Lib. de Dei\n  filio, Cap._ vi. _Pag. 43. Quod vern de vita animarum disserit, hoc\n  instar fabul\u00e6 est_, &c. _Spiritum hominis ad Deum redire testatur\n  sacra scriptura, at eum vivera vita, ut ait Smiglecius, spirituum, &\n  vel aliquid intelligere, vel voluptate frui hoc extra, & contra\n  scripturam dicitur._\nFootnote 151:\n  _See Locke\u2019s Essay concerning human understanding, Lib._ ii. _Chap.\n  1._ \u00a7 ix. _to the_ xix.\nFootnote 152:\n  _Quest._ lxxxix.\n    QUEST. LXXXVII. _What are we to believe concerning the\n    resurrection?_\n    ANSW. We are to believe, that at the last day there shall be a\n    general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; when\n    they that are then found alive, shall, in a moment, be changed; and\n    the self-same bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being\n    then again united to their souls for ever, shall be raised up by the\n    power of Christ; the bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ,\n    and by virtue of his resurrection, as their head, shall be raised in\n    power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body;\n    and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonour, by\n    him, as an offended Judge.\nIn the foregoing answers, we have considered the soul and body as\nseparated by death, the body turned to corruption, and the soul\nimmediately entering into a state of happiness or misery; and are now\nled to insist on the doctrine of the resurrection, when these two\nconstituent parts of man shall be reunited. And accordingly we shall\nendeavour,\nI. To explain what we are to understand by the resurrection of the dead.\nII. We shall prove that there is nothing in this doctrine contrary to\nreason, at least, if we consider it as a supernatural and divine work.\nIII. We shall farther observe, that this doctrine could not be known by\nthe light of nature; and therefore we believe it as founded in divine\nrevelation.\nIV. What arguments are contained in scripture for the proof thereof;\nsome of which might be taken from the Old Testament, and others from the\nNew, in which it is more clearly revealed.\nV. We shall answer some of the most material objections brought against\nit.\nVI. We shall consider it as universal, as it is here styled a general\nresurrection of the dead, from the beginning of time to Christ\u2019s second\ncoming; yet with this exception, that they who are found alive shall be\nchanged. And,\nVII. The condition in which the body shall be raised; and those\ncircumstances of honour and glory, which respect, more especially, the\nresurrection of the just. And, on the other hand, we shall consider the\nresurrection of the wicked, as being in dishonour, by Christ, as an\noffended Judge.\nI. What are we to understand by the resurrection of the dead. We\nsometimes find the word taken, in scripture, in a metaphorical sense,\nfor God\u2019s doing those things for his church, which could not be brought\nabout any otherwise than by his extraordinary and supernatural power.\nSometimes the work of regeneration is set forth by this figurative way\nof speaking; whereby they who are dead in trespasses and sins, are said\nto be quickened; and our Saviour speaks of this when he says, _The hour\nis coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of\nGod; and they that hear shall live_, John v. 25. But we are to\nunderstand it in a proper sense, as denoting that change which shall\npass upon the body, when it shall be delivered from the state of\ncorruption, into which it was brought at death, and reunited to the\nsoul; which is distinguished in a following verse, from this\nmetaphorical sense of it, when he says, _All that are in the graves\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good\nunto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the\nresurrection of damnation_, ver. 28. This includes in it not barely the\nrepairing, but the rebuilding the frame of nature; which was not only\ndecayed, but dissolved in death; or the gathering together those\nparticles of matter, of which the body was before constituted; which was\nnot only turned into corruption, but common dust; whereby a new body, as\nto the form and qualities thereof, is erected out of its old materials;\notherwise it could not be called a resurrection. It is said, indeed,\nthat the body shall not, in all respects, be the same that it was when\nseparated from the soul; as the apostle compares to a _grain of wheat_\nsown in the ground, which, when it springs up, is not altogether the\nsame as it was before; for _God giveth it a body,[153] as it hath\npleased him, and to every seed his own body_, 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. It is\nthe same for substance, as it consists of the same materials, but very\ndifferent as to its qualities; as will be farther considered, when we\nspeak concerning the condition of the body when raised from the dead;\nand as it is raised with a design that it should be re-united to the\nsoul, which will immediately follow upon it; and this union shall be\nindissoluble and eternal.\nII. We shall now consider that there is nothing contrary to reason, or\nimpossible, from the nature of the thing, which might have a tendency to\noverthrow this doctrine; especially if we consider it as a supernatural\nand divine work, brought about by the almighty power of God.\nIf we look no farther than the power of natural causes, we may conclude\nit to be impossible for a creature to effect, as much as it was at first\nto produce the body of man out of the dust of the ground; but this is\nnot impossible with God: He that gave life and being to all things; and,\nby his sovereign will, puts a period to that life, which had been, for\nsome time continued by his power and providence, can give a new life to\nit; especially if there be nothing in this work that renders it unmeet\nfor it to be performed by him.\nThat there is nothing in the nature of the thing that renders a\nresurrection impossible, appears, in that death, though it be a\ndissolution of the frame of nature, does not annihilate the body. If the\nbody, indeed, were annihilated at death, then it would be impossible, or\ncontrary to the nature of things, that there should be a resurrection\nthereof; since the bringing it again into a state of existence would be\na new creation; which, though it would not be too great a work for\nomnipotency, yet it could not be styled a resurrection, or restoring the\nsame body to life that was separated from the soul, to which it was once\nunited. But when we suppose that the matter of which the body consisted\nis still in being, and nothing is necessary to the raising it from the\ndead but the recollecting the various particles thereof, and forming it\nagain into a body, fitted to receive the soul: this is not in its own\nnature impossible; nor does it infer a contradiction, so as that we\nshould argue from thence, that it cannot be brought about by divine\npower.\nThat this may more fully appear, let it be considered, that nothing\nwhich God has brought into being, can be annihilated, but by an act of\nhis will; since nothing can defeat or disannul his providence, which\nupholdeth all things that were brought into being by the word of his\npower. It is also certain, that God has given us no ground to conclude\nthat any part of his material creation has been, or shall be turned into\nnothing; from whence it follows, that the particles of all the bodies of\nmen, that once lived in this world, though turned to corruption or dust,\nare as much in being as ever they were, though not in the same form.\nAgain, it is certain that God, who made and upholdeth all things, has a\nperfect knowledge of that which is the object of his power, since his\nunderstanding is infinite: therefore he knows where the scattered dust,\nor the smallest particles of matter that once constituted the bodies of\nmen, are reserved: and when we speak of a resurrection from the dead, we\nunderstand hereby the gathering them together, and disposing them in\nsuch a way as that new bodies shall be framed out of them: therefore,\nthough this could not be done by any but God, it is not impossible, from\nthe nature of the thing, for him to do it; and that he will do it will\nbe considered, when we come more directly to the proof of this doctrine.\nWe shall therefore proceed,\nIII. To consider it as a matter of pure revelation, such as we could not\nhave known by the light of nature, without the assistance of\nscripture-light. Something, indeed, might be known by reason concerning\nthe immortality of the soul, and its being not only capable of happiness\nor misery in a future state, but dealt with therein according to its\nbehaviour in this world: nevertheless, when we enquire into that part,\nwhich the body shall bear therein; whether it shall be raised and\nreunited to the soul, to be for ever a partner with it in what respects\nits state in another world, or shall remain for ever in a state of\ncorruption; this cannot be known by the light of nature.\nThere are, indeed, many things which we find in the writings of the\nHeathen, that discover them to have had some notion of what bears a\nresemblance to a resurrection: as when they speak concerning the\ntransmigration of souls, or their living in other bodies, when separated\nfrom those which they formerly were united to. And others of them speak\nconcerning the general conflagration, and the restoration of all things,\nimmediately after, to their former state, as well as give some hints\nwhich are contained in their writings, concerning particular persons\nthat have been raised from the dead, at least, pretended to have been\nso. What we find of this nature therein, very much resembles the\nfabulous account we have in the Popish legends of miracles, said to have\nbeen wrought, though without proof: thus we are told of one Aristeas,\nthe Proconnesian, who had a power of expiring and returning to life at\npleasure, and relating what he had seen in a separate state.[154] The\nsame is reported of one Hermotimus of Clazomena.[155] But the most\nfamous story of this kind, is what is related by Plato,[156] and\ntranscribed from him by Eusebius,[157] concerning one Er, the son of\nArmenius; who, after he was slain in battle, and had continued ten days\namong other dead bodies, was brought home to his house; and two days\nafter, being laid on his funeral pile, came to life again: this Plato,\nwhile he is relating it, calls little better than a fable.[158] And it\nwas treated by others with ridicule, how much soever believed by some\nwho regarded reports more than solid evidence of the truth thereof.\nI might also mention others, who are said, by Heathen writers to have\nbeen translated into heaven in their bodies and souls[159]: Which might\ntake its first rise from what they had received by tradition, concerning\nthe translation of Enoch and Elijah; as the stories of those that were\nraised from the dead might be first invented by them with this view,\nthat their religion might have as great reputation as that of the Jews.\nBut notwithstanding these particular instances related by them, of some\ntranslated, or others raised from the dead; there were very few of them\nthat believed the doctrine of the resurrection; and some treated it with\nas much contempt as we do the before-mentioned account which they give\nof particular persons raised from the dead[160]. This agrees very well\nwith what we read in scripture, concerning the treatment the apostle\nPaul met with, when he encountered the Epicureans and Stoicks at Athens,\n_preaching to them Jesus and the resurrection_, Acts xvii. 18. upon\nwhich occasion they call him _babbler_; and insinuated that he seemed to\nbe _a setter forth of strange gods_. Oecumenius and Chrysostom think,\nthat they supposed he reckoned the _resurrection_ among the gods[161],\nas well as _Jesus_, whose divinity he doubtless maintained; but whether\nthey were so stupid as thus to wrest his words, is not material. It is\nno wonder to find the Epicureans treating this doctrine with ridicule;\nfor they, denying the immortality of the soul, could not entertain the\nleast idea of the resurrection of the body in any sense: Whereas the\nStoicks, though they did not own the doctrine of the resurrection, yet\nthey could not think it so strange a doctrine as some others might do;\nsince they held that the soul, after death, continued at least, as long\nas the body; and they knew very well, that many of the philosophers\nstrenuously maintained the transmigration of souls; and, indeed, this\nwas held by many of them, as well as the Platonists and Pythagoreans;\nand therefore the resurrection, though it differed from it, could not\nseem so strange and unheard of a notion, as that they should reckon it\namong the gods: However, it plainly appears from hence that this\ndoctrine could not be learned by the light of nature; whatever confused\nideas the Heathen might have entertained by tradition, concerning it.\nTherefore it follows from hence, that we must look for a satisfactory\naccount hereof from scripture: Thus when the Sadducees put a stupid\nquestion to our Saviour concerning the _woman_ that had _seven\nhusbands_, which successively _died_; and they would know whose _wife\nshe should be in the resurrection_; by which they designed to express\ntheir opposition to this doctrine, rather than a desire of information\nas to the question proposed: Our Saviour in his reply to them refers\nthem to the _scriptures_, Matt. xxii 29. as the fountain from whence a\nclear and satisfactory knowledge of this doctrine is to be derived as\nwell as from the _power of God_. This divine perfection argues the\npossibility thereof, the justice and goodness of God, its expediency;\nbut the scriptures, which contain a revelation of his will, represent it\nas certain; and this leads us to consider some arguments that are\ncontained in, or deduced from scripture for the proof thereof; and here\nwe shall consider,\n1. Those proofs which we have for it, taken from the Old Testament.\nThese I chuse first to insist on, because I am sensible there are many\nwho think, that the church knew nothing of it, till it was revealed, by\nour Saviour, in the New Testament: This very much detracts from the\nimportance of the doctrine, as well as renders the state of those who\nlived before Christ\u2019s incarnation, very uncomfortable, since the saints,\naccording to this opinion, must have had no hope of a glorious\nresurrection to eternal life. This notion is defended by many who extend\nthe darkness of the dispensation farther than what is convenient; and\namong others, it is generally maintained by the Socinians, probably with\nthis design, that since according to them, our Saviour had little else\nin view, in coming into the world, but to lead men into the knowledge of\nsome things which they were ignorant of before; this might be reckoned\none of those doctrines that he came to communicate. Thus Volkelius\ndenies that there were any promises of eternal life made to the church\nunder the Old Testament; and concludes that there was no one who had the\nleast surmise that any such doctrine was contained in those scriptures\nwhich we commonly bring from thence to prove it[162]. And to give\ncountenance to this opinion, several quotations are often taken from\nJewish writers, since our Saviour\u2019s time, who either speak doubtfully of\nthis matter, or give occasion to think that they did not understand\nthose scriptures which establish the doctrine of the resurrection in the\nOld Testament, as having any reference to it.\nTherefore it may not be amiss for us to enquire; what were the\nsentiments of some of the Jews about this matter? Every one knows that\nthere was one _sect_ amongst them, namely, the Sadducees, who\ndistinguished themselves from others by denying it: And Josephus gives\nthe largest account of any one, concerning another _sect_, to wit, the\nEssens, who affected to lead a recluse life, in their respective\ncolleges, and were governed by laws peculiar to themselves: Among other\nthings which he relates concerning their conduct and sentiments, he\nsays, that it was an opinion established among them, that the bodies of\nmen were corruptible, and the matter of which they were compounded, not\nperpetual; though the soul remained for ever: And then he represents\nthem as speaking, according to the Pythagorean and Platonick way,\nconcerning the body\u2019s being the prison of the soul, and its remaining\nwhen released from it, and of the soul\u2019s dwelling in a pleasant place,\nand enjoying many things that tend to make it happy, &c.[163].\nNevertheless, his account of them is so short, and the expression on\nwhich the whole stress of this supposition is founded, a little\nambiguous, namely, that the bodies of men are corruptible, and their\nmatter not perpetual, which may be understood as agreeing with the\ncommon faith concerning man\u2019s mortality, and the body\u2019s turning to\ncorruption, and not remaining in the same state in which it was; that it\nseems to leave the matter doubtful, whether they asserted or denied the\nresurrection. It is also supposed, that Philo denied this doctrine from\nseveral passages observed in his writings, which a late learned writer\ntakes notice of[164]; but this is only the opinion of a single person,\nwho, according to his general character, seems to be halting between two\nopinions, to wit, the doctrine of Moses, and the philosophy of Plato;\nand therefore I take his sentiments, about this, to be nothing else but\nan affection of thinking or speaking agreeably to the Platonic\nphilosophy, which had probably given such a tincture to his notions,\nthat he might deny the resurrection. And if the Essens,\nbefore-mentioned, should be allowed to have denied it, they received it\nfrom their attachment to the same, or, at least, the Pythagorean\nphilosophy: But we cannot from hence conclude that the doctrine of the\nresurrection was denied by the main body of the Jews, or the greatest\npart of them; or by any, excepting those who were led out of the way, by\nthe writings of the philosophers: Which gave occasion to the apostle\nPaul to warn the church to _beware of philosophy and vain deceit, after\nthe tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after\nChrist_, Col. ii. 8. as foreseeing that some of them, in after-ages,\nwould, in many respects, corrupt the doctrines of the gospel, by\naccommodating them to, or explaining them by what they found in the\nwritings of the Heathen philosophers, as Origen, Justin Martyr, and some\nothers did; and he seems to take the hint from what had been before\nobserved relating to the corruption of the Jewish _faith_, by those who\nwere attached to them. Thus concerning the opinion of those Jews, who\nare supposed to deny the doctrine of the resurrection.\nOn the other hand, there are several Rabbinical writers, who\nsufficiently intimate their belief of this doctrine; though it is true,\nsome of them infer it from such premises, as discover great weakness in\ntheir method of reasoning. Thus the learned bishop Pearson observes,\nthat they produce several places out of Moses\u2019s writings, which when the\nresurrection is believed, may, in some kind, serve to illustrate it, but\ncan, in no degree, be thought to reveal so great a mystery[165]. And Dr.\nLightfoot produces other proofs, which they bring for this doctrine, as\nlittle to the purpose[166], of which all the use that can be made is,\nthat we may from hence observe, that they believed the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, to be contained in scripture. Whether they were able to\ndefend it by shewing the force of those arguments on which it is founded\ntherein or no, is not much to our present purpose, my design in\nreferring to their writings being to prove that this doctrine was\nembraced by the Jews, in the ages before, as well as since our Saviour\u2019s\ntime. It is true, the Talmud, and other writings, which are generally\nquoted for the proof of it, are of later date, and the most ancient of\nthe Chaldee paraphrases now extant, is supposed to have been written\nabout that time, or, at least, but little before it: And there are no\nuninspired writings, relating to the Jewish affairs, more ancient,\nexcept those which we generally call Apocryphal; which most suppose to\nhave been written about 150 years before the Christian \u00c6ra. And it is\nvery evident, that about that time the doctrine of the resurrection was\nbelieved by the Jewish church; as the author of the book of Maccabees,\nin the history of the martyrdom of the seven brethren in the reign of\nAntiochus[167], represents some of them in the agonies of death, as\nexpressing the firm belief they had of a resurrection to eternal life;\ntheir mother, in the mean while, encouraging them from the same\nconsideration. These, as it is more than probable, the apostle includes\nin the number of those noble Old Testament worthies who were _tortured,\nnot accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better\nresurrection_, Heb. xi. 35. which is an undeniable evidence that the\nchurch at that time believed the doctrine of the resurrection.\nAll that I shall add under this head is, that how weak soever the\nreasoning of some Jewish writers, concerning this subject, has been,\nthere are others who give substantial proofs from the Old Testament;\nwhich not only argues that they believed it, but that their belief\nproceeded from a just conviction of the truth thereof. And they give the\nsame sense of some of those scriptures which are generally produced for\nthe proof hereof, as we do[168].\nThe first scripture that we shall take notice of, is what contains the\n_vision_ mentioned in Ezek. xxxvii. 1, _& seq._ concerning the _valley\nwhich was full of bones_, which were _very dry_: Upon which occasion God\nsays, _Son of man, Can these bones live?_ to which he replies, _O Lord\nGod, thou knowest._ And afterwards we read of God\u2019s _laying sinews, and\nbringing up flesh upon them, covering them with skin, and putting breath\ninto them_; and their being hereupon restored to life. I am sensible\nthat they who are on the other side of the question, pretend that this\nis no proof of a resurrection; because the design thereof was to\nillustrate and make way for the prediction mentioned in the following\nverses, concerning the deliverance of God\u2019s people from the Babylonish\ncaptivity: But that which seems to have its weight with me is, that God\nwould never have made use of a similitude to lead them into this\ndoctrine, taken from a thing which they had no manner of idea of: But if\nwe suppose that they believed that there shall be a resurrection of the\ndead, agreeable to the literal sense of the words here made use of to\nillustrate it, then the argument taken from thence is plain and easy,\n_q. d._ as certainly as you have ground to believe that the dead shall\nbe raised at the last day (which though it could not be brought about by\nany natural means, yet it shall be effected by the power of God;) so\nyour deliverance, how unlikely soever it may appear to those who look no\nfarther than second causes, shall come to pass by God\u2019s extraordinary\npower and providence, which will be as life from the dead.\nAnd whereas it is farther objected, that when God asked the prophet,\nwhether _these dry bones could live_? He seems to be in doubt about it;\nwhich argues that he had no idea of the resurrection of the dead. To\nthis it may be replied, that his doubt respected an event that should\nimmediately ensue; he knew that God could put life into these bones; but\nwhether he would do it now or no, he could not tell: Therefore it does\nnot contain any disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection at the\nlast day; and, indeed, this scripture, how little soever it may seem to\nsome to make for the doctrine we are maintaining, is alleged by others,\nas an undeniable proof of it. Tertullian expressly says, that this would\nhave been a very insignificant vision, if this doctrine were not\ntrue[169]. And Jerome speaks to the same purpose, supposing that God\nwould never illustrate any truth which they were in doubt of, by a\nsimilitude taken from an incredible fiction[170]. And Menasseh Ben\nIsrael, a learned Jew, supposes this text to be an express and\ninfallible proof of the resurrection; which plainly argues that he\nthought the Jews, in former ages, were convinced of this doctrine\nthereby[171].\nBut supposing this scripture be not reckoned sufficient to evince the\ntruth of this doctrine, there is another which has more weight in it,\n_viz._ that in Job xix. 25-27. _I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that\nhe shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though, after my\nskin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I\nshall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another,\nthough my reins be consumed within me._ Job, as is generally supposed,\nlived in Moses\u2019 time; therefore, if it can be made appear that he\nprofesses his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, we may conclude\nthat the church was acquainted with it in the early ages thereof; and\nnothing seems more evident, from the plain sense of the words, than that\nhe here professes his faith in, and encourages himself from the hope of\nfuture blessedness, both in soul and body, at Christ\u2019s second coming in\nthe last day.\nIt is with a great deal of difficulty that they who deny this doctrine,\nare obliged to account for the sense of this text, so as to evade the\nforce of the argument taken from thence to prove it. These suppose that\nJob intends nothing hereby but a firm persuasion which he had, that he\nshould be recovered from that state of misery in which he then was,\nwhich not only affected his mind, but his body, as it was _smitten with\nsore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown_, Job ii. 7. _his\nflesh_ being _clothed with worms_, and his _skin broken and become\nloathsome_, chap. vii. 5. and accordingly he says, I shall be redeemed\nfrom this affliction, and brought into a happy state before I die; and\nso they suppose that the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense;\nand therefore do not prove the doctrine of the resurrection. But this\nwill appear to be a very great perversion of the sense of this text, if\nwe consider,\n1. In how solemn a manner he brings it in, in the verses immediately\nforegoing. _Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed\nin a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead, in the rock\nfor ever!_ Which seems to import that he had something to communicate,\nthat was of far greater moment than the account of his deliverance from\nthe afflictions he was under in this world. Therefore it seems more\nagreeable to understand the sense of the words, as denoting that great\nand important truth, in which all believers are concerned, relating to\nChrist\u2019s second coming, and the happiness that his saints shall then\nenjoy in soul and body; this deserves to be writ with a pen of iron,\nthat it may be transmitted to all generations. But,\n2. It is evident that he is here speaking of something that should be\ndone, not whilst he lived, but in the end of time; for he considers his\nRedeemer, as _standing in the latter day upon the earth_. The person\nwhom he here speaks of as his Redeemer, is, doubtless, our Saviour, who\nis frequently described, both in the Old and New-Testament, under that\ncharacter: And, if at any time God the Father is called the Redeemer of\nhis people, it may farther be observed that he is never said in\nredeeming them to make himself visible to their bodily eyes, or to stand\nupon the earth, much less to do this in the latter or last day, in which\nChrist is said to come again in a visible manner, to raise the dead and\njudge the world: And this Job intends when he says, _In my flesh shall I\nsee God, whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not\nanother_.\n3. It is evident also that he intends hereby something that should befal\nhim after his death, and not barely a deliverance from his present\nmisery in this world; for he speaks of his _skin_ or body as devoured by\n_worms_, and _his reins consumed within him_; which can intend no other\nthan a state of corruption in death.\n4. It does not appear that Job had any intimation concerning the change\nof his condition in this world, before God turned his captivity, having\nfirst made him sensible of his error, in _uttering that which he\nunderstood not_, when he testified his reconciliation to his friends,\nnotwithstanding the injuries he had received from them, by _praying for\nthem_, chap. xlii. 3, 10. And, indeed, he was so far from expecting\nhappiness in this life, that he says, _Mine eye shall no more see good_,\nviz. in this world, chap. vii. 7. and hereupon he takes occasion to\nmeditate on his own mortality in the following words; _The eye of him\nthat hath seen me shall see me no more; thine eyes are upon me, and I am\nnot_: And after this he prays, _O that thou wouldst hide me in the\ngrave_, chap. xiv. 13. &c. And immediately before he speaks of his\nRedeemer as living, and the deliverance which he should obtain in the\nlatter day, in the text under our present consideration, he earnestly\ndesires the compassion of his friends: _Have pity upon me, have pity\nupon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me_; which\ndoes not well agree with the least expectation of a state of happiness\nin this world; in which case he would not need their pity; he might only\nhave convinced them of the truth thereof, and it would have given a turn\nto their behaviour towards him; for we find, that, when God blessed his\nlatter end more than his beginning, every one was as ready to comfort\nhim concerning the evil that the Lord had brought upon him, and shew\ntheir very great respect to him, by offering him presents, as any were\nbefore to reproach him. Therefore upon the whole, it is very evident\nthat Job is not speaking concerning his deliverance from his present\nevils in this world, but of a perfect deliverance from all evil in the\ngreat day of the resurrection: Accordingly we must conclude, that the\ndoctrine of the resurrection is plainly asserted in this scripture; and\nindeed, Jerome says, that no one who wrote after Christ has more plainly\nmaintained the doctrine of the resurrection than Job does in this\nscripture, who lived before him[172].\nThere is another scripture, by which, if I do not mistake the sense\nthereof, Job appears to have had a steady faith in the doctrine of the\nresurrection, and was firmly persuaded concerning his happiness, when\nraised from the dead, namely, in chap. xiv. 13, 14, 15. in which he\nsays, _O! that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou wouldst keep\nme secret until thy wrath be past_; that is, till a full end is put to\nall the afflictive providences which men are liable to in this present\nworld, namely, till the day of Christ\u2019s second coming; or, _that thou\nwouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me_; namely, that thou\nwouldst deliver me from the evils which I now endure. As to the former\nof these expedients, to wit, his deliverance by death, that he counts a\nblessing, because he takes it for granted that _if a man die he shall\nlive again_, ver. 14.[173] and therefore says, _all the days of my\nappointed time_, that is, not of the appointed time of life, but the\ntime appointed that he should lie in the grave, in which he desired that\nGod would hide him; there, says he, I shall wait, or remain, _till my\nchange come_, that is, till I am changed from a state of mortality to\nthat of life. And he goes on in the following words, _Thou shalt call_,\nthat is, by thy power thou shalt raise me, _and I will answer thee_, or\ncome forth out of my grave; and hereby thou wilt make it known that thou\n_hast a desire to the work of thine hands_.\nIf it be objected to this sense of the words, that Job says, ver. 12.\nthat _man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more; they\nshall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep_; therefore he is so\nfar from expecting relief from his misery in the resurrection, that he\nseems plainly to deny it. To this I answer, that he doth not deny the\ndoctrine of the resurrection in those words wherein he says that they\n_shall not be raised from the dead, till the heavens be no more_; which\nseems to intimate that he concluded that the dead should rise when the\nframe of nature was changed, as it will be, at the last day, in which\nthe heavens shall be no more. I confess this sense is not commonly given\nof these verses, nor any argument drawn from, them to prove a\nresurrection from the dead; therefore I would not be too tenacious of\nmine own sense thereof; but I cannot but think it more probable than the\ncommon sense that is given of the words, and if so, it may be considered\nas a proof of the doctrine that we are maintaining.\nThere is another scripture which plainly proves the doctrine of the\nresurrection, namely, Dan. xii. 2. _Many of them that sleep in the dust\nshall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting\ncontempt._ This scripture is brought by several Rabbinical writers, as a\nproof of this doctrine; and the words are so express, that it will be\nvery difficult to evade the force of them; though, it is true, some\nmodern writers, who are ready to conclude that the Old Testament is\nsilent as to the doctrine of the resurrection, take the words in a\nmetaphorical sense, for the deliverance of the church from those\ngrievous persecutions which they were under in the reign of Antiochus;\nand so _sleeping in the dust_ is taken, by them, for lying in the holes\nand caves of the earth, the Jews being forced to seek protection there\nfrom the fury of the tyrant: But this cannot be properly called\n_sleeping in the dust of the earth_; and their deliverance from this\npersecution is not consistent with the contempt that should be cast on\nsome that were raised out of the dust; nor could the happiness that\nothers enjoyed in this deliverance, be called _everlasting life_, it\nbeing only a temporal salvation, that according to them, is here spoken\nof; and it must be a straining the metaphor to a great degree, to apply\nthe following words to their wise men and teachers, after this\ndeliverance, that they should _shine as the brightness of the\nfirmament_; therefore this sense has such difficulties attending it,\nthat every person who is not prepossessed with prejudice must give into\nthe literal sense of the text; and confess that it is an argument to\nprove the doctrine of the resurrection.\nThe only difficulty that is pretended to be involved in this sense of\nthe text is its being said, _Many of them that sleep in the dust shall\nawake_; whereas the doctrine that we are defending, is that of an\nuniversal resurrection. But since we shall have occasion to speak to\nthat under a following head, we shall rather choose to refer it to its\nproper place, in which, according to our designed method, we are to\nconsider that all who have lived from the beginning to the end of time,\nshall be raised.\nThere are other scriptures in the Old Testament that might be brought to\nprove this doctrine, such as that in Deut. xxxii. 39. in which God says,\n_I kill, and I make alive_; and that parallel text, in which the same\nthing is confessed, and farther explained, by Hannah, in her song, in 1\nSam. ii. 6. _The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the\ngrave, and bringeth up._ I know that death and life are sometimes taken\nfor good and evil; but why should deliverance from the miseries of this\npresent life be represented by the metaphor of a resurrection, and this\nattributed to the almighty power of God, if the doctrine of the\nresurrection was reckoned by the church at that time, no other than a\nfiction or chimera, as it must be supposed to be if they had no idea of\nit, as not having received it by divine revelation?\nWe might, as a farther proof of this doctrine, consider those three\ninstances that we have in the Old Testament of persons raised from the\ndead, namely, the Shunamite\u2019s child, by the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv.\n35. and the man who was cast into his sepulchre, that _revived and stood\non his feet_, when he touched his _bones_, chap. xiii. 21. and the widow\nof Zarephath\u2019s son, by the prophet Elijah, on which occasion it is said,\n_He cried to the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee let this\nchild\u2019s soul come into him again_; and accordingly the soul of the child\ncame into him again, and he revived, 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. From hence we\nmust conclude, that this doctrine was not unknown to the prophet; for if\nit had, he could not have directed his prayer to God in faith. And these\ninstances of a resurrection of particular persons could not but give\noccasion to the church at that time, to believe the possibility of a\nresurrection at the last day; so that it might as reasonably be expected\nthat God will exert his power by raising the dead then, as that he would\ndo it at this time, unless there was something in this possible event\ncontrary to his moral perfections; but the resurrection appeared to them\nas it doth to all who consider him as the governor of the world, and as\ndistributing rewards and punishments to every one according to their\nworks, as not only agreeable to these perfections, but, in some\nrespects, necessary for the illustration thereof. Therefore we must\nconclude, that as they had particular instances of a resurrection, which\nargued the general resurrection possible, they might easily believe that\nit should be future; which is the doctrine that we are maintaining.\nTo this we may add, that the patriarch Abraham believed the doctrine of\nthe resurrection; therefore he had it some way or other revealed to him,\nbefore the word of God was committed to writing. This appears from what\nthe apostle says when speaking concerning his offering Isaac, that _he\naccounted that God was able to raise him up even from the dead_, Heb.\nxi. 19. From hence it is evident that he was verily persuaded when he\nbound him to the altar, and lifted up his hand to slay him, that God\nwould suffer him to do it, otherwise it had been no trial of his faith,\nso that his being prevented from laying his hand on him was an\nunexpected providence. Now how could he solve the difficulty that would\nnecessarily ensue hereupon; had he expected that God would give him\nanother seed instead of Isaac, that would not have been an\naccomplishment of the promise which was given to him, namely, that in\nIsaac his seed should be called; therefore the only thing that he\ndepended on, was, that when he had offered him, God would raise him from\nthe dead, and by this means fulfil the promise that was made to him\nconcerning the numerous seed that should descend from him; therefore it\ncannot be supposed that Abraham was a stranger to the doctrine of the\nresurrection.\nThere are other scriptures by which it appears that the doctrine of the\nresurrection was revealed to the church under the Old Testament\ndispensation, either from the sense of the words themselves, or the\nexplication thereof in the New, which refers to them: thus it is said in\nPsal. xvi. 10. _Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou\nsuffer thine holy one to see corruption_; which the apostle Peter quotes\nto prove the resurrection of Christ, in Acts ii. 24-27. If David\ntherefore knew that the Messiah should be raised from the dead (which,\nas will be considered under a following head, is a glorious proof of the\ndoctrine of the resurrection of the saints) we cannot suppose that he\nwas a stranger to this doctrine himself.\nAgain, it is said in Isa. xxv. 8. _He will swallow up death in victory_;\nand this is mentioned immediately after a prediction of the glorious\nprovision, which God would make for his people under the\ngospel-dispensation, which is called, by a metaphorical way of speaking,\nver. 6. _A feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat\nthings full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined_; and of the\ngospel\u2019s being preached to the Gentiles, ver. 7. which is expressed by\nhis _destroying the face of covering, and the veil that was spread over\nall nations_: therefore it may well be supposed to contain a prediction\nof something consequent thereupon, namely, the general resurrection: and\nthere is another scripture to the same purpose, viz. Hos. xiii. 14. _I\nwill ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from\ndeath: O death, I will be thy plague; O grave, I will be thy\ndestruction_; and both these scriptures are referred to by the apostle,\nas what shall be fulfilled in the resurrection of the dead; when he\nsays, _Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death\nis swallowed up in victory: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where\nis thy victory?_ 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. Therefore we cannot but think that\nthe prophets, and the church in their day, understood the words in the\nsame sense.\nThere is another scripture in the Old Testament, in which the premises\nare laid down, from whence the conclusion is drawn in the New for the\nproof of this doctrine, namely, when God revealed himself to Moses,\nExod. iii. 6. which our Saviour refers to, and proves the doctrine of\nthe resurrection from, against the Sadducees. _Now that the dead are\nraised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God\nof Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: for he is not\nthe God of the dead, but of the living_, Luke xx. 37, 38. which argument\nwas so convincing, that _certain of the Scribes_, said, in the following\nwords, _Master, thou hast well said; and after that, they_, that is, the\nSadducees, _durst not ask him any question at all_; so that it silenced,\nif it did not convince them. There are some, indeed, who, though they\nconclude that it is a very strong proof of the immortality of the soul,\nwhich the Sadducees denied, since that which does not exist cannot be\nthe subject of a promise; yet, they cannot see how the resurrection can\nbe proved from it; whereas it is brought, by our Saviour, for that\npurpose: therefore, that the force of this argument may appear, we must\nconsider what is the import of the promise contained in this covenant,\nthat God would be the _God of Abraham_; which is explained elsewhere,\nwhen he told him, _I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward_, Gen.\nxv. 1. He was therefore given hereby to expect, at the hand of God, all\nthe spiritual and saving blessings of the covenant of grace; but these\nblessings respect not only the soul, but the body; and as they are\nextended to both worlds, it is an evident proof of the happiness of the\nsaints in their bodies in a future state, and consequently that they\nshall be raised from the dead. This leads us,\n2. To consider those arguments to prove the doctrine of the resurrection\nwhich are contained in the New Testament, in which it is more fully and\nexpressly revealed than in any part of scripture. Here we may first take\nnotice of those particular instances in which our Saviour raised persons\nfrom the dead in a miraculous way, as the prophets Elijah and Elisha did\nunder the Old Testament dispensation, as was before observed. Thus he\nraised Jairus\u2019s _daughter_, whom he found dead in the house, Matt. ix.\n25. and another, to wit, the _widow\u2019s son at Nain_, when they were\ncarrying him to the grave; which was done in the presence of a great\nmultitude, Luke vii. 11, 14, 15. and there was another instance hereof\nin his raising Lazarus from the dead, John xi. 43, 44. which he did in a\nvery solemn and public manner, after he had been dead four days, his\nbody being then corrupted and laid in the grave, from whence Christ\ncalls him, and he immediately revived and came forth. These instances of\nthe resurrection of particular persons tended to put the doctrine of the\ngeneral resurrection out of all manner of doubt; and, indeed, it was, at\nthis time, hardly questioned by any, excepting the Sadducees: therefore\nbefore Christ raised Lazarus, when he only told his sister Martha that\nhe _should rise again_, she, not then understanding that he designed\nimmediately to raise him from the dead, expresses her faith in the\ndoctrine of the general resurrection; _I know that he shall rise again\nin the resurrection at the last day_, John xi. 24. upon which occasion\nour Saviour replies, _I am the resurrection and the life_, ver. 25.\ndenoting that this work was to be performed by him.\nMoreover, this doctrine was asserted and maintained by the apostles,\nafter Christ had given the greatest proof hereof in his own resurrection\nfrom the dead: thus it is said, that _they preached through Jesus, the\nresurrection from the dead_, Acts iv. 2. And the apostle Paul standing\nbefore Felix, and confessing his belief of all things which are written\nin the law and the prophets, immediately adds, that he had _hope towards\nGod, which they themselves also allow_; that is, the main body of the\nJewish nation; _that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of\nthe just and of the unjust_.\nAnd he not only asserts but proves it with very great strength of\nreasoning, in 1 Cor. xv. and the argument he therein insists on, is\ntaken from Christ\u2019s resurrection, ver. 13. _If there be no resurrection,\nthen is Christ not risen_; which is a doctrine that could not be denied\nby any that embraced the Christian religion, as being the very\nfoundation thereof; but if any one should entertain the least doubt\nabout it, he adds, ver. 17. _If Christ be not raised from the dead, your\nfaith is vain, ye are yet in your sins_; that is, your hope of\njustification hereby is ungrounded, _and they also which are fallen\nasleep in Christ, are perished_; but this none of you will affirm;\ntherefore you must conclude that he is risen from the dead: and if it be\nenquired, how does this argument prove the general resurrection, that he\nfarther insists on from ver. 20. _Now is Christ risen from the dead, and\nbecome the first-fruits of them that slept?_ Christ\u2019s resurrection\nremoves all the difficulties that might afford the least matter of doubt\nconcerning the possibility of the resurrection of the dead; and his\nbeing raised as the _first-fruits of them that slept_, or, as the head\nof all the elect, who are said to have communion with him in his\nresurrection, or to be _risen with him_, Col. iii. 1. renders the\ndoctrine of the resurrection of all his saints, undeniably certain. As\nthe first-fruits are a part and pledge of the harvest, so Christ\u2019s\nresurrection is a pledge and earnest of the resurrection of his people.\nThus the apostle says elsewhere, _If the Spirit of him that raised up\nJesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead\nshall also quicken your mortal bodies_, Rom. viii. 11. And our Saviour,\nwhen he was discoursing with his disciples concerning his death, and\nresurrection that would ensue thereupon, tells them, that though after\nthis he should be separated for a time from them, and _the world_ should\n_see him no more_, yet that _they should see him_ again; and assigns\nthis as a reason, _because I live ye shall live also_, John xiv. 19. _q.\nd._ because I shall be raised from the dead, and live for ever in\nheaven; you, who are my favourites, friends, and followers, shall be\nalso raised and live with me there; so that the resurrection of\nbelievers is plainly evinced from Christ\u2019s resurrection.\nI might produce many other scriptures out of the New Testament, in which\nthis doctrine is maintained; but we shall proceed to consider what\nproofs may be deduced from scripture-consequences. And it may here be\nobserved, that our Lord Jesus Christ, has by his death and resurrection,\nas the consequence thereof, purchased an universal dominion over, or a\nright to dispose of his subjects in such a way as will be most conducive\nto his own glory and their advantage. Thus the apostle speaks of him as\n_dying, rising, and reviving, that he might be Lord both of the dead and\nliving_; and infers from thence, that _whether we live or die, we are\nthe Lord\u2019s_, Rom. xiv. 8, 9. And his being Lord over the dead is\nexpressed in other terms, by his _having the keys of hell and death_;\nand this is assigned as the consequence of his _being alive_ after his\ndeath, or of his resurrection from the dead, Rev. i. 18. Therefore he\nhas a power, as Mediator, to raise the dead. And to this we may also\nadd, that this is what he has engaged to do, as much as he did to redeem\nthe souls of his people. When believers are said to be given to him, or\npurchased by him, it is the whole man that is included therein; and\naccordingly he purchased the bodies as well as the souls of his people,\nas may be argued from our obligation hereupon, to _glorify him in our\nbodies_ as well as _in our spirits which are God\u2019s_, 1 Cor. vi. 20. And\nthey are both under his care; he has undertaken that their bodies shall\nnot be lost in the grave; which is very emphatically expressed, when he\nis represented as saying, this is _the will of the Father which hath\nsent me_, John vi. 39, 40. or, contained in the commission that I\nreceived from him, when he invested me with the office of Mediator;\n_that of all which he had given me, I should lose nothing, but should\nraise it up again at the last day_. What should be the reason that he\nhere speaks of things rather than persons, if he had not a peculiar\nregard to the bodies of believers? which, as they are the subjects of\nhis power when raised from the dead; so they are the objects of his\ncare, and therefore he will raise them up at the last day.\nWe might farther consider Christ\u2019s dominion as extended to the wicked as\nwell as the righteous. He is not, indeed, their federal head; but he is\nappointed to be their Judge; and therefore has a right to demand them to\ncome forth out of their graves, to appear before his tribunal; though\nthey are neither the objects of his special love, nor redeemed by his\nblood, nor the dutiful and obedient subjects of his kingdom; inasmuch as\nit is said, _God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in\nrighteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given\nassurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead_, Acts\nxvii. 31. And elsewhere it is said, that he was ordained _of God to be\nthe Judge of quick and dead_, chap. x. 42. Therefore we read, that he\nshall _sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be\ngathered all nations_, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. and of his determining the\nfinal estate, both of the righteous and the wicked, as it is expressed\nin the following verses; and this is described more particularly as\nbeing immediately after the universal resurrection; as it is said, \u2018I\nsaw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were\nopened,\u2019 Rev. xx. 12, 13. which, as will be observed under our next\nanswer, respects his judging the world; and in order hereto it is\nfarther said, that \u2018the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death\nand hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged\nevery man according to their works.\u2019 And since Christ is represented as\na judge, it is necessary that he should execute his vindictive justice\nagainst his enemies, and punish them as their sins deserve; but this\nrespects not only the soul but the body; and therefore Christ that he\nmay secure the glory of his justice, shall raise the bodies of sinners,\nthat he may punish them according to their works; and therefore he is\nsaid to be the object of fear, in that he is _able to destroy both soul\nand body in hell_, Matt. x. 28.\nThus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of the resurrection by\narguments taken from the Old and New Testament, and those\nscripture-consequences from which it may be plainly deduced: so that how\nmuch soever it may be thought a strange and incredible doctrine, by\nthose who have no other light to guide them but that of nature; it will\nbe generally believed by all whose faith is founded upon divine\nrevelation, and who adore the infinite power and impartial justice of\nGod, the Governor of the world: and, indeed, it is not attended with\nsuch difficulties arising from the nature of the thing, as many pretend,\nsince we have several emblems in nature which seem to illustrate it;\nwhich are very elegantly represented by some of the Fathers, and\nespecially by Tertullian;[174] whom the learned and excellent bishop\nPearson refers to and imitates in his style and mode of expression;[175]\nhis words are these; \u201cAs the day dies into night, so doth the summer\ninto winter: the sap is said to descend into the root, and there it lies\nburied in the ground. The earth is covered with snow, or crusted with\nfrost, and becomes a general sepulchre. When the spring appeareth all\nbegin to rise; the plants and flowers peep out of their graves, revive,\nand grow, and flourish; this is the annual resurrection. The corn by\nwhich we live, and for want of which we perish with famine, is\nnotwithstanding cast upon the earth, and buried in the ground, with a\ndesign that it may corrupt, and being corrupted, may revive and\nmultiply; our bodies are fed with this constant experiment, and we\ncontinue this present life by succession of resurrections. Thus all\nthings are repaired by corrupting, are preserved by perishing, and\nrevive by dying; and can we think that man, the lord of all those\nthings, which thus die and revive for him, should be detained in death,\nas never to live again? Is it imaginable that God should thus restore\nall things to man, and not restore man to himself? If there were no\nother consideration but of the principles of human nature, of the\nliberty, and remunerability of human actions, and of the natural\nrevolutions and resurrections of other creatures, it were abundantly\nsufficient to render the resurrection of our bodies highly probable.\u201d We\nshall now consider,\nV. Some objections that are generally brought against the doctrine of\nthe resurrection. Some things, indeed, are objected against it, that are\nso vain and trifling, that they do not deserve an answer: as when the\nfollowers of Aristotle assert that it is impossible for a thing which is\ntotally destroyed, to be restored to that condition in which it was\nbefore[176]: And some have been so foolish as to think that those\nnations, who burnt their dead bodies, put an eternal bar in the way of\ntheir resurrection; since the particles being so changed and separated\nby fire as they are, can never return again to their former bodies; or\nthey who have been swallowed up by the ocean, and the particles of which\nthey consisted, dissolved by water; and every one of them separated from\nthe other, can never be again restored to their former situation.\nSuch-like objections as these, I say, do not deserve an answer; because\nthey consider the resurrection as though it were to be brought about in\nsuch a way, as effects are produced by second causes, according to the\ncommon course of nature; without any regard to the almighty power of\nGod, that can easily surmount all the difficulties which, they pretend,\nlie in the way of the resurrection.\nAnd there are other objections, taken from a perverse sense, which they\ngive of some texts of scripture, without considering the drift and\ndesign thereof, or what is added in some following words, which\nsufficiently overthrows the objection. Thus some produce that scripture\nin Eccles. iii. 19, 20, 21. where it is said, _That which befalleth the\nsons of men, befalleth beasts. So that a man hath no pre-eminence above\na beast, all go unto one place, and all are of the dust, and all turn to\nthe dust again_; which we before mentioned as brought against the\nimmortality of the soul; and it is also alleged against the resurrection\nof the body, by those who conclude that it shall be no more raised from\nthe dead than the bodies of brute creatures. But this is rather a cavil\nor a sophism, than a just way of reasoning; inasmuch as the following\nwords plainly intimate, that men and beasts are compared together only\nas to their mortality, not as to what respects their condition after\ndeath; and therefore it is no sufficient argument to overthrow the\ndoctrine of the resurrection. These and such-like objections are so\ntrifling, that we shall not insist on them: However, there are three or\nfour that we shall lay down, and consider what answers may be given to\nthem.\n_Obj._ 1. It is objected against the doctrine of the resurrection, that\nthough the power of God can do all things possible to be done; yet the\nraising the dead, at least, in some particular instances thereof, is\nimpossible from the nature of the thing; and therefore we may say,\nwithout any reflection cast on the divine Omnipotency, that God cannot\nraise them, at least, not so as that every one shall have his own body\nrestored to him; since there are some instances of Cannibals, or\nmen-eaters, who devour one another, by which means the flesh of one man\nis turned into the flesh of the other. And in those instances which are\nmore common, the bodies of men being turned into dust, produce food,\nlike other parts of the earth, for brute creatures; and accordingly some\nof those particles of which they consisted, are changed into the flesh\nof these creatures; and these again are eaten by men; so that the\nparticles of one human body, after having undergone several changes,\nbecome a part of another; therefore there cannot be a distinct\nresurrection of every one of those bodies that have lived in all the\nages of the world.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it cannot be proved, that in\nthose instances mentioned in the objection, that when one man preys upon\nanother, or when brute creatures live upon that grass which was produced\nby the ground, which was made fertile by the bodies of men turned to\ncorruption, and it may be, may have some of the particles thereof\ncontained in them: It cannot, I say, be proved, that these particles of\nthe bodies of men are turned into nourishment, and so become a part of\nhuman flesh; since providence did not design this to be for food. If so,\nthen it is not true in fact, that the particles of one human body become\na part of another. But, suppose it were otherwise (to give the objection\nas much weight as possible) we may farther observe, that it is but a\nvery small part of what is eaten, that is turned into flesh; and\ntherefore those particles of one human body, that by this means are\nsupposed to pass into another, make up but a very inconsiderable part\nthereof. Therefore, if some few particles of one human body in the\nresurrection are restored again to that body to which they at first\nbelonged, this will not overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection of\nthe same body. If the body of man loses a few ounces of its weight, no\none will suppose that it is not the same body. So when the bodies of men\nare raised from the dead, if the far greater part of the particles\nthereof are recollected and united together, they may truly be said to\nconstitute the same body; this therefore does not overthrow the\nresurrection of the same body from the nature of the thing.\n_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, especially against the possibility\nof the resurrection of the same body that was once alive in this world;\nthat the bodies of men, while they live, are subject to such\nalterations, that it can hardly be said that we are the same when we are\nmen as when we are children. The expence of those particles which were\ninsensibly lost by perspiration, and others being daily gained by\nnutrition, make such an alteration in the contexture of the body, that,\nas some suppose, in the space of about seven years, almost all the\nparticles of the body are changed, some lost and others regained. Now if\nit be supposed that the same body we once had shall be raised, it is\nhard to determine; whether those particles of which it consisted when we\nwere young, shall be gathered together in the resurrection, or the\nparticles of the emaciated or enfeebled body, which was laid down in the\ngrave.\n_Answ._ We are obliged to take notice of such-like objections as these,\nbecause they are often alleged in a cavilling way, against the doctrine\nof the resurrection. The answer therefore that I would give to this, is,\nthat the more solid and substantial parts of the body, such as the skin,\nbones, cartilages, veins, arteries, nerves, fibres, that compose the\nmuscles, with the ligaments and tendons, are not subject to this change\nthat is mentioned in the objection, by evaporation or perspiration;\nwhich more especially respects the fluids, and not the solids of the\nbody. These remain the same in men as they were in children, excepting\nwhat respects their strength and size: And if the body, as consisting of\nthese and some other of the particles that it has lost, which the wisdom\nof God thinks fit to recollect, be gathered together in the\nresurrection; we may truly say, that the same body that once lived,\nnotwithstanding the change made in the fluids thereof, is raised from\nthe dead.\n_Obj._ 3. There is another objection which is sometimes brought against\nthe doctrine of the resurrection of the just, especially against their\nbeing raised with the same body they once had, taken from the\ninconsistency hereof, with their living in the other world, called\nheaven; which is generally distinguished from the earth, as being a more\npure subtil and etherial region, therefore not fit to be an habitation\nfor bodies compounded of such gross matter as ours are, which are\nadapted to the state and world in which they now live: Whereas, to\nsuppose them placed in heaven, is inconsistent with the nature of\ngravity; so that we may as well conclude a body, which naturally tends\nto the earth its centre, to be capable of living in the air, at a\ndistance from the surface of the earth, as we can, that it is possible\nfor such a body to live in heaven: Therefore they argue that the bodies\nof men, at the resurrection must be changed, so as to become etherial,\nwhich does, in effect, overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection, as\nrespecting, at least, the restoring the bodies of men to the same form\nwhich once they had.\nMoreover, this objection is farther improved by another supposition:\nwhich gave the Socinians occasion to assert, that the same body shall\nnot be raised; namely, that if the bodies of men should be the same as\nthey are now, they would be rendered incapable of that state of\nimmortality which is in heaven. For by the same method of reasoning, by\nwhich, as has been before observed, they argue that man would have been\nliable to mortality, though he had not sinned, _viz._ that death was\nthen the consequence of nature, inasmuch as the body was to be supported\nby food, breathe in proper air, and be fenced against those things that\nmight tend to destroy the temperament thereof, or a dissolution would\nensue, they conclude that we must not have such bodies as we now have,\nbut etherial. And to give countenance to this, they refer to the\napostle\u2019s words in 1 Cor. xv. 50. _Flesh and blood cannot inherit the\nkingdom of God_: And ver. 40. where he speaks of _celestial bodies_ as\ndistinguished from _terrestrial_, and of the body\u2019s being raised a\n_spiritual body_, ver. 44. And there is another scripture generally\nreferred to, wherein our Saviour speaks of believers, in the\nresurrection, being _as the angels of God_, Matt. xxii. 30. which is to\nbe understood, at least, as signifying that their motion will be no more\nhindered by the weight of the body, than the motion of an angel is;\ntherefore their bodies must be of another kind than what we suppose they\nshall be in the resurrection.\n_Answ._ 1. As to what respects the inconsistency of bodies like ours,\nliving in the upper world, as being contrary to the nature of\ngravitation: It may be answered, that according to the generally\nreceived opinion of modern philosophers, gravity arises from an external\npressure made upon bodies which are said to be heavy or light, according\nto the force thereof; and therefore those bodies that are in the upper\nregions, above the atmosphere, are equally adapted to ascend or descend;\nwhich sufficiently answers that part of the objection. This a learned\nwriter takes notice of[177]: And if this be not acquiesced in, he\nadvances another hypothesis; which, because it has something of wit and\nspirit in it, I shall take leave to mention, though I must suspend my\njudgment concerning it, whether it be true or false. He says, perhaps,\nour heaven will be nothing else but an heaven upon earth; and that it\nseems more natural to suppose that, since we have solid and material\nbodies, we shall be placed as we are in this life, in some solid and\nmaterial orb; and this he supposes agreeable to the apostle Peter\u2019s\nwords, when he speaks of a _new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness_,\n2 Pet. iii. 13. From whence he concludes, that either this world shall\nbe fitted to be the seat of the blessed, or some other that has a solid\nbasis like unto it. And to give countenance to this opinion, he refers\nto some ancient writers; and particularly tells us, that Maximus speaks\nof it as the opinion of many in his time; and Epiphanius brings in\nMethodius in the third century, as asserting the same thing.\n2. As to what concerns that part of the objection, that bodies, like\nthose we have now, are unmeet for the heavenly state, inasmuch as they\ncannot be supported without food and other conveniences of nature, which\ntend to the preservation of life in this world. To this it may be\nanswered, that it is not necessary to suppose that the body shall be\nraised with such qualities as that it will stand in need of food, rest,\nor other conveniences of nature; which, at present, tend to the support\nof life: The apostle seems to assert the contrary, when he says, _Meats\nfor the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it\nand them_, 1 Cor. vi. 13. There is certainly a medium between asserting,\nwith some, that we shall be raised with an etherial body, in all\nrespects unlike to that which we have at present; and maintaining, that\nwe shall have such as are liable to the imperfections of this present\nstate, and supported in the same way in which they now are.\nAs to what the apostle says concerning _flesh and blood not inheriting\nthe kingdom of heaven_, he does not mean thereby that our bodies shall\nbe so changed, that they shall in no respect consist of flesh and blood:\nAnd when he speaks of _celestial_ and _spiritual_ bodies, it is not\nnecessary for us to suppose, that hereby he intends \u00e6rial or etherial\nbodies. But this will be more particularly considered under a following\nhead, when we speak of the circumstances in which the bodies of\nbelievers shall be raised from the dead. As for that other scripture, in\nwhich they are said to be _as the angels of God in heaven_, that\nrespects their being immortal and incorruptible; or as the context seems\nto intimate, that they need not marriage, to perpetuate their\ngenerations, in that world: Therefore we have no occasion to strain the\nsense of the words, so as to suppose that our Saviour intends in his\nsaying _they shall be as the angels_, that they shall cease to be like\nwhat they were when men on earth.\n_Objec._ 4. The last objection which we shall mention, is taken from its\nnot being agreeable to the goodness of God, extended to those who are\nmade partakers of the resurrection to eternal life; inasmuch as it is a\nbringing them into a worse condition than the soul was in, when separate\nfrom the body. This objection is generally brought by those who give\ninto that mode of speaking often used by Plato[178] and his followers,\nthat the body in this world, is the prison of the soul, which at death,\nis set at liberty: therefore they suppose, that its being united to the\nbody again, is no other than its being condemned to a second\nimprisonment, which is so far from being a favour conferred, that it\nrather seems to be a punishment inflicted. Others, with Celsus, reckon\nit a dishonour for the soul to be reunited to a body that is\ncorrupted.[179] And others speak of the body as being a great hindrance\nto the soul in its actings; and frequently inclining it to the exercise\nof some of those passions that tend to make men uneasy, and thereby\nunhappy; and that this may, some way or other, take place in a future\nstate.\n_Answ._ It is no great difficulty to answer this objection, in which\nthere is not a due difference put between the present and future state\nof believers. The only thing which might give occasion to men to\nconclude that their souls are imprisoned in this world is, because they\nare abridged of that happiness which they shall be possessed of in\nanother; which the apostle calls _The glorious liberty of the children\nof God_, Rom. viii. 21. And as for the reproaches which some of the\ngreatest enemies to Christianity have cast on this doctrine, these are\nnot sufficient to beget the least dislike of it in the minds of serious\nand unprejudiced Christians. What though the body be turned to\ncorruption? It shall be raised incorruptible, and in glory; and\ntherefore shall be a palace fit to entertain its noble inhabitant: what\nthough it has, in this world, offered many temptations to the soul to\nsin, by which it has been sometimes overcome and exposed to those\npassions that have defiled, and made it very uneasy; is this to be\nobjected against its being raised from the dead in such a state of\nperfection, that it shall never more contract any guilt, or render the\nsoul unhappy, by any inconvenience arising from it? But this will\nfarther appear, when we speak of the condition in which the body shall\nbe raised under a following head. We shall therefore proceed,\nVI. To consider the resurrection of the dead as universal, including in\nit all who have lived, or shall live, from the beginning of time, till\nChrist\u2019s second coming, excepting those who shall be found alive; on\nwhom a change shall pass which is equivalent to a resurrection.\n1. That all the dead shall be raised: this is expressly mentioned in\nthat vision, _I saw the dead both small and great, standing before God;\nand the books were opened; and the dead were judged out of those things\nwhich were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea\ngave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the\ndead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to\ntheir works_, Rev. xx. 12, _& seq._ where the Judge is represented as\ndemanding the bodies of men of all ranks, conditions, and ages, out of\nthose places where they have been lodged, with a design to reward or\npunish them according to their works: therefore, if the justice of God\nis to be displayed in this solemn and awful transaction, and the bodies\nas well as the souls of men, are the subjects on which this judgment\nmust pass; then it follows, that it will be universal: thus our Saviour\nsays, _All that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come\nforth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they\nthat have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation_, John v. 28, 29.\nThis is so evident a truth, founded on the divine perfections, as well\nas express words of scripture, that it is strange to find that any, who\nallow that the dead shall be raised, should deny the universality\nthereof.\nHowever, we meet with several expressions in Rabbinical writers, which\nseem to speak of it as a peculiar privilege belonging to some, but not\nto all; and therefore they have a proverbial expression, that though the\nrain descends on the just and on the unjust, yet the resurrection of the\ndead belongs only to the just:[180] and this they infer from the words\nof the prophet Daniel, in chap. xii. 2. _Many of them that sleep in the\ndust of the earth shall awake_; which words contain a difficulty which\nmost have found it an hard matter to account for, agreeably to the sense\nof the prophet, who speaks, in the words immediately following, of the\nconsequence hereof, as, _some_ shall awake _to everlasting life, and\nsome to everlasting shame and contempt_; whereby he divides the world\ninto two parts, and considers one as happy, the other as miserable;\ntherefore he must, doubtless, speak of an universal resurrection. But\nthe great difficulty lies in these words; _Many of them that sleep in\nthe dust shall arise_; from whence, some conclude that this expression\ncontains an exception of others who shall not arise: thus some Jewish\nwriters seem to have understood it; but I rather think, that the word\n_many_, there, imports nothing else but the _multitude_, _q. d._ the\nwhole number of those that sleep shall awake.[181]\nIt is somewhat hard to determine what the Rabbinical writers intend when\nthey seem to confine the resurrection to the Israelites; and some of\nthem to exclude, not only the wicked from it, but those that had not\naddicted themselves to the study of the law, whom they call the Gnam\nHaaretz: thus they are represented in scripture as giving them but a\nvery indifferent character, _The people that knoweth not the law are\naccursed_, John vii. 49. by this means they bring the number of those\nthat shall be raised from the dead into a very narrow compass:\nnevertheless they speak of future rewards and punishments in another\nworld; therefore some have thought, when they exclude all but the\nIsraelites, and, of them, all but those who were in the greatest\nreputation amongst them, that they understand nothing else by the\nresurrection, but that which they fancied would happen in the days of\nthe Messiah; in which, they suppose, that some of the Jews shall be\nraised from the dead before the general resurrection at the last day;\nand in this sense we may easily understand their exclusive account, when\nthey speak of many that shall not be partakers of this privilege; and if\nit be extended to the resurrection at the last day, then I am apt to\nthink, that they intend hereby a resurrection to eternal life, and so\nsome understand that common proverb but now mentioned, concerning the\nrain\u2019s descending upon all; but the resurrection\u2019s belonging only to the\njust, in this sense; that though the rain descends upon the wilderness,\nand barren ground; yet it is only some places which are made fruitful\nthereby: accordingly, though the resurrection be universal, both of the\nrighteous and wicked; yet the resurrection to eternal life belongs only\nto the just.[182]\nAll that I shall observe at present is, that this is not altogether\ndisagreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; which, though in some\nplaces it asserts the resurrection of the whole world, in others, by the\nresurrection, we are to understand nothing else, but a resurrection to\neternal life: thus the apostle Paul, when he speaks of his _attaining\nunto the resurrection of the dead_, Phil. iii. 11. intends hereby his\nobtaining a glorious resurrection. And our Saviour, when speaking\nconcerning the happiness of the saints in another world, expresses it on\nthis wise; that they shall be _counted worthy_, or meet, _to obtain that\nworld, and the resurrection from the dead_, Luke xx. 35. so that\nwhatever is said by Jewish writers, tending to limit the resurrection of\nthe dead to eternal life, to some particular persons, it does not appear\nbut that even they held, in other respects, a general resurrection, both\nof the just and unjust; which is as demonstrable as is the resurrection\nin general.\n2. They who are found alive at Christ\u2019s second coming, shall undergo a\nchange; which, though it cannot be called a resurrection, will be\nequivalent to it. The apostle Paul gives an account of this, as what was\nbefore unknown to the church; _Behold I shew you a mystery; we shall not\nall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of\nan eye, at the last trump_, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. And elsewhere he speaks\nof them when thus changed, as _caught up in the clouds together with_\nother saints, that are raised from the dead, _to meet the Lord in the\nair_, 1 Thess. iv. 17. This is no less an effect of almighty power than\na resurrection; for hereby their bodies, though never separated from\ntheir souls, are brought into the same state as the bodies of others\nshall be, when re-united to them, and thereby be rendered incorruptible\nand immortal, as the bodies of all other saints shall be, and made\npartakers of the same glory with which they are said to be raised. We\nhave an emblem of this in Christ\u2019s transfiguration, when there was such\na change made, for the present, on his body, that his face shined as the\nsun, and his raiment was white as the light. And there was not only a\nresemblance, but a kind of specimen hereof, in the translation of Enoch\nand Elijah, whose bodies were before this, liable to corruption, and all\nother infirmities that attend this present life, but were made, in a\nmoment, celestial and glorious. And the body of our Saviour, though it\nwas raised from the dead incorruptible and immortal, yet, during the\nspace of forty days, while he continued on earth, it was not made so\nglorious as it was immediately after the cloud received him into heaven,\nwhen it underwent such a change as was agreeable to the place and state\ninto which he then entered; even so the bodies of the saints, at last,\nshall, by this change, be made meet for heaven, and received, with other\nsaints into it.\nVII. We shall now consider the condition in which the body shall be\nraised. And,\n1. Those circumstances of honour and glory which respect more especially\nthe resurrection of the just: this the apostle mentions, and describes\nthem as _raised in glory_, 1, Cor. xv. 43. It is the same body indeed,\nthat is raised, which he illustrates by _a grain of wheat_ springing up,\nand changed into a full-grown ear; which, though it be greatly improved,\nand very much altered from what it was, when cast into the ground, yet\n_every seed_, as he observes, has _its own body_, ver. 38. From whence\nwe may infer, that the same body shall be raised from the dead, though\nwith very different qualities. There are several things mentioned by the\napostle, in the account he gives of the bodies of the saints after the\nresurrection; which some have attempted to explain in such a way, as is\nhardly consistent with a resurrection of the same body. The Socinians\ngenerally maintain that the body shall be altogether new, as to its\nsubstance, as well as its qualities: and others speak of it as an aerial\nbody; as supposing that the gross and heavy matter, of which it formerly\nconsisted, is not adapted to an heavenly state, and would render it not\naltogether free from a liableness to corruption. This opinion a late\nwriter mentions, as what was espoused by some of the Fathers, which he\nspeaks very favourably of; and inasmuch as the apostle calls it _a\nspiritual body_, 1 Cor. xv. 45. and seems to distinguish it from _flesh\nand blood_, which _cannot inherit the kingdom of God_, ver. 50. he\nthinks that though the same flesh and blood may rise from the grave, it\nwill then or afterwards, receive such a change, as will render it\nspiritual and incorruptible; and so, perhaps, when it comes to heaven,\nwill not be flesh and blood; or, that it will clothed with such an\nheavenly body as will keep it from a possibility of corruption; and\naccordingly he supposes that the apostle is to be understood in this\nsense, that flesh and blood unchanged and unclothed with its heavenly\nbody, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; and that this body with which\nit shall be invested, will be thin, aerial, spiritual, bright, and\nshining; and, in that respect, may be called celestial.[183] The reason\nhe assigns why _flesh and blood_, namely, such as is subject to\ncorruption here, _cannot inherit the kingdom of God_, is, because the\nflesh may be cut and divided, and the blood let out, which would subject\nit to corruption; therefore it must be changed, and _put on\nincorruption_.\nThis account of the bodies of the just after the resurrection, seems,\nindeed, to be a medium between the two extremes, either of those who\nsuppose that the body shall differ but little from what it was whilst\nhere on earth, or of others, who conclude it to be nothing else but an\naerial body; yet it contains several things taken for granted, without\nsufficient proof, which I cannot readily give into: nevertheless what he\nfarther adds on this subject is undeniably true, _viz._ that the body,\nwhich before was subject to filth and deformity, is raised in glory and\nsplendor, _shining like the sun_, Matt. xxiii. 43. That which was once\n_vile_, is _fashioned like Christ\u2019s glorious body_, Phil. iii. 21. and\nis freed from all defect or deformity in its members, and from any\ndishonourable parts. Not subject to weakness by labour, decays of age,\nto impotency and wasting by diseases; but nimble, strong, active, and\nthat without reluctancy or molestation, grief, pain, or lassitude; it is\nraised a spiritual body, possessed and acted by the Holy Spirit; and\nadvanced so far to the perfection of spirits, as to be free from\ngrossness, ponderosity, from needing rest, sleep, or sustenance, and is\nfitted for a spiritual and celestial state in which our bodies shall\nwholly serve our spirits, and depend upon them, and therefore may be\nstyled spiritual. If we stop here, without giving too much scope to our\nwit and fancy, in advancing things too high for us, and confess that we\nknow not, or, at least, but a little of the affairs of an unseen world;\nor, as the apostle says, _what we shall be_, Phil. iii. 21. we say\nenough to give us an occasion to conclude that it is a glorious and\ndesirable state, and the change wrought therein, such as fully answers\nour most raised expectations, and is agreeable to a state of perfect\nblessedness. Thus concerning the condition and circumstances in which\nthe saints shall be raised.\nThere is one thing which must not wholly be past over, which is farther\nobserved in this answer, namely, that the bodies of the just shall be\nraised by the Spirit of Christ: This is what the apostle expressly says,\n_If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you,\nhe that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal\nbodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you_, Rom. viii. 11. The bodies of\nbelievers, which were, in this world, the temple of the Holy Ghost, and\nwere under his divine influence whilst living, shall not cease to be the\nobjects of his care when dead; and as an instance of his regard to them,\nas well as denoting the subserviency hereof, to their attaining that\ncomplete redemption which Christ has purchased for them, the Spirit, in\na peculiar manner, demonstrates his personal glory in raising them from\nthe dead: Whereas, others are said to be raised only by the power of\nChrist.\n2. We shall now consider the circumstances in which the wicked shall be\nraised, namely, in dishonour; or, as the prophet Daniel expresses it,\n_to shame and everlasting contempt_. Some marks of dishonour shall,\ndoubtless, be impressed on their bodies, in that they shall be raised\nwith all those natural blemishes and deformities, which rendered them\nthe object of contempt. That part which the body bore in tempting the\nsoul to sin, shall tend to its everlasting reproach; and when reunited\nto it, those habits of sin which were contracted, shall incurably\nremain, as well as the tormenting sense of guilt consequent hereupon,\nwhich exposes them to the wrath of God for ever; so that their\nresurrection, which renders them immortal, brings upon them endless\nmisery. And it is said to be brought about by Christ, as an offended\nJudge, as the consequence whereof, they are summoned to his tribunal,\nwho will render to every one according to his works. Which leads us to\nconsider Christ as coming to judge the world; which is that solemn\ntransaction that will immediately follow after the resurrection.\nFootnote 153:\n  \u201cBy affirming, that the grain produced from the seed sown, is not the\n  very body which is sown, the apostle I think insinuates, that the body\n  to be raised is not numerically the same with the body deposited at\n  death, but something of the same kind formed by the energy of God.\n  Having such an example of the divine power before our eyes, we cannot\n  think the reproduction of the body impossible, though its parts be\n  utterly dissipated. Farther, although the very numerical body is not\n  raised, yet the body is truly raised, because what is raised, being\n  united to the soul, there will arise in the man thus completed, a\n  consciousness of his identity, by which he will be sensible of the\n  justice of the retribution which is made to him for his deeds.\n  Besides, this new body, will more than supply the place of the old, by\n  serving every purpose necessary to the perfection and happiness of the\n  man in his new state. According to this view of the subject, the\n  objection taken from the scattering of the particles of the body that\n  dies, has no place; because it does not seem necessary, that the body\n  to be raised, should be composed of them. For the scripture no where\n  affirms, that the same numerical body is to be raised. What it teaches\n  is; that the dead shall be raised.\u201d\n  DR. MACKNIGHT.\nFootnote 154:\n  _This is reported in a very fabulous manner, and is reckoned no more\n  than an idle tale by Pliny, who mentions it among other stories of the\n  like nature. Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. Lib._ vii. _Cap._ lii. _Animam\n  Arist\u00e6i etiam visam evolentem ex ore, in Proconneso, corvi effigie,\n  magna qu\u00e6 sequitur fabulositate. This is also mentioned as a fable by\n  Origen._ _Vid. Origin. Lib._ iii. _Contr. Cels._\nFootnote 155:\n  _Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. Cap._ lii. _Reperimus inter exempla Hermotimi\n  Clazomenii animam relicto corpore, errare solitam, vagamq; e loginquo\n  multa annunciare, qu\u00e6 nisi a pr\u00e6senti nosci non possent; but by the\n  following words he speaks of him as not dead, but in a kind of\n  deliquium; corpore interim semianimi; but yet it was given out by\n  many, that he died and rose again very often. This Lucian himself\n  laughs at as a foolish tale. Vid. Lucian. Enc. Musc._\nFootnote 156:\n  _Vid. Plat. de Repub. Lib._ x.\nFootnote 157:\n  _Vid. Euseb. Pr\u00e6parat. Evang. Lib._ xi. _Cap._ xxxv. _It is mentioned\n  by Plutarch, Symp. Lib._ ix. _Cap._ v.\nFootnote 158:\n  _Macrobius speaking concerning it, in Somn. Scip. Lib. 1. Cap. 1.\n  represents Cicero as being under a great concern, that this story of\n  Er was ridiculed, by many who did not stick to say, Visum fuisse Erem,\n  vitam effundere, animamq; recipere, quam revera non amiserat. See more\n  to this purpose in Hust. Demonst. Evang. Prop._ ix. _Cap._ cxlii.\nFootnote 159:\n  _See a late learned writer, Hody on the resurrection of the same body;\n  who refers to several places in Heathen writers, of whom some believed\n  it; others exposed it as fabulous, Pag. 13-16._\nFootnote 160:\n  _Thus Pliny, who a little before related several stories of persons\n  raised from the dead, notwithstanding calls the doctrine of the\n  resurrection_, puerile deliramentum. _Vid. Ejusd. Nat. Hist. Lib._\n  vii. _Cap._ lv. _and elsewhere he speaks of it as a thing in its own\n  nature impossible; and therefore concludes it to be one of those\n  things which God cannot do. Lib._ ii. _Cap._ vii. _Ne Deum quidem\n  posse omnia, nec mortales \u00e6ternitate donare, aut revocare defunctos.\n  And Minutius Felix. Vid. Ejusd. Octav. Cap._ xi. _brings in an\n  Heathen, who was his friend, railing at it, without any decency, as\n  though it was no better than an old wives fable; and the principal\n  argument he produces, is, because he supposes it impossible for a body\n  that was burnt to ashes, to spring up into life again. And Celsus,\n  speaking concerning the impossibility of God\u2019s doing any thing\n  contrary to nature, reckons this among those things. Vid. Orig. Contr.\n  Cels. Lib._ v. _Page 240. and says, the hope hereof is more worthy of\n  worms than men and styles it an abominable, as well as an impossible\n  thing, which God neither can nor will do._\nFootnote 161:\n  \u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\nFootnote 162:\n  _Vid. Volkel. de vera relig. Lib._ iii. _Cap._ xi. _Apparet\n  promissionem vit\u00e6 sempitern\u00e6 in prisco illo foedere factam minime\n  fuisse. And in a following part of this chapter, wherein he\n  professedly treats on this subject, he adds; Qu\u00e6 apertis\n  luculentissimisq; verbis ut in nova scriptura fieri videamus, hoc Dei\n  beneficium nobis polliceantur. Ex quorum munere, hoc de quo agimus,\n  nequaquam esse hinc patet, quod antequam Christus illud explicaret,\n  nemo unquam extitit, qui vel suspicari auderet, tale quid illo\n  comprehendi._\nFootnote 163:\n  _Vid. Joseph. de Bell. Jud. Lib._ ii. _Cap._ vii. \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03be\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f75\u03bd \u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03b3 \u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, &c.\nFootnote 164:\n  _See Dr. Hody on the resurrection, &c. Page 56-59._\nFootnote 165:\n  _See Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 11. who observes, from their\n  writings, that because, in the formation of man, mentioned in_ Gen.\n  ii. 7. _Moses uses the word_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05e6\u05e8, _and in the formation of beasts,\n  verse 19. the word_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05e8, _the former having two_ jods, _the latter\n  but one: Therefore the beasts are made but once, but man twice; to\n  wit, once in his generation, and the second time in his resurrection.\n  And they strangely apprehend a proof of the resurrection to be\n  contained in the malediction_, Gen. iii. 19. Dust thou art, and unto\n  dust thou shalt return, _q. d. thou art now dust while thou livest;\n  and, after death, thou shalt return unto this dust, that is, thou\n  shalt live again, as thou, dost now: And those words in_ Exod. xv. 1.\n  then sang Moses and the children of Israel; _they render_ he shall\n  sing, _viz. after the resurrection in the life to come, and from\n  thence infer this doctrine, which could afford but very small\n  satisfaction to the Sadducees, while they omitted to insist on other\n  pregnant proofs thereof_.\nFootnote 166:\n  _See Vol. II. Heb. and Talmud. Exercit. on_ John iv. 25. _wherein he\n  says, that they pretend to prove it from_ Deut. xxxi. 16. _where God\n  says to Moses_, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and rise again;\n  _which is an addition to, as well as a perversion of the text; which\n  says_, the people shall rise up and go a whoring, _&c. and Page 541,\n  and 787. he represents them as proving it from_ Josh. viii 30. _where\n  it is said, that Joshua_ built an altar unto the Lord; _which they\n  translate_, he shall build an altar; _supposing this to be after the\n  resurrection: And from_ Psal. lxxxiv. 4. Blessed are they that dwell\n  in thy house, they will be still praising thee, _they suppose is meant\n  of their praising God after the resurrection. See many other absurd\n  methods of reasoning to the same purpose, referred to by him in the\n  same place._\nFootnote 167:\nFootnote 168:\n  _Thus Josephus Jacchiades, referred to by Witsius in Symb. Exercit._\n  xxvi. \u00a7 41. _in explaining that famous text in Daniel_ xii. 2. _says,\n  Et tunc fiet miraculum resurrectionis mortuorum: Nam multi dormientium\n  in terra pulverulenta expergiscentur, hi ad vitam \u00e6ternam, qui sunt\n  sancti; illi vero ad opprobria & detestationem \u00e6ternam; qui sunt\n  impii. Quorum resurrectionis causa est, ut impii fateantur palam, suam\n  fidem esse falsam, & eos qui ipsis fidem habuerint, prosecutos fuisse\n  vanitatem atque evanuisse, ipsique agnoscant suos majores falsitatem\n  possedisse. And Menasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. mort. Lib._ ii. _Cap._\n  viii. _proves it from the same scripture. More to the same purpose may\n  be seen in Dr. Hody on the resurrection, Page 72. &_ seq. _who quotes\n  several of the Talmudical writers, as signifying their belief of this\n  doctrine; and especially Pocock in Maimon. Port. Mos. Cap._ vi. _who\n  produces a multitude of quotations to the same purpose; in which some\n  assert this doctrine without proof, others establish it by solid\n  arguments, and some mix a great many absurd notions with it, which we\n  shall, at present, pass over_.\nFootnote 169:\n  _Vid. Tertull. de Resurrect. Carn. Cap._ xxx. _Non posset de ossibus\n  figura componi, si non id ipsum, & ossibus eventurum esset._\nFootnote 170:\n  _Vid. Hieron. in Ezek._ xxxvii. _Nunquam poneretur similitudo\n  resurrectionis, ad restitutionem Israelitici populi significandam,\n  nisi staret ipsa resurrectitio, & futura crederetur; quia nemo de\n  rebus non extantibus incerta confirmat._\nFootnote 171:\n  _Vid. Menasseh Ben Isr. Lib. 1. de Resurrect. Cap._ ii. \u00a7 4. _Hic\n  textus expressus est. & infallibilis quo sine omni dubio resurrectio\n  probatur._\nFootnote 172:\n  _Vid. Hieron. Epist. 61. ad Pammach. de error. Joh. Hieros. Quid hac\n  prophetia manifestius? Nullus tam aperte post Christum, quam iste ante\n  Christum de resurrectione loquitur._\nFootnote 173:\n  _The words are put in the form of an interrogation, which sometimes\n  argues a strong negation, but not always, since here it seems to imply\n  a concession that he should live again._\nFootnote 174:\n  _Vid Minut. Fel. in Octav. \u00a7 33. Vide adeo quam in solatium nostri\n  resurrectionem futuram omnis natura meditatur Sol demergit, &\n  nascitur; astra labuntur, & redeunt; fiores occidunt, & reviviscunt;\n  post senium arbusta frondescunt semina non nisi corrupta revirescunt;\n  ita corpus in sepulchro ut arbores in hyberno occultant virorem,\n  ariditate mentita. Expectandum nobis etiam corporis ver est_, &c.\nFootnote 175:\n  _See his Exposition on the Creed, Artic._ xi. _and Tertull. de resur.\n  Carn. cap._ xii. _Aspice nunc ad ipsa qunq; exempla divin\u00e6 potestatis:\n  dies moritur in noctem, & tenebris usquequaq spelitur. Funestatum\n  mundi honor, omnis substantia deusgratur. Sordent, silent, stupent\n  cuncta; ubiq; justitium est, quies rerum. Ita lux amissa lugetur; &\n  tamen rursus cum suo cultu, cum dote, cum sole, eadem & integra & tota\n  universo orbi reviviscit, interficiens mortem suam noctem, rescindens\n  sepulturam suam tenebras, h\u00e6res sibimet existens, donec & nox\n  reviviscat, cum suo & illa suggestu. Redaccenduntur enim & stellarum\n  radii, quos matutina successio extinxerat. Reducuntur & siderum\n  absenti\u00e6, quas temporalis distinctio exemerat. Redornantur & specula\n  lun\u00e6 qu\u00e6 menstruus numerus adtriverat. Revolvuntur hyemes & \u00e6states, &\n  verna, & autumna, cum suis viribus, moribus, fructibus. Quippe etiam\n  terr\u00e6 de c\u0153lo disciplina est, arbores vestire post spolia, flores\n  denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem qu\u00e6 absumpta\n  sunt semina; nec prius exhibere quam absumpta: mira ratio: de\n  fraudatrice servatrix: ut reddat, intercipit: ut custodiat, perdit: ut\n  integret, vitiat e ut etiam ampliet, prius decoquit. Siquidem uberiora\n  & cultiora restituit quam exterminavit. Revera foenore interitu, &\n  injuria usura, & lucro damno: semel dixerim universa conditio recidiva\n  est. Quodcunq; conveneris, fuit: quodcunq; amiseris, nihil non iterum\n  est. Omnia in statum redeunt, quum abscesserint. Omnia incipiunt, quum\n  desierint. Ideo finiuntur, ut fiant. Nihil deperit, nisi in salutum.\n  Totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum, testatio est resurrectionis\n  mortuorum. Operibus eam pr\u00e6scripsit Deus ante, quam literis: viribus\n  predicavit ante, quam vocibus. Pr\u00e6missit tibi naturam magistram,\n  submissurus & prophetiam, quo facilius credas propheti\u00e6, discipulus\n  natura: quo statim admittas, quum audieris, quod ubiq; jam videris;\n  nec dubites Deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem, quem omnium noris\n  restituorem. Et utiq; si omnia homini resurgunt, cui procurata sunt\n  porro non homini, nisi & carni, quale est ut ipsa depereat ut totum,\n  propter quam & cui nihil deperit? Et Vid. ejud. apologet cap._ xlviii.\n  _in which he proves the resurrection of the body from the possibility\n  of that being restored to a former being, with the same ease that it\n  was made out of nothing; and shews how God has impressed upon this\n  world many testimonies of the resurrection; and then he adds, Lux\n  quotidie intersecta resplendet, & tenebr\u00e6, pari vice decedendo\n  succedunt, sidera defuncta vivescunt, tempora, ubi finiuntur,\n  incipiunt, fructus consummantur, et redeunt. Certe semina non nisi\n  corrupta et dissoluta foecundius surgunt, omnia percundo servantur,\n  omnia de interitu reformantur. Tu homo tantum nomen, si intelligas te,\n  vel de titulo Pythix discens, dominus omnium momentum et resurgentium,\n  ad hoc morieris, ut pereas?_\nFootnote 176:\n  _This is what they generally intend by that aphorism, a privatione ad\n  habitum non datur regressus._\nFootnote 177:\n  _See Hody on the resurrection_, &c. _Pag. 205-208._\nFootnote 178:\n  _Vid. Plat. in Cratyl, who brings in Socrates as gravely punning on\n  the word_ \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, _q. d._ \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, sepulchrum; _and supposing that this\n  name, was given to denote that the soul suffers punishment for its\n  faults, by being detained or shut up in prison. And Seneca speaks to\n  the same purpose: corpus hoc, animi pondus, & poena est, permanente\n  illo urgetur, in vinculis est. Vid. Sen. Epist. 65._\nFootnote 179:\n  _Vid. Orig. in Loc. supra citat._\nFootnote 180:\n  _Beneficium pluvi\u00e6 ad omnes spectare, resurrectionem mortuorum ad\n  justos tantum._\nFootnote 181:\n  _The words are_, \u05e8\u05d1\u2019\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9, _multi ex dormientibus. Now it is certain\n  that_ \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, _is often translated_ a multitude, _or_ multitudes, _and\n  signifies the same with_ \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1, _or the Greek word_ \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, _as in\n  Gen._ xvii. 5. _Psal._ cix. 30. _and in several other places. But the\n  principal difficulty lies in the sense of the particle_ Mem, _which is\n  prefixed to the following word; and is generally supposed to be taken\n  distributively; and accordingly the sense must be_, Many, _that is, a\n  great number, or part, taken out of them_ that sleep, shall awake;\n  _though, I am apt to think, that the prefix_ Mem _here, is not taken\n  distributively; but denotes the following word to be in the Genitive\n  case, as Lamed and Beth often do; and if so, the words may be\n  rendered_, The multitude of them that sleep, shall awake; _that is,\n  the whole number of them that sleep shall awake; and so it is the same\n  with what is mentioned by our Saviour in the text but now referred\n  to_; all that are in their graves shall come forth, _and be disposed\n  of in a different way, as he particularly expresses it; which contains\n  the sense of the prophet\u2019s prediction in this place. There is a\n  scripture, in which the word_ many _plainly signifies_ \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,\n  _the_ multitude, _or all mankind: thus the apostle speaks, Rom._ v.\n  15. _of_ many, _as_ being dead by the offence of one, _and_ by one\n  man\u2019s disobedience, many _being_ made sinners; _which none, who allow\n  all the world to have fallen in Adam, will suppose to be taken in any\n  other sense. See other instances of the like nature in Glas. Phil.\n  Sacr. Lib._ v. _Tract. 1. Cap._ xv.\nFootnote 182:\n  _Vid. Poc. Not. Misc. in Maimon. Port. Mos. Cap._ vi. _who treats\n  largely on this subject, and gives an account of the opinions of\n  several Rabbinical writers concerning this matter; which renders it\n  needless for me to refer to particular places_.\nFootnote 183:\n  _Vid. Whitby in 1 Cor._ xv. 44, 50. _If by the bright and shining\n  body, which this author speaks of, he intends that it shall be\n  invested with some rays of glory in the heavenly state, as many others\n  suppose: this, I think, none will deny since it agrees well with what\n  the apostle says concerning the body\u2019s being made like to Christ\u2019s\n  glorious body, and also what the prophet Daniel says, chap._ xii. 2.\n  _concerning their_ shining as the brightness of the firmament, and as\n  the stars; _or, as our Saviour says_, Matt. xiii. 43. They shall shine\n  as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.\n    QUEST. LXXXVIII. _What shall immediately follow after the\n    resurrection?_\n    ANSW. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general\n    and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no\n    man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the\n    coming of the Lord.\nOur Lord Jesus Christ having finished the work which he undertook to\nperform, in gathering in his elect, and bringing that grace which he\nwrought in them to perfection; the only thing then remaining to be done,\nwill be his receiving them into his immediate presence, to behold his\nglory; and banishing others, for ever, from him, with marks of infamy\nand detestation. And, in order hereunto, he will raise the dead, and\ngive a summons to the whole world of angels and men, to appear before\nhis tribunal in that day in which he is appointed, by the Father, to\njudge the world in righteousness; which is the subject insisted on in\nthis answer. In speaking to which, we shall\nI. Prove that there shall be a day of judgment.\nII. Consider the person, the character, and the solemnity of the\nappearing of the great Judge, to whom this work is committed.\nIII. The persons to be judged, angels and men.\nIV. The manner in which he shall proceed in judging them. And,\nV. Some circumstances concerning the place where, and the time when this\ngreat and awful work shall be performed.\nI. We are to prove that there shall be a day of judgment. This is as\nevident a truth as that there is a providence, or that God is the\nGovernor of the world. Every intelligent creature, who is the subject of\nmoral government, affords an argument for the proof of this doctrine.\nAnd accordingly we must consider them as under a law which he has given,\nas that by which they are to be governed. From hence arises our\nobligation to duty, and being rendered accountable to the great\nLawgiver, as to what concerns our obedience to, or violation of his law.\nAnd God is obliged, in honour, to make a scrutiny into, or take an\naccount of our behaviour, that it may be known whether we have obeyed or\nrebelled against him. This is evident from the concern which the glory\nof his own perfections has herein; and the promises and threatnings\nannexed to his law, which he is obliged to fulfil or execute. From\nwhence it follows, that God will display his glory as the Judge of the\nworld.\nThis is plainly revealed in scripture; it was foretold in the early ages\nof the world, as contained in the epistle of Jude, in ver. 14, 15.\n_Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute\njudgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of\nall their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all\ntheir hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him_:\nwhich words, though they might have a peculiar relation to the judgment\nwhich God would execute in the destruction of the old world; yet it is\nplain by the application hereof made by the apostle, that it looks as\nfar as the final judgment, which shall be in the end of time. And this\nlikewise appears from what is said in Eccles. xii. 14. that _God shall\nbring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be\ngood, or whether it be evil_. There are, indeed, many displays of God\u2019s\njudicial hand in the present dispensations of his providence, as he is\nsaid to be _known by the judgment which he executeth_, Psal. ix. 16. The\nvisible token of his regard to his saints in this world, as well as the\npublic and dreadful display of his vengeance poured forth upon his\nenemies, proclaim his glory, as God, the Judge of all. But inasmuch as\nsin deserves greater punishments than what are inflicted here; and the\npromises which God has made for the encouragement of his people, give\nthem occasion to look beyond the present scene of affairs; and\nespecially since the divine dealings with men, as to what respects\noutward things, cannot so clearly be accounted for, while we behold the\nrighteous oppressed, and many of the wicked having, as it were, more\nthan heart could wish; this plainly argues, that there is a time coming\nwhen matters will be adjusted; and, as the Psalmist says, \u2018A man shall\nsay,\u2019 or every one shall have occasion to say, \u2018Verily there is a reward\nfor the righteous; verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth,\u2019 Psal.\nlviii. 11.\nMoreover, this doctrine is not only revealed in scripture, but it is\nimpressed on the consciences of men; which, though they never took so\nmuch pains to extinguish their apprehension or dread thereof, it is\nimpossible for them to do it. That secret remorse or terror which\nsinners feel within their own breasts, which makes them restless and\nuneasy, especially when they perceive themselves to stand on the\nconfines of another world, is an undeniable argument that there is a\nfuture judgment. What was it that made Belshazzar\u2019s _countenance to\nchange_? Why did his _thoughts trouble him, so that the joints of his\nloins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another_, when he saw\nthe _hand-writing on the wall_, in the midst of all his mirth and\njollity? Dan. v. 6. Was he afraid of the united forces of the Persians\nand Medes, who at that time invested the capital city in which he was?\nDid he know that he should be slain before the morning? That was most\nremote from his thoughts, as apprehending himself safe from any danger\nthat might arise from that quarter. Was he afraid of punishment from\nmen? His condition in the world set him above the dread of any such\nevent. It was only the sense he had of a future judgment from God, that\nproduced these effects in him. It was this that made the Heathen\ngovernor _tremble_, when the apostle _reasoned of righteousness,\ntemperance, and judgment to come_, Acts xxiv. 25. And when he was\ndisputing with the Athenians, though they mocked and treated what he\nsaid about the resurrection with ridicule; yet none of them had any\nthing to object against this doctrine that _God would judge the world in\nrighteousness_, chap. xvii. 31.\nIt may be observed that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments,\nas the result of a sentence passed on men after death, is so often\nmentioned by heathen-writers, that it is evident they either received by\ntradition, or understood it by the light of nature; though, when they\nenter into particular explications thereof, we meet with little but what\nis fabulous and trifling. Some of them suppose the rewards and\npunishments to be in other bodies, agreeably to the doctrine of the\ntransmigration of souls, as before-mentioned. Others speak of fictitious\nlakes and rivers in the other world, where men are doomed to abide, at\nleast, for some time; though they know nothing of the day of judgment,\nor the appearance of the whole world before Christ\u2019s tribunal; which is\na matter of pure revelation[184].\nII. We are now to consider the person, character, and solemnity of the\nappearing of the great Judge, to whom this work is more especially\ncommitted. This is a doctrine that can be known no other way than by\ndivine revelation. The light of nature, indeed, discovers to us that God\nshall judge the world; but there is something more than this may be\nlearned from scripture, as well as those circumstances of glory with\nwhich this work shall be performed. Accordingly we read,\n1. That the person who is to perform this great work, is the Lord Jesus\nChrist; of whom it is said, he shall _judge the quick and the dead at\nhis appearing, and his kingdom_, 2 Tim. iv. 1. And elsewhere, _We must\nall appear before the judgment-seat of Christ_; 2 Cor. v. 10. If we\nconsider his glory as a divine person, he is fit to engage in it. For as\nhe knoweth all things, he can judge the secrets of men, which no mere\ncreature can do; and as he has all the other perfections of the divine\nnature, he can display and glorify them, in such a way as is necessary,\nin determining the final estate of men, and rewarding every one\naccording to his work.\nWe may also observe, that this is a branch of his Mediatorial dignity,\nand contains in it a part of the execution of his Kingly office; it was\ncontained in that commission which he received of the Father. Thus it is\nsaid, that _the Father judgeth no man_, John v. 22. that is, not in a\nvisible manner, or by any delegated power, which he is invested with,\n\u2018but hath committed all judgment to the Son,\u2019 and, it is said, he has\n\u2018given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of\nman,\u2019 ver. 27. And to this we may add, that it is a part of the work\nwhich was incumbent on him in the application of redemption, which\ncannot be said to be brought to the utmost perfection, till the day of\njudgment: Thus when he speaks concerning his \u2018coming in a cloud with\npower and great glory\u2019; then he bids his people \u2018lift up their heads,\ninasmuch as their redemption draweth nigh,\u2019 Luke xxi. 27, 28. We might\nalso add to this, that it was very expedient that he should judge the\nworld, since he was unjustly judged and condemned by the world;\ntherefore the cause must have a second hearing, that his enemies, at\nwhose bar he once stood, may be fully convinced, to their eternal\nconfusion, that he was not the person they took him to be, that he did\nnot deserve the treatment and rude insults which he met with from them,\nwhen he stood at their tribunal. They asked him this question, \u2018Art thou\nthe Christ, the Son of the blessed?\u2019 to which he replied, \u2018I am: And ye\nshall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming\nin the clouds of heaven,\u2019 Mark xiv. 61-64. wherein he applied to himself\nwhat the prophet Daniel said concerning him, Dan. vii. 13. and thereby\nintimated, that this would be the most visible and incontestible proof\nof his Mediatorial glory, with which he was invested, as the Son of man;\nupon which the high-priest rent his clothes, apprehending that he spake\nblasphemy; after which they all condemned him to be guilty of death.\nTherefore it is expedient that this visible proof of his Sonship and\nMediatorial glory should be given, and that he should perform this great\nwork, which was incumbent on him, as he gave them to expect. It is his\n\u2018coming with clouds, that every eye shall see;\u2019 that shall oblige \u2018them\nwhich pierced him, and all the kindreds of the earth,\u2019 who set\nthemselves against him, \u2018to wail because of him,\u2019 Rev. i. 7.\nIt was also necessary that he should judge the world, that he might\npublicly vindicate his people, who have been judged and condemned by the\nworld for his sake; and that his cause and interest, which has been\ntrampled on by them, might be defended in the most public and glorious\nmanner, which will afford an everlasting conviction, that he whom men\ndespised, whose glory was set light by, whose gospel was rejected and\npersecuted, is a person worthy of universal honour and esteem. Thus\nconcerning the person who is appointed to judge the world, and the\ncharacter in which he shall do it: which leads us,\n2. To consider the solemnity of his appearing, when engaging in it. The\nwork being the most glorious that ever was performed since the world was\ncreated, and the honour redounding to Christ as the result thereof,\nbeing the last and highest degree of his state of exaltation; it cannot\nbut be supposed that he will appear with those ensigns of majesty and\nregal dignity that become his character as the Judge of quick and dead:\naccordingly we have an account of his \u2018appearing in his own glory, and\nin his Father\u2019s, and of the holy angels,\u2019 Luke ix. 26. _His own glory_\nrespects the rays of his divinity shining forth; whereby it will appear,\nthat he has a natural right to summon the whole world before him. This\ncannot but strike a terror into his enemies, and enhance the joy and\ntriumph of his friends, and excite the adoration that is due to so\nglorious a person. His appearing in _his Father\u2019s glory_, denotes that\nthis is the highest display of his Mediatorial dignity; the reward of\nhis having perfectly fulfilled the commission given him by the Father,\nand fully answered the end for which he became incarnate. And his\nappearing in the _glory of his holy angels_, implies the reverence and\nhomage which they will pay to him, into whose hands they are given, as\nministering spirits, to fulfil his pleasure, and who always rejoice in\nthe advancement of his kingdom.\nThe angels shall not indeed be employed in raising the dead, for that is\na work too great for finite power; but we read of their ministry as\nsubservient to the glory of the solemnity, as consisting in their\nappearing with Christ as his retinue; so it is said, that he shall \u2018come\nin his glory, and all the holy angels with him,\u2019 Matt. xxv. 31. These,\nindeed make up his train; but do not convey to him the least branch of\nthat glory or character he is invested with: but it is their honour to\nattend him, whose servants they are; their work is to praise and adore\nhim, and to shew their readiness to fulfil his pleasure, without\ndesiring to usurp the least branch of his glory.\nThe first thing they are represented as doing, is, their attending his\ncoming with a shout, or the word of command first given forth by Christ,\nand transmitted by them to the whole world, whereby they shall be\nsummoned to appear before him. This shall doubtless be attended with\nuniversal joy and triumph expressed by them. And whereas Christ is said\nto _come with the sound of a trumpet_, 1 Thess. iv. 16. this is either\nto be considered in allusion to the custom of calling the hosts\ntogether, which was by the sound of a trumpet, Num. x. 2. _&c._[185] or\nelse we may understand it in a literal sense, for some sound like that\nof a trumpet, which shall be heard throughout the world, which shall\nhave a tendency to excite the joy and triumph of the saints, and to\nstrike terror into the wicked. And as this trumpet gives an alarm to all\nto appear before Christ\u2019s tribunal; the angels are represented as\nassisting in bringing them thither. It is by them that the saints _which\nremain alive, shall be caught up_ with others _in the clouds to meet the\nLord in the air_, 1 Thess. iv. 17. and they are said to _gather together\nthe elect from the four winds, from one end of the heaven to the\nother_.[186] And elsewhere, our Saviour, speaking of the _end of the\nworld_, which he calls the _harvest_, represents the angels as\n_reapers_, Matt. xiii. 39. which he explains as denoting that _at the\nend of the world the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from\namong the just_, ver. 49. which plainly intimates that they are to\ngather the elect together. And inasmuch as there must be a separation\nbetween them and the wicked, so that one shall be set at Christ\u2019s right\nhand, the other at his left; this, as it is more than probable, shall be\ndone by the ministry of angels, chap. xxv. 32. And then the Judge is\nrepresented as _sitting on his throne_, ver. 31. this is called\nelsewhere a judgment-seat, agreeable to his character as a judge; and it\nis here styled his throne, as expressive of the majesty and royal\ndignity with which he shall perform this great work. Which leads us,\nIII. To consider the persons who are to be judged, things being thus\nprepared for it; and these are said to be angels and men, _i. e._ all\nwho are summoned to appear before Christ\u2019s tribunal. Whether the holy\nangels are included in the number of those whom Christ will judge, it is\nnot safe for us to pretend to determine, since scripture is silent as to\nthis matter. That they are the subjects of moral government is evident,\nbecause they are intelligent creatures; and it follows from hence, that\nthey are accountable to God for their behaviour as such. It is also\ncertain, that they are employed by our Saviour, in _fulfilling his\npleasure_; and pursuant thereto, they are _sent forth by him to minister\nto the heirs of salvation_, Heb. i. 14. and upon this account it may not\nbe reckoned foreign to the work of the day, for Christ to give a public\ntestimony to their faithfulness in the discharge of every work which has\nbeen committed to them; especially since the saints, who, in some\nrespects, may be said to have been their charge and care, have received\nno small advantage from the good offices which they have performed for\nthem by Christ\u2019s appointment: but more than this, I think, cannot be\ndetermined, with respect to their being judged by Christ. Therefore,\nmany conclude, that, properly speaking, they are not included in the\nnumber of those that shall be judged by him; and that either because\nthey are represented as attending him, when he comes to judgment; and\nare never spoken of as standing before his tribunal, as persons whose\ncause is to be tried by him; or because they are considered, as long\nbefore this confirmed in holiness and happiness, and as beholding the\nface of God in heaven; and consequently not to be dealt with as those\nwho are to undergo a farther scrutiny, in order to their having, a new\nsentence passed upon them.\nAs to what respects the fallen angels, they are to be brought as\ncriminals before Christ\u2019s tribunal, in order to his passing a righteous\nsentence upon them. Whether the charge of their apostacy from God, shall\nbe again renewed, and hereby sin traced to the very first spring and\nfountain of it, we know not: but all the guilt that they have contracted\nsince they were, by a former sentence, cast out of heaven, shall be laid\nto their charge: all that they have done against the interest of God in\nthe world, begun in the seduction of our first parents, and continued\never since, with all those methods of revenge and subtilty whereby they\nhave opposed the kingdom of Christ in the world, and endeavoured to ruin\nhis people, will be alleged against them, as well as the bold attempt\nthey made on him in his own Person, whilst he was in a state of\nhumiliation. Thus the fallen angels, though represented as cast down to\nhell, are yet said to _be delivered into chains of darkness, and\nreserved unto judgment_, 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude, ver. 6. This they are, at\npresent, apprehensive of, and are accordingly said _to tremble_, Jam.\nii. 19. at the fore-thoughts of it: it may also be inferred from what\nthey said to our Saviour, _Art thou come to torment us before the time_,\nMatt. viii. 29. and, as the result hereof, it is said, that _the devil\nwas cast into the lake of fire and brimstone_, Rev. xx. 10. _i. e._\nadjudged to endure a greater degree of torment in proportion to the\nincrease of his guilt.\nBut that which is more particularly insisted on in scripture, in which\nwe are immediately concerned, is what relates to men, as those who are\nto be judged by Christ. This is set forth in universal terms; the\napostle says, _We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,\nthat every one may receive the things done in his body, according to\nthat he hath done, whether it be good or bad_, 2 Cor. v. 10. men of all\nranks and conditions, _small and great_, Rev. xx. 12. _quick and dead_,\n2 Tim. iv. 1. _i. e._ those who died before, or shall be found alive at\nhis coming, _the righteous and the wicked_, Eccl. iii. 17. and among\nthese, not only them that have lived under the gospel-dispensation; but\nothers, who have had no other light but that of nature; _As many as have\nsinned without law, shall also perish without law_, Rom. ii. 12. We have\nno account, indeed, in scripture, of their being adjudged to eternal\nlife, for their doing, by nature, some things that are contained in the\nlaw; to suppose this, is to be wise above what is written; and, indeed,\nit seems contradictory to those scriptures which assert the necessity of\nfaith in Christ to salvation; but these are generally described as\nsuffering punishment proportioned to their works. Thus we read of the\n_men of Nineveh_, Matt. xii. 41. _the queen of the South_, ver. 42. _the\ninhabitants of Tyre and Sidon_, chap. xi. 22. and those of Sodom and\nGomorrah, ver. 24. as _appearing in judgment_, and exposed to a less\ndegree of punishment than those that sinned against greater light; but\nthere is not the least intimation given of their being discharged from\ncondemnation. Our Saviour, indeed, speaks of the \u2018servant which knew his\nmaster\u2019s will, and prepared not himself to do according to it, who\nshould be beaten with many stripes,\u2019 _i. e._ exposed to a greater\ncondemnation; nevertheless, he, at the same time, intimates that _the\nservant who did not know_, _i. e._ who sinned under greater\ndisadvantages for want of gospel-revelation, even he _should be beaten\nwith few stripes_; or adjudged to suffer a less degree of punishment.\nThe Pelagians, indeed, have endeavoured not only to exempt the Heathen\nfrom the consequences of this judgment; but some have insinuated as\nthough they were not concerned in it at all: thus one[187] supposes,\nthat the persons who are represented as appearing at Christ\u2019s tribunal,\nMatt. xxv. and sentenced, by him, according to their works, are only\nthose who made a profession of the Christian religion. And the principal\nargument that he brings to support this opinion is, because they, on\nwhom a sentence of condemnation is passed, are accused of not\nministering to Christ\u2019s members, which is interpreted as not giving him\nmeat, when he was hungry, or drink when he was thirsty, _&c._ which\ncharge could not have been brought against those that never heard of\nChrist; or if it had, they might have excused themselves by alleging\nthat it was impossible for them to shew this respect to him whom they\nnever knew. But to this it may be replied, that though our Saviour\u2019s\ndesign here, is to aggravate the condemnation of those who sinned under\nthe gospel, and to charge some with crimes of the highest nature; yet\nthere is nothing mentioned, exclusive of others, so as to give occasion\nto suppose that the judgment of the great day will respect only those\nwho have set under the sound of the gospel. Therefore we have ground to\nconclude, that as the resurrection of the dead will be universal; so all\nthat have lived, or shall live, from the beginning to the end of time,\nshall be the subjects of the judicial proceedings in that solemn and\nawful day; which leads us to consider,\nIV. The manner in which Christ shall proceed in judging the world. It is\nevident, that the design of this glorious transaction is to determine\nthe final state of all men, which will be done in a public and visible\nmanner, that it may appear that the Judge of all does right: this\ndiffers very much from that particular judgment that is passed on every\none at death; in which, though their state be unalterably determined,\nyet it is not done in an open and visible manner; but with a design that\nthe cause should be tried again in that day which is appointed for it.\nThe account we have in scripture, of the manner in which this shall be\ndone, bears some resemblance to the proceedings in human courts of\njudicature; accordingly the day is set in which causes are to be tried;\nthe Judge appears with the ensigns of his authority; and being seated on\nthe tribunal, the persons to be tried appear before him; the cause is\nheard; and since all are to be judged according to law, the law is\nsupposed to be known, or the particular statute, which is the rule of\njudgment, must be produced; and whatever charge is to be brought against\nany one, it is drawn up in the form of an indictment, and supported by\nsufficient evidence, and the persons hereupon acquitted or condemned. In\nallusion hereunto we read of Christ\u2019s appearing in a visible manner,\nseated on a throne of judgment; or, as it is expressed, of _the Son of\nman_, as _appearing with all the holy angels with him_; and his _sitting\nupon the throne of his glory, and all nations being gathered before\nhim_, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. _the judgment seat, and the books opened_, Dan.\nThe righteous, who are a part of those that shall stand before Christ\u2019s\ntribunal, shall be separated from the wicked; the former placed at his\nright hand, the latter at his left. With respect to the wicked, an\nindictment shall be brought in, in which they shall be charged with the\nviolation of the holy law of God, with all the aggravating circumstances\nthereof, the subject-matter of which is contained in the books that are\nsaid to be opened. And this charge shall be supported by evidence; in\nwhich case men shall be witnesses against one another, so far as they\nhave been apprised of each other\u2019s behaviour, or immediately concerned\ntherein: and it is not improbable, that since the holy angels are\nconversant in this lower world, as they are sometimes represented as\nbeing present in worshipping assemblies, 1 Cor. xi. 10. and observing\nthe actions of men, 1 Tim. v. 21. that they shall appear as evidences\nagainst the wicked. And it may be farther observed, that the Judge\nhimself will be a witness against the criminals, which is not usual in\nhuman courts of judicature; though it does not savour of the least\ninjustice: thus it is said, \u2018I will come near to you to judgment; and I\nwill be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the\nadulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress\nthe hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn\naside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of\nhosts,\u2019 Mal. iii. 5. The divine Omniscience will put the charge out of\nall manner of doubt; from whence there can be no appeal; since it is\nimpossible for God, either to be deceived himself, or to deceive others.\nBut besides this, there shall also be the testimony of conscience,\nwhereby persons shall stand self-convicted; their \u2018own hearts shall\ncondemn them,\u2019 as well as \u2018God, who is greater than their hearts,\u2019 1\nJohn iii. 20. Thus it is said, that \u2018the consciences of men bear\nwitness, and their thoughts, in the mean while, accuse or else excuse\none another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus\nChrist;\u2019 and accordingly \u2018every mouth shall be stopped, and all the\nworld\u2019 of the ungodly \u2018become guilty,\u2019 Rom. ii. 15, 16. or appear, by\ntheir own confession, to be so, _before God_, chap. iii. 19. And in\norder hereunto, there shall be a particular dispensation of providence,\nwhereby those sins which have been long since forgotten, shall be\nbrought to remembrance: this seems intimated in our Saviour\u2019s words in\nthe parable; \u2018Son, remember that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy\ngood things,\u2019 _&c._ Luke xvi. 25. and also in God\u2019s _setting the\niniquities_ of sinners _in order before their eyes_, Psal. l. 21. and\nthis will have a greater tendency to support the charge, than ten\nthousand witnesses.\nAs to the things that shall be brought into judgment, or be charged, and\nproved upon them; these are mentioned in a very particular manner, as it\nis said, \u2018God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret\nthing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil,\u2019 Eccl. xii. 14. And\nelsewhere, he is represented as \u2018executing judgment upon all, and\nconvincing all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds, which they\nhave ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly\nsinners have spoken against him,\u2019 Jude, ver. 15. And our Saviour\nparticularly intimates, Matt. xxv. 42, 43. that their behaviour, under\nthe means of grace, shall be enquired into, and what they have done\nagainst him, and his interest in the world, alleged against them.\nBut now we are speaking concerning those matters which shall be produced\nin judgment against the wicked, it may be enquired; whether the smallest\nsins committed by them, shall be brought into judgment against them?\nThis seems to be intimated by our Saviour, when he says, that \u2018every\nidle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the\nday of judgment,\u2019 chap. xii. 36. on which some take occasion to complain\nof the severity of the divine dispensations, as though it was intended\nhereby, that persons shall be condemned to suffer eternal punishments\nfor a vain thought: but to this it may be replied, that no one will\nbring this as an objection against the methods of the divine proceedings\nin the great day, who duly considers the infinite evil of sin; or, that\nthe least sin deserves a sentence of banishment from God, as it is an\naffront to his sovereignty, and opposite to his holiness. However let it\nbe considered that no person in the world shall have reason to complain\nthat he is separated from God, or rendered eternally miserable, only for\na vain thought, or a sin of infirmity, as though he had been guilty of\nnothing else: therefore, when our Saviour says, that \u2018every idle word\nshall come into judgment,\u2019 the meaning is, that this shall tend to fill\nup the measure of their iniquity; so that the punishments which they\nshall be exposed to, shall be for this, in conjunction with all other\nsins. Every sin brings guilt with it; and all sins taken together,\nsmaller, as well as greater, enhance the guilt: therefore, our Saviour\u2019s\nmeaning is this, that every sin exposes men to a degree of condemnation,\nin proportion to the aggravation thereof; though they which are of a\nmore heinous nature, bring with them a greater degree of condemnation.\nThus concerning the charge brought against the wicked.\nThe next thing to be considered is, the trial of the righteous, who are\nsaid to stand before Christ\u2019s judgment-seat. Here it may be observed,\nthat no indictment shall be brought against them, at least, with the\njudge\u2019s approbation; for they have been before this acquitted and\ndischarged, when brought into a justified state; and therefore, as the\nconsequence hereof, _none_, as the apostle says, _shall lay any thing to\ntheir charge_, since _it is God that justifieth_, Rom. viii. 33. If any\nthing be alleged against them by the enemies of God, who loaded them\nwith reproach, and laid many things to their charge in this world, of\nwhich some have been just, and others unjust and malicious: I say, if\nthese things should be suffered to be alleged against them, the great\nand merciful Judge will appear as an advocate for, and vindicate them\nfrom those charges which are ungrounded; and will farther allege, as a\nfoundation of their discharge from the guilt of all others, that he has\nmade a full atonement for them; upon which account, when they are sought\nfor, they shall not be found in judgment, or charged upon them to their\nshame, confusion, or condemnation; but they shall be pronounced\nrighteous, as interested in Christ\u2019s righteousness; and this shall be\nevinced by his producing those graces which are inseparably connected\nwith, though not the foundation of their justification, that so the\nmethod of the divine proceedings, in this respect, may be vindicated,\nand it may appear, that as it is said, without holiness no one shall see\nthe Lord; so these are holy, and therefore they have this internal\nquality, which denotes them such whom God designed to save: this I take\nto be the meaning of that expression of our Saviour to the righteous,\nwhen he pronounces them blessed, and invites them to _come and inherit\nthe kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world: for I\nwas an hungred and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink_,\n&c. Matt. xxv. 34, 35. where the word _for_ is taken demonstratively,\nand, not casually; and denotes that they were such who might expect to\nbe admitted to this honour and blessedness, as having those marks and\ncharacters of his children upon them, to which the promise of salvation\nwas annexed; not as though any thing done by them was the cause of it.\nFrom hence it appears, that the graces of God\u2019s people shall be\npublished before angels and men, to the praise of the glory of him who\nwas the author of them.\nBut there is a difficult question which is proposed by some, namely,\nwhether the sins of God\u2019s people shall be published in the great day;\nthough it is certain they shall not be alleged against them to their\ncondemnation? This is one of the secret things which belong to God,\nwhich he has not so fully or clearly revealed to us in his word; and\ntherefore we can say little more than what is matter of conjecture about\nit. Some have thought that the sins of the godly, though forgiven, shall\nbe made manifest, that so the glory of that grace which has pardoned\nthem, may appear more illustrious, and their obligation to God for this,\nfarther enhanced. They also think that the justice of the proceedings of\nthat day, requires it; since it is presumed and known by the whole\nworld, that they were prone to sin, as well as others; and, before\nconversion, as great sinners as any; and after it their sins had a\npeculiar aggravation: therefore, why should not they be made public, as\na glory due to the justice and holiness of God, and being infinitely\nopposite to all sin? And this they farther suppose to be necessary, that\nso the impartiality of divine justice may appear. Moreover, since God by\nrecording the sins of his saints in scripture, has perpetuated the\nknowledge thereof; and if it is to their honour that the sins there\nmentioned were repented of, as well as forgiven, why may it not be\nsupposed that the sins of believers shall be made known in the great\nday? And besides, this seems agreeable to those expressions of every\nword, and every action, as being to be brought into judgment; whether it\nbe good, or whether it be bad, as in the scripture before-mentioned.\nBut it is supposed by others, that though the making known of sin that\nis subdued and forgiven, tends to the advancement of divine grace; yet\nit is sufficient to answer this end, as far as God designs it shall be\nanswered, that the sins which have been subdued and forgiven, should be\nknown to themselves, and this forgiveness afford matter of praise to\nGod. Again, the expressions of scripture, whereby forgiveness of sin is\nset forth, are such as seem to argue, that those sins which were\nforgiven, shall not be made manifest; thus they are said to be _blotted\nout_, Isa. xliii. 25. _covered_, Psal. xxxii. 1. _subdued_, and _cast\ninto the depths of the sea_, Micah vii. 19. and _remembered no more_,\n&c. Jer. xxxi. 34. Besides, Christ\u2019s being a Judge, doth not divest him\nof the character of an advocate, whose part is rather to conceal the\ncrimes of those whose cause he pleads, than to divulge them. And to this\nwe may add, that the law which requires duty, and forbids the contrary\nsins, is not the rule by which they who are in Christ, are to be\nproceeded against; for then they could not stand in judgment; but they\nare dealt with according to the tenor of the gospel, which forgives and\ncovers all sin. And furthermore it is argued, that the public declaring\nof all their sins before the whole world, notwithstanding their interest\nin forgiving grace, would fill them with such shame, as is hardly\nconsistent with a state of perfect blessedness. And lastly, the\nprincipal argument insisted on, is, that our Saviour in Matt. xxv. in\nwhich he gives a particular account of the proceedings of that day,\nmakes no mention of the sins, but only commends the graces of his\nsaints. Such-like arguments as these are alleged to prove that it is\nprobable the sins of the saints shall not be exposed to public view, in\nthe great day. But after all that has been said, it is safest for us not\nto be too peremptory in determining this matter, lest, by pretending to\nbe wise beyond what is clearly revealed in scripture, we betray our own\nfolly, and too bold presumption, or assert that which is not right of\nthis glorious Judge. Thus concerning the method in which Christ shall\nproceed in judging the world. We are now led to consider,\nV. Some circumstances relating to the place where, and the time when,\nthis great and awful work shall be performed, at least, so far as it is\nconvenient for us to enquire into this matter, without giving too much\nscope to a vain curiosity, or desire to be wise above what is written.\nAnd,\n1. As to the place; it does not seem probable that it shall be upon the\nsurface of the earth; because we read, that _they which are_ found\n_alive_ at Christ\u2019s coming, _shall be caught up together with them_,\nthat is, the others who are raised from the dead, _in the clouds, to\nmeet the Lord in the air_; which immediately follows after the account\nwhich the apostle gives of the Lord\u2019s _descending from heaven with a\nshout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trump of God_, 1\nThes. iv. 16, 17. which is the signal to be given of the immediate\nappearance of the Judge: therefore, their being _caught up in the\nclouds_, denotes that Christ shall judge the world, in some place above\nthis earth; otherwise they must be supposed to be caught up thither, and\nafterwards obliged to descend from thence, to the place from whence they\nwere taken, to be judged; which does not seem probable. This is all that\nwe dare assert, concerning the place where this great and solemn\ntransaction shall be performed.\nAnd I the rather observe this, because some are of opinion, that the\nvalley of Jehoshaphat is designed to be the place, from the application\nof that prediction mentioned in the prophet Joel, in chap. iii. 2. _I\nwill gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of\nJehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people_:[188] but\nthat seems to be a prophesy of some signal victory which the church\nshould gain over its enemies; which shall have its accomplishment before\nChrist come to judgment, and be no less remarkable than that which God\ngave Jehoshaphat over the Moabites, Ammonites, and the inhabitants of\nmount Seir, mentioned in 2 Chron. xx. upon which occasion the place\nwhere it was obtained, was called _the valley of Berachah_, which\nsignifies blessing: and the prophet does not seem by _the valley of\nJehoshaphat_, to point out any particular place known by that name; but\nrather to allude to the signification of the word, as importing the\njudgment of the Lord: so that nothing else is intended by it but that\nGod shall, in the latter day, probably when those scriptures shall have\nhad their accomplishment, which relate to the conversion of the Jews,\nexecute some remarkable judgment against the heathen, amongst whom they\nwere scattered. Therefore it cannot, with the least shadow of justice,\nbe argued from hence, that this is the place where all nations of the\nearth shall be gathered to judgment. Besides, some have observed, that\nhow great soever this valley may be, it is not large enough to hold the\nvast multitudes that shall be convened on this occasion.\nAs to what concerns the time when Christ shall judge the world; this is\ncalled, in scripture, _a day_, Acts xvii. 31. not to signify that the\nwhole work shall be performed in that space of time, which we generally\ncall _a day_; for that can hardly be sufficient for the performing the\nmany things that are to be done in it. Some have thought that the whole\nprocess shall take up no less than a thousand years; and suppose, that\nthe apostle Peter intimates as much, when speaking concerning the day of\njudgment, he says, _One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a\nthousand years as one day_, 2 Pet. iii. 8. Thus the excellent Mr. Mede\nunderstands that scripture:[189] but since this is not more clearly\nexplained by other scriptures, speaking to the same purpose, I dare not\nbe too peremptory in giving into this opinion; but would rather\nconclude, that the time of the continuance thereof, is called _a day_,\nas denoting a season appointed for the dispatch of a work, whether it be\nlonger or shorter. Thus Christ calls that season, in which the gospel\nwas preached to the Jews, _their day_, Luke xix. 42. And therefore it is\nthe safest way for us to acknowledge this to be a secret which belongs\nnot to us to enquire into.\nAs to the time when Christ shall come to judgment, or when this glorious\nday shall begin, that is also considered, not only as a matter kept\nsecret from us, but from all creatures: thus our Saviour, speaking\nconcerning it, says, \u2018Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the\nangels of heaven, but my Father only,\u2019 Matt. xxiv. 36. This is\nparticularly intimated in the answer we are explaining; and the reason\nassigned why it is kept secret from us, _viz._ that all may watch and\npray, and be ready for the coming of the Lord; which is certainly a\nmatter of the highest importance; and it is evident, that if God had\neither revealed the time of Christ\u2019s coming to judgment, or let men know\nhow long they should continue in this world, before that judgment, which\nis past on all at death, it might have given occasion to the corruption\nof our nature, to have put off all thoughts about it, till it was at\nhand: therefore our Saviour, in wisdom, as well as kindness to his\npeople, has represented his coming under the similitude of _a thief in\nthe night_, 2 Thes. v. 2. and accordingly says, _Therefore be ye also\nready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh_, Matt.\nxxiv. 44. Thus concerning the day of judgment. As to what respects the\nconsequence hereof, and the sentence which shall be pronounced on the\nrighteous and the wicked, that is the subject-matter of the two\nfollowing answers.\nAll that I shall add at present is, some practical inferences from this\ndoctrine of Christ\u2019s coming to judgment.\n(1.) What has been observed concerning Christ\u2019s coming to judge the\nworld in his own glory, and that of his Father, and of his holy angels,\nshould fill us with high and honourable thoughts of him; and since the\nangels reckon it an honour to attend him as ministering spirits in that\ngreat day, this should excite in us an holy ambition to approve\nourselves his servants in all things, and to account it our honour that\nhe will esteem us such.\n(2.) Since Christ at his coming to judgment, will bring all things to\nlight, and impartially state and try the cause of every one, who shall\nbe rewarded according to their works; this should silence, and fence\nagainst, all unbelieving thoughts, which may arise in the minds of men,\nconcerning the seemingly unequal distributions of providence, in God\u2019s\ndealing with the righteous and the wicked, as to what respects the\noutward affairs of life, and make us easy, though we know not his design\nin the various afflictive providences wherewith we are exercised; since\nwe are not to expect those blessings here, which he has reserved for his\npeople, at Christ\u2019s appearing to judgment; which, if he is pleased to\nbestow upon us hereafter, we shall then have the highest reason to\nadmire his wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, in the whole method of\nhis providential dealings with us.\n(3.) This doctrine tends to reprove the atheism and profaneness of\nthose, who make a jest of, or scoff, at the day of judgment; like those\nthe apostle Peter mentions, whom he calls _scoffers, walking after their\nown lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the\nfathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning\nof the creation_, 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4. It also reproves those who abuse the\nday of God\u2019s patience; and because his coming to judgment is delayed,\ntake occasion to commit the vilest crimes. Thus our Saviour speaks of\nsome as doing, and intimates that he will _come in a day when they look\nnot for him, and shall cut them asunder, and appoint them their portion\nwith hypocrites_, Matt. xxiv. 48-51.\n(4.) This doctrine should stir us up to universal holiness, and the\ngreatest circumspection and diligence in the service of God; as the\napostle says, when speaking concerning Christ\u2019s coming to judgment, with\nthose displays of terrible majesty that shall attend it, _what manner of\npersons ought we to be, in all holy conversation and godliness, looking\nfor, and hasting unto the coming of the day of God_, 2 Pet. iii. 11, 12.\n(5.) Since we expect that Christ will judge the world at the last day,\nit behoves us to be often judging and trying ourselves, examining how\nmatters stand between God and us; and whether we behave ourselves in\nsuch a way as that we may be meet for Christ\u2019s coming, and have boldness\nin the day of judgment; as the apostle says, _If we would judge\nourselves, we should not be judged_, 1 Cor. xi. 31. that is, with the\njudgment of condemnation.\n(6.) It is an inexpressible advantage when we can conclude, upon good\ngrounds, that this great Judge is our Friend, our Saviour, our Advocate,\nand that, living and dying, we shall be found in him; for then, though\nhe come in such a way as will strike the utmost terror and confusion\ninto his enemies, we shall be found of him in peace: and the consequence\nof this day\u2019s solemnity shall be our admission into his immediate\npresence, and being for ever blessed therein.\nFootnote 184:\n  _We often read in Heathen-writers, of \u00c6acus, Minus and Rhadamanthus,\n  as appointed to pass a judgment on every one at death, fix them in\n  their respective places of residence, and determine their rewards and\n  punishments. These are generally supposed to have lived about Moses\u2019s\n  time, and are commended for the exercise of justice, and making laws,\n  some of which they are supposed to have received from heaven; and as\n  the reward hereof, have the honour, of being judges of men at death,\n  conferred upon them. Some have been ready to conclude that the account\n  which the Heathen give of these three famous law-givers and judges, is\n  nothing else but a corruption of a tradition which they had received\n  concerning Moses, the great law-giver to the Israelites, set forth by\n  different names, with several things fabulous added thereunto. They\n  who have a mind to see a very learned and critical disquisition on\n  this subject, may consult Huet Demonst. Evang. Prop._ iv. \u00a7 9-13. _And\n  as for the variety of punishments which these judges inflicted, the\n  lakes and rivers of fire to which they are condemned, see Plato\u2019s\n  account thereof, translated by Eusebius, in Pr\u00e6p. Evang. Lib._ xi.\n  _Cap._ xxxvii. _who thinks that some things mentioned by him, bear a\n  resemblance to the punishment of sin, which we read of in scripture,\n  which he supposes he received by tradition, from some that were\n  acquainted with divine revelation, as he did many other things which\n  he speaks of in his writings_.\nFootnote 185:\n  _See Vol. II. Quest. LVI._\nFootnote 186:\n  _Matt._ xxiv. 31. _This is the most common sense of those words; and\n  how far soever they are supposed, by some, to be taken in a figurative\n  sense, for the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world,\n  after the destruction of the Jewish state, which some have supposed,\n  is principally intended by what is mentioned in the foregoing verses;\n  yet most conclude that several things in this account of Christ\u2019s\n  glorious appearance, are not without some allusion, at least to what\n  shall be more eminently accomplished, when he shall come to judgment._\nFootnote 187:\n  _Curcell\u00e6us in Dissert. de necessit. cognit. Christ._ \u00a7 vi.\nFootnote 188:\n  _Of this opinion were some among the Papists, and particularly\n  Cornelius a Lapide, Vid. ejusd. comment in Loc. who describes it as a\n  place situate at the foot of the mount of Olives, in or near the place\n  where our Saviour was in his agony betrayed and delivered by Judas,\n  into the hands of his enemies. Therefore this will be, according to\n  him, the fittest place for him to execute judgment upon them, and to\n  appear in this triumphant and glorious manner, in order thereunto. And\n  this is mentioned by many Jewish writers, who maintained it. Thus the\n  author of the Chaldee Paraphrase on Canticles_ viii. 5. _speaks to\n  this purpose, that the dead shall be raised, and the mountain of\n  Olives shall be cleft, and all the dead of Israel shall come out from\n  thence; and that the just, who died in the captivity, and consequently\n  were not buried in or near that place, shall come through the caverns\n  of the earth, that they may here arise to judgment. And several\n  Rabbinical writers give into this chimera, which is also mentioned in\n  both the Talmuds. And many of the modern Jews, as is observed by some\n  late travellers into the holy land, are so fond of burying their dead\n  in or near this place, that they might not have far to come under the\n  earth, when they rise from the dead, and must appear here at the day\n  of judgment, that they pay a certain sum of money for the privilege of\n  burying their dead therein. See Hody on the resurrection, Page 70,\nFootnote 189:\n  _See his works, Lib._ iii. _Comment. apocal. page 662. and his\n  remains, chap._ xi. _page 748. in which he is followed by some others,\n  and the learned Gale, in his court of the Gentiles, Part_ I. _Book_\n  iii. _chap._ vii. _Page 78. speaks of some Jewish writers as\n  maintaining, that the world shall continue 6000 years; and from thence\n  to the 7000th shall be the day of judgment. And he also mentions this\n  as an opinion which Plato had received by conversing with some of\n  them; and concludes, that this is the great Platonick year, which is\n  mentioned by him, and his followers._\n    QUEST. LXXXIX. _What shall be done to the wicked at the day of\n    judgment?_\n    ANSW. At the day of judgment the wicked shall be set on Christ\u2019s\n    left hand; and upon clear evidence, and full conviction of their own\n    consciences, shall have the fearful, but just sentence of\n    condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall be cast\n    out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship\n    with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be\n    punished with unspeakable torments both of body and soul, with the\n    devil and his angels for ever.\nHaving, under the last answer, taken a view of Christ, as coming to\njudgment; and the whole world as seated at his tribunal, the wicked on\nhis left hand, and the righteous on his right; the books opened, the\ncause tried, and the evidence produced; we are now to consider the\nsentence that will be past on each of them, together with the\nconsequences thereof: and particularly we have an account in this\nanswer, of a sentence of condemnation, pronounced against the wicked,\nand the punishment inflicted on them, pursuant thereunto; which our\nSaviour expresses in words full of dread and horror; _Then shall he say\nunto them on the left hand, Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting\nfire, prepared for the devil and his angels; and these shall go away\ninto everlasting punishment_, Matt. xxv. 41, 45. This includes in it an\neternal banishment and separation from him, in whose favour there is\nlife. As sin is the object of his detestation, it being contrary to the\nholiness of his nature, they who are found in open rebellion against\nhim, shall not _stand in his sight_, Psal. v. 5. As they did not desire\nhis special and gracious presence, which his saints always reckoned\ntheir chief joy, in this world; they shall be deprived of it in the\nnext. And when they are commanded to depart from him, they are described\nas _cursed_, that is, bound over to suffer all those punishments which\nthe vindictive justice of God will inflict, that are contained in those\nthreatenings which are denounced by his law that they have violated, and\nsent down into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both in\nbody and soul, with the devil and his angels, for ever. Accordingly\nthere are three things to be considered, relating to the punishment of\nsinners in another world, namely, the kind thereof, its degree, and\neternal duration.\nI. As to the kind of punishment; that is generally considered in two\nrespects, namely, the punishment of loss and sense.\n1. Concerning the punishment of loss. This contains in it a separation\nfrom God, the fountain of blessedness; a being destitute of every thing\nthat might administer comfort to them; and, as the consequence hereof,\nthey are deprived not only of fellowship with Christ, but with his\nsaints. Not that they were ever the objects of their love or delight,\nbut, on the other hand, their conversation was distasteful and\nburdensome; especially when it was in itself most savoury and spiritual:\nnevertheless, it is reckoned to be one ingredient in their misery, as\nour Saviour expresses it, when he speaks of the _workers of iniquity_,\nas first commanded to _depart from him_, Luke xiii. 27, 28. and then\ntells them, _Ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the\nprophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out_: where\nthe happiness of others is considered as what will raise their envy, and\nprove a torment to them.\n2. There is the punishment of sense: this is set forth by those\nunspeakable torments to be endured both in soul and body; and because no\npain is so exquisite as that which is occasioned by fire, it is\ntherefore called _unquenchable and everlasting fire_, Matt. iii. 12.\nchap. xxv. 41. As for that enquiry which some make, whether the fire be\nelementary or material, like that which is in this world, it savours\nmore of curiosity than what tends to real advantage: and since it is\ncalled a fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, some have a little\nhesitated about this matter, as concluding it impossible for material\nfire to affect spirits; but I am not desirous to enter too far into this\ndisquisition. It is, indeed, a hard matter for us to determine whether,\nor how far a spirit is capable of the punishment of sense, any otherwise\nthan, as, by reason of its union with the body, it has an afflictive\nsensation of the evils which that immediately endures; and therefore,\nsome have thought, that when we read of the fire of hell, it is to be\ntaken in a metaphorical sense, to denote those punishments which are\nmost exquisite, and have a tendency to torment both soul and body in\ndifferent respects. The soul is to be tormented as the wrath of God has\nan immediate access to it, to make it miserable: and though this cannot\nbe styled the punishment of sense in the same respect as that is of\nwhich the body is the more immediate subject; yet if we take the word\n_sense_, as importing an intellectual perception of those miseries that\nit undergoes, whereby it is made uneasy, and in a moral sense, subject\nto pain, as we sometimes speak of the pain of the mind, as well as that\nof the body, then it may be said to endure the punishment of sense,\nthough it be in a spiritual substance.\nThere are various ways by which the wrath of God may have access to the\nsoul, to make it miserable; and this punishment is sometimes compared to\nfire, as it is beyond expression dreadful; and accordingly God, when\ninflicting it, is styled, _A consuming fire_, Heb. xii. 29. and _his\njealousy_ is said elsewhere to _burn like fire_, Psal. lxxix. 5.\nTherefore, some have described the punishment of sin in hell, as\nincluding in it the insupportable weight of the wrath of God lying on\nthe consciences of men, and sinking them into perdition; whereby it\nappears to be _a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living\nGod_, Heb. x. 31. A judicious divine considers this as the effect of\nGod\u2019s immediate presence, as a sin-revenging Judge; and therefore\nunderstands that text, in which it is said, _They shall be punished with\neverlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord_, 2 Thes. i. 9.\nnot as denoting an exclusion from his comforting presence, which is an\nundoubted truth, and the more generally received sense thereof; but he\nspeaks of the presence of God, as well as his power, as the immediate\ncause of their destruction; in like manner as when the Psalmist joins\nboth these ideas together, when he says, _Who knoweth the power of thine\nanger_, Psal. xc. 11. and it seems most agreeable to the grammatical\nconstruction of the words.[190] This is that punishment which is more\nimmediately adapted to the soul.\nAs for the punishment of sense, which the body shall endure, whether it\nbe compared unto fire, as containing in it some effects, not unlike to\nthose produced by fire; or, whether it only signifies that the\npunishment shall be most exquisite, as no pain is so terrible as that\nwhich is the effect of fire, I will not pretend to determine. There are,\nindeed, other expressions by which it is set forth in scripture, as well\nas fire, _viz._ _cutting asunder_, Matt. xxiv. 51. _tearing in pieces_,\nPsal. l. 22. _drowning men in destruction and perdition_, 1 Tim. vi. 9.\n_a being bound hand and foot_, and _cast into outer darkness_, Matt.\nxxii. 13. or, into _a furnace of fire_, chap. xiii. 42. or, _a lake of\nfire burning with brimstone_, Rev. xix. 20. some of which are,\ndoubtless, metaphorical expressions, by which the punishment of sin is\nset forth; but whether they are all so we must not be too positive in\ndetermining: however, some suppose they are, because the glory of heaven\nis described by the metaphors of _streets of gold, gates of pearl_, Rev.\nxxi. 21. _rivers of pleasure_, &c. Psal. xxxvi. 8. and the wrath of God\nis metaphorically described, when he is called _a consuming fire_, Heb.\nxii. 29. Therefore, as the glory of heaven is represented by metaphors,\ndenoting that it is inconceivably great; so, if we suppose that the\npunishment of sin in hell, is set forth by metaphorical ways of\nspeaking, we cannot from hence, in all respects, take an estimate of the\nquality thereof; nevertheless we must conclude in general from such-like\nexpressions, by which it is represented, that it is inexpressibly\nterrible, such as respects both soul and body, which is called, as has\nbeen observed in different respects, the punishment of sense. Which\nleads us,\nII. To consider this punishment, as to the degree thereof, which is\ngenerally described as being various, in proportion to the aggravations\nof sin committed; accordingly they who have sinned under the\ngospel-dispensation, are considered as exposed to a greater degree of\npunishment than others who have not had those advantages. Thus the\napostle says, _Of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy,\nwho hath trodden under foot the Son of God_, chap. x. 29. And our\nSaviour speaking concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, who were\nnotorious hypocrites, whose religion was no more than a pretence, and\nmade subservient to the vilest practices, tells them, that _they should\nreceive the greater damnation_, Matt. xxiii. 14. that is, a greater\ndegree of punishment, as they had contracted greater guilt than others:\nand the apostle speaks of some who had had great advantages through the\n_riches of God\u2019s goodness and forbearance_ towards them, but yet were\n_impenitent_, and hardened in sin; these, says he, _treasure up unto\nthemselves wrath against the day of wrath_, Rom. ii. 5. that is, add\ngreater degrees to the punishment which they shall endure in another\nworld.\nIII. We are to consider the punishment, which sinners are liable to in\nthe world to come, as to its duration, in which respect, it shall be\nwithout intermission, and eternal. That there shall be no relaxation of\npunishment, may be proved from what our Saviour says in the parable; in\nwhich the _rich man_, who was tormented in flames, could not obtain _one\ndrop of water to cool his tongue_, Luke xvi. 26. Thus we read of those\nwho are said to _drink of the wine of the wrath of God_, which is\n_poured out without mixture, into the cup of his indignation_; and that\n_the smoke of their torment ascendeth for ever and ever_; and that _they\nhave no rest day nor night_, Rev. xiv. 10, 11. And our Saviour speaks of\nthe two main ingredients in the punishment of sin; namely, the\ntormenting sense which conscience shall have of the wrath of God due to\nit; and the punishment of sense, which is compared to that that proceeds\nfrom fire, and both are described as eternal; where _their worm dieth\nnot, and the fire is not quenched_, Mark ix. 44, 46, 48.\nThat the punishment of sin in another world will be eternal, may be\nargued from the impossibility of their obtaining a discharge from the\nsentence of condemnation, under which they are, unless satisfaction be\ngiven to the justice of God for sins committed; but this cannot be given\nby the person that suffers; inasmuch as his sufferings are due to him,\npursuant to the sentence of the judge, and agreeable to the demerit of\nsin; which being, as it is usually expressed objectively infinite,\nbecause committed against an infinite God, and containing a contempt of\nhis sovereignty and other perfections which are infinite; therefore it\ndeserves a punishment proportionable thereto. And since the sufferings\nof finite creatures are no other than finite, and consequently bear no\nproportion to the demands of infinite justice, they must be infinite in\nduration, that is, eternal. It may also be observed, that at the same\ntime that persons are suffering for past sins, they are committing\nothers. This is not like God\u2019s furnace, which is in Zion; whereby he\ndesigns not to consume, but to refine and purge away the dross and the\ntin; for it cannot, in any instance be said, that this is overruled for\ngood. Therefore the habits of sin are increased rather than weakened\nthereby; and consequently sinners are set at a farther distance from\nGod, from holiness and happiness; which, because it is still increasing,\ntheir punishment must be eternal.\nAnd to this we may add, that there is no Mediator appointed between God\nand them; none who has undertaken to pay this debt for them, and procure\ntheir discharge, as the apostle says concerning those who have _sinned\nwilfully after they had received the knowledge of the truth; there\nremaineth no more sacrifice for sin_, Heb. x. 26. no advocate to plead\ntheir cause; no ordinances in which the glad tidings of salvation are\npublished, nor any golden sceptre of mercy held forth to invite them to\ncome in, or give them hope of finding acceptance in the sight of God; no\ncovenant of grace that contains any promise that will afford relief; and\nno inclination, in their own souls, to return to God with an humble\nsense of sin, and desire to forsake it, and from hence arises\neverlasting despair, beyond expression tormenting, which the apostle\ncalls _blackness of darkness for ever_, Jude ver. 13.\nThis is a very awful and awakening subject; and many are as little\ndesirous to hear of these things, as the people were to hear of the\naccount which the prophet Isaiah gave them of approaching judgments; and\ntherefore they say, _Cause the holy One of Israel to cease from before\nus_, Isa. xxx. 11. But since there is such a passion in men as fear; and\nthis is oftentimes made subservient to their spiritual advantage, it\npleases God, in wisdom and mercy, sometimes to reveal those things in\nhis word, which have a tendency to awaken our fears, and to set before\nus death as well as life, the threatenings as well as the promises, that\nhereby we may see it to be our duty and interest to flee from the wrath\nto come; and to use those precautions prescribed in the gospel, which\nmay have a tendency, through divine grace, to prevent our sinking into\neverlasting perdition. They who cast off fear, and think themselves\nsafe, because the rod of God is not upon them, generally cast off a\nsense of duty, and say unto God, _Depart from us; for we desire not the\nknowledge of thy ways_, Job xxi. 9, 14. Therefore these subjects are to\nbe insisted on as warnings to induce men to avoid the rock on which\nmultitudes have split and perished; not to lead them to despair.\nHowever, there is great need of prudence in applying every truth in such\na way as that it may be of advantage; which renders the work of those\nthat are employed in preaching the gospel, exceeding difficult: every\none must have those doctrines inculcated and applied to him, that are\nadapted to his respective condition, as well as founded on the word of\nGod; and therefore we may observe,\n1. That such subjects as these, though they are not to be concealed, as\nbeing a part of the counsel of God, and a means ordained by him, to\nanswer some valuable end; yet they are not only, or principally to be\ninsisted on, as though there were no passion to be wrought upon but\nfear. It is the stupid person that is to be awakened out of his\nlethargy, by violent methods: the man that says, I shall have peace,\nthough I walk according to the corrupt inclinations of my own heart; the\ndanger is over; or that no ill consequences will attend that wilful\nimpenitency and unbelief, which is like to prove destructive to him; or,\nif a person is willing to deceive himself, and endeavours to extenuate\nhis sin, apprehending the consequences thereof not to be so pernicious\nas they really are; or, that the mercy of God will save him, though\nremaining in open rebellion against him, as though there were no arrows\nin his quiver, or vials of wrath to be poured forth on his enemies. Such\nought to be dealt with, by representing God as a consuming fire, with\nwhom is terrible majesty; and they must be told of the punishment of sin\nin this and another world, that they may see their danger before it be\ntoo late to escape. If it be said, that the terrors of God have a\ntendency to drive persons to despair. To this it may be replied, that\nthe persons we are speaking of, are so far from despairing of the mercy\nof God, that they are inclined to abuse it; and that which is like to be\ntheir ruin, is the contrary extreme, _viz._ presumption; which leads\nthem to turn the grace of God into wantonness.\n2. As for others, who are humbled under a sense of sin, whose flesh\ntrembles for fear of God\u2019s judgments, there is not so much occasion to\ninsist on these awakening subjects, when we have to do with them; for\nthis would be like adding fuel to the fire. If the heart be broken and\ncontrite, and is apt to meditate little else but terror; then such\nsubjects are to be insisted on as are encouraging. Thus when the prophet\nJeremiah had been reproving the people for their abominations, and\nthreatening many sore judgments which God would execute upon them, he\napplies healing medicines; _Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no\nphysician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people\nrecovered?_ Jer. viii. 22. And elsewhere when he had been reprehending\nthem for their idolatry, and putting them in mind of those judgments\nthey had exposed themselves to; he encourages them to _cry unto God, my\nFather, thou art the guide of my youth: Will he reserve his anger for\never? Will he keep it to the end?_ Jer. iii. 4, 5. It is God\u2019s usual\nmethod in dealing with sinners, first to excite their fear by charging\nsin on the conscience, and putting them in mind of the dreadful\nconsequences thereof; in which respect, as the apostle expresses, _The\nlaw enters that the offence might abound_; and then he shews him, that\nthe soul may take encouragement, when humbled under a sense of its own\nguilt; that _where sin has abounded, grace did much more abound_, Rom.\nv. 20. The gospel is designed to administer comfort to those, who are\ndistressed under a dread of the wrath of God. Therefore, there are\npromises as well as threatenings; and each of these are to be applied as\nthe occasion requires it; so that the happiness of heaven is to be set\nin opposition to the punishment of sin in hell; and accordingly as the\nanswer we have been explaining, contains a very awful and awakening\nsubject; so, in the next, we are led to consider a doctrine which is\nfull of comfort to those who have an interest in Jesus Christ.\nFootnote 190:\n  _See this largely insisted on by Dr. Goodwin, in his works, Vol._ III.\n  _Book_ xiii. _His critical remarks in chap._ ii. _seem very just_,\n  viz. _that_ \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf _is causal here, as well as in many other scriptures\n  which he refers to: and his strongest argument to prove that it is to\n  be taken so in this verse, is, because, as he observes_, \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf _must be\n  applied to_ the glory of his power, _as well as to_ his presence; _so\n  that if it denotes a separation from the one, it must also denote a\n  separation from the other; whereas no one supposes that this\n  punishment consists in a separation from the power of God, but that it\n  is to be considered as the effect thereof_.\n    QUEST. XC. _What shall be done to the righteous at the day of\n    judgment?_\n    ANSW. At the day of judgment, the righteous being caught up to\n    Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there\n    openly acknowledged, and acquitted; shall join with him in the\n    judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into\n    heaven; where they shall be fully and for ever freed from all sin\n    and misery, filled with unconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and\n    happy, both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints,\n    and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition\n    of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,\n    to all eternity: and this is the perfect and full communion which\n    the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory\n    at the resurrection and day of judgment.\nWe have, in this answer, an account of the great honours and privileges\nthat the saints shall be advanced to, and partake of, as the consequence\nof that sentence that Christ will pass on them, _Come ye blessed of my\nFather, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the\nworld_, Matt. xxv. 34. which are words that contain a gracious\ninvitation given them to take possession of that glory which will tend\nto make them completely and for ever happy. We have already considered\nthe righteous as caught up to Christ in the clouds, which is either done\nby the ministry of angels, or else their bodies will be so changed, that\nthey shall be able to mount upward, with as much ease as they are, now\nto walk upon the surface of the earth. We have also considered them as\nset at Christ\u2019s right-hand. Whether this has any regard to the place of\ntheir situation, we cannot determine; but, according to the scripture\nmode of speaking, it certainly denotes the highest honours conferred\nupon them; which will be not only spiritual but external and visible;\nwhereby it shall appear to all, that they are Christ\u2019s peculiar friends\nand favourites; and this will tend to raise in them the highest\nastonishment, that they should thus be dealt with by so glorious a\nperson, who were in themselves unworthy of his notice; and it shall\nafford matter of eternal praise. What is farther observed concerning\nthem in this answer, is contained in the following heads.\nI. They shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted.\nII. They shall join with Christ in the judging of reprobate angels and\nmen.\nIII. They shall be received into heaven, in which their happiness is\nfarther described; as therein they shall be freed from sin and misery,\nfilled with unspeakable joy, made perfectly holy and happy, both in body\nand soul, and admitted into the company of saints and holy angels, and\nhave the immediate vision and fruition of God to all eternity.\nI. They shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted. Our Lord Jesus was\nnot ashamed to own his people, when he condescended to take their nature\nupon him, and dwell among them; or, as the apostle expresses it, _He is\nnot ashamed to call them brethren_, Heb. ii. 11. And he gives them many\ntokens of his approbation, by those spiritual privileges which he\nbestows on them here: but at last he shall own them publicly, in the\npresence of the whole world, as a people whom he has chosen, redeemed,\nsanctified, and brought the work of grace in them to perfection. He\noverlooks all their former failures and defects, and looks upon them as\nadorned with perfect beauty, appearing without spot before him, and\nhaving now nothing that may be offensive to his holy eye, or denote them\nunmeet for the relation which they stand in to him, and the blessings\nwhich they shall enjoy with him.\nMoreover, it is said that he shall openly acquit them, _i. e._ declare\npublicly, that he has given satisfaction for all their offences; and\ntherefore they are for ever pronounced clear from the guilt thereof.\nAnd, as it was before observed, it is not improbable, that their former\nsins shall not be so much as mentioned, being all covered; and if sought\nfor, shall not be found: but it is certain, that if they shall be\nmentioned, it shall not be to their confusion or condemnation; for it\nshall be declared, that the justice of God has nothing to lay to their\ncharge; and, as the consequence thereof, they shall be delivered from\nthat fear, shame, and distress, which they had before been subject to,\nthrough the afflicting sense of the guilt and prevalency of sin:\nhowever, when they are represented as thus acquitted, this does not\nsuppose that their sins were not fully pardoned before, or that\njustification in this life, is imperfect, as to what concerns their\nright to forgiveness, or eternal life. The debt was fully cancelled, and\na discharge given into Christ\u2019s hands, in the behalf of all his elect,\non his making satisfaction to the justice of God; but this was not their\nvisible discharge; and not being a declared act, it could not be claimed\nby, nor was it applied to them till they believed; and then they might\nsay, Who shall lay any thing to our charge? it is God that\njustifieth[191]: nevertheless, their justification, as it is declared\nto, and apprehended by faith, could not be said to be in all respects,\nso apparent, nor attended with those comfortable fruits and effects,\nwhich are the consequence hereof, as it is when they are pronounced\njustified by Christ at death; and even then the discharge is not so open\nand visible to the whole world, as it shall be in the day of judgment.\nII. It is farther said, that they shall join with Christ in judging of\nreprobate angels and men: this is very often asserted by those who treat\non this subject; and it seems to be taken from the sense which is\ncommonly given of the apostle\u2019s words in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3. _Know ye not\nthat saints shall judge the world_; and, _know ye not that the saints\nshall judge angels?_ However, we must take heed, if we apply that\nscripture to the case before us, that we do not advance any thing that\ntends, in the least, to derogate from the glory of Christ, who only is\nfit for, and appointed to perform this great work: therefore, if we\nsuppose that the apostle is here speaking concerning the judgment of the\ngreat day, the saints are said to judge the world in a less proper\nsense; but whatever be the sense in which we explain it, we must not\nthink that they shall be assessors with Christ in his throne of\njudgment: it is one thing for them to be near his throne in the capacity\nand station of favourites; and another thing for them to be in it: if\nthey are in any sense said to judge the world, it must not be\nunderstood, as though the trying of the cause, or passing the sentence,\nwere committed to them; but rather of their approving what Christ shall\ndo: this they are represented as doing, when Christ is set forth as\n_judging the great whore_, Rev. xix. 2. namely, the anti-christian\npowers; they so far join with him herein, as that they ascribe glory and\nhonour to him, and say, _Righteous are his judgments_.\nAnd there is another sense in which some understand this scripture,\nconcerning _the saints judging the world_, as denoting that the public\nmention which shall be made of the graces of the saints, their faith,\nrepentance, love to God, and universal holiness, will have a tendency to\ncondemn those whose conversation in this world has been the reverse\nthereof. Their having forsaken all, and followed Christ, and accounted\nall things but loss, that they might win him. The choice which they have\nmade of suffering rather than sinning, which appears to be an instance\nof the highest wisdom, shall condemn the wickedness and folly of those,\nwho have exposed themselves to inevitable ruin and misery, by being\notherwise-minded. Thus Noah is said to have _condemned the world by_ his\n_faith_, Heb. xi. 7. when, in obedience to the divine command, he\n_prepared an ark to the saving of his house_, which the world then\nthought to be the most preposterous action that ever was performed,\nthough they were afterwards, to their cost, convinced of the contrary.\nAnd _the men of Nineveh, and the queen of the South_, are said to _rise\nup in the judgment with that generation, and condemn it_, Matt. xii. 41,\n42. (to wit, objectively, rather than formally,) as their respective\nbehaviour tended to expose the impenitency and unbelief of the Jews,\nwhom Christ there reproves. If the saints judging the world, be taken in\neither of these senses, it is an undoubted truth: but more than this we\ndare not assert.\nNevertheless, we may take occasion to enquire, whether that text, on\nwhich this doctrine is founded, may not be explained in another sense,\nas denoting some privilege which the saints were to enjoy in this world,\nwhen the empire should become Christian; and accordingly, magistrates\nand judges should be chosen out of the church, in which respect they\nshould _judge the world_. This seems, to me, the most probable sense of\nthe apostle\u2019s words, as an excellent and learned writer understands\nthem[192]; and it is very agreeable to the context, in which they are\ndissuaded, in ver. 1. from _going to law before the unjust, and not\nbefore the saints_, as signifying the inexpediency of exposing those\ncontroversies, that ought to be compromised in the church, before\nHeathen-magistrates, as though they thought themselves unfit to judge\nthe smallest matters, of which he here speaks, not of capital offences,\nwhich were to be tried only by the civil magistrate; and to enforce this\nadvice, he says, _Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world_.\n_Obj._ 1. It is objected to this sense of the text; that, at the same\ntime when _the saints_ are said to _judge the world_, he speaks of them\nas _judging angels_; which comes not within the province of civil\nmagistrates; though we suppose them to be Christians.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that when the apostle speaks of the\n_saints judging angels_; this is brought in occasionally, the former\nsense of _judging_ being more agreeable to the context. But since he is\ninsisting on an honour that should be conferred on the church, he\nfarther enlarges on that subject, and so speaks of their _judging\nangels_, as denoting that the consequence and success of the gospel\nwould be an evident conviction to the world, that the Devil\u2019s empire was\nweakened, that he had no right to reign over the children of\ndisobedience, as he before had done. Thus our Saviour speaks of Satan\u2019s\nkingdom being destroyed by the preaching and success of the gospel, when\nhe says, \u2018Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of\nthis world be cast out,\u2019 John xii. 31. And elsewhere it is said, \u2018Now is\ncome salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power\nof his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down,\u2019 Rev. xii.\n10. Moreover, the apostle may have a particular reference to their power\nof casting out devils, not only in that, but in some following ages, as\nour Saviour, promised they should have, before he left the world, Mark\nxvi. 17. which is known to have continued in the church till the third\ncentury[193].\n_Obj._ 2. There is another scripture which seems to favour this opinion,\nnamely, that the saints shall judge the world in the last day, _viz._\nour Saviour\u2019s words, in Matt. xix. 28. \u2018Ye which have followed me in the\nregeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory,\nye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of\nIsrael;\u2019 and that which makes this sense more probable, is what he\nspeaks of in the following verse, as a reward which they, who had\n\u2018forsaken all for his name\u2019s sake,\u2019 should enjoy, namely, \u2018ye shall\nreceive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\u2019\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that our Saviour, in one of these\nverses, may, without any strain on the sense of the words, be understood\nas giving them to expect some honours, that should be conferred on them\nhere, and in the other, those which they should receive in another\nworld: As to the honours which were to be conferred on them here,\nnamely, their _sitting on thrones_, &c. This is said to be \u2018in the\nregeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory,\u2019\nthat is, not when the Son of man shall come to judgment; but when he\nshall enter into his state of exaltation, and sit at God\u2019s right-hand.\nAnd inasmuch as this was to be done for them _in the regeneration_, it\nseems most applicable to the gospel-state; in which, as the apostle\nsays, \u2018Old things are past away; behold, all things are become new,\u2019 2\nCor. v. 17. agreeable to what is foretold by the prophet, \u2018Behold I\ncreate new heavens and a new earth,\u2019 Isa. lxv. 17. which may well be\ncalled _the regeneration_. And, as for the apostles _sitting on\nthrones_, that may signify the spiritual honours that should be\nconferred upon them; so that however they might be despised by the\nworld, they should be reckoned, by all that entertain just notions of\nthings, the chief and most honourable men of the earth. And, as to what\nrespects their _judging the twelve tribes of Israel_, that may be\nunderstood of their convicting the Jews, and condemning them for their\nunbelief in crucifying Christ, and rejecting and persecuting the gospel.\nThis they might be said to do, partly in the exercise of their ministry,\nand partly in the success thereof, and, indeed, the gospel may be said\nto judge men when it convicts and reproves them. If this be the sense of\nthe text, then it does not respect any honours which the apostles should\nbe advanced to in the day of judgment; and consequently it does not\nappear from hence, that they, any more than other saints, shall bear a\npart in judging the world, either of angels or men.\nIII. The saints shall be received into heaven. This includes in it their\nbeing brought into a glorious place, and state. Thus the apostle calls\nit, _An house not made with hands_, 2 Cor. v. 1. which, doubtless, far\nexceeds all the other parts of the creation: For, as the earthly\nparadise far exceeded all other places in this world, being planted\nimmediately by God, and furnished with every thing which might be\ndelightful and entertaining for man, for whom it was designed: so this\nmust be supposed to be the most glorious part of the frame of nature, as\nbeing designed to be the place of the eternal abode of the best of\ncreatures; and indeed, whatever is called heaven in scripture, comes\nshort of it, this being styled, _the heaven of heavens_, Psal. cxlviii.\n4. it is also particularly described as _God\u2019s throne_, Isa. lxvi. 1.\nthe place of his immediate residence, where he displays his glory in an\nextraordinary manner. As for that particular part of the universe, in\nwhich it is situate, it is neither possible, nor of any advantage for us\nto determine, any otherwise than as it is described, as being above this\nlower world. But the principal thing to be considered, is, the glory of\nthe state, into which the saints shall there be brought; which is set\nforth in this answer, by variety of expressions.\n1. Herein they shall be fully, and for ever, freed from all sin and\nmisery; which being inseparably connected, they are delivered from both\nat once. As to what respects the guilt of sin, this includes in it not\nonly their being for ever discharged from the guilt of past sins, which\nis contained in their being openly acquitted, as was before observed,\nbut their not contracting guilt for the future; accordingly they are put\ninto such a state as that they shall be disposed, and enabled to yield\nsinless obedience; and as they are presented without spot and blemish\nbefore God, they shall never contract the least defilement, or do any\nthing which shall render them unmeet for that glory, to which they are\nadvanced, afford matter of reproach to them, or provoke God to cast them\nout of that place which cannot entertain any but sinless creatures.\nTherefore it differs not only from that sinless state in which man was\ncreated at first, but that in which the angels were created, who were\nnot all confirmed in their state of holiness, so as to render it\nimpossible for any of them to fall; but this is the happiness of\nglorified saints.\nAnd we may also infer from hence, that there shall be no temptations to\nsin; none arising from themselves, since there are no lusts, or\nremainders of corruption, to draw them aside from God; and no\ntemptations from others, since they are all made perfectly holy. The\nsoul meets with no temptations from the body, as it often did, while it\nwas subject to the infirmities of nature, in this imperfect state. It\nshall never be liable to any weakness, weariness, stupidity, nor any of\nthose diseases with which it is now oppressed; so that the soul shall\nnever meet with any temptations arising from thence, inasmuch as the\nhappiness of the body consists in its subserviency to it, in all those\nthings that may tend to promote its compleat blessedness. Moreover, they\nare also considered as delivered from all misery, whether personal, or\nrelative. The afflictions of believers are confined to this present\nstate; therefore in heaven \u2018God shall wipe away all tears from their\neyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,\nneither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed\naway,\u2019 Rev. xxi. 4. and nothing remains that may tend to abate their\nhappiness, or render the state in which they are, imperfect.\n2. They shall be filled with inconceivable joys. Thus our Saviour says\nto the man in the parable, who had improved the talents he had been\nentrusted with; _Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord_, Matt. xxv. 21,\n23. and they are said not only to be _presented faultless before the\npresence of the glory of Christ_; but _with exceeding joy_, Jude, ver.\n24. This is the necessary result of a state of perfect blessedness;\nwhich cannot but administer the highest satisfaction and comfort to\nthose who are possessed thereof; inasmuch as it not only answers, but\neven exceeds their most raised expectations. These joys are not indeed\ncarnal, but spiritual; for as the greatest delight which the saints have\nhere, consists in the favour and love of God, and in the bright rays of\nhis glory shining into the soul, so they shall be perfectly blessed with\nthis hereafter, in which respect their joy shall be full.\n3. They shall be made perfectly holy and happy, both in body and soul.\nThe soul shall be unspeakably more enlarged than it was before, as to\nall the powers and faculties thereof. The understanding rendered more\ncapable of contemplating the divine perfections, and it shall be\nentertained with those discoveries of the glory thereof, which, at\npresent, we have but a very imperfect knowledge of: It shall be fitted\nto behold the wisdom of God in the works of creation and redemption, and\nbe led into the deep mysteries of his providence, and the reason of the\nvarious dispensations thereof, which, though they know not now, they\nshall know hereafter. The will shall be perfectly free, having no\ncorrupt nature to bias, or turn it aside, from that which is its chief\ngood and happiness; neither shall it choose any thing, but what is\nconducive thereunto: There are no remains of rebellion and obstinacy to\nbe found therein, but a perfect and entire conformity to the will of\nGod. The affections shall be perfectly regulated, and unalterably run in\na right channel, fixed upon the best objects, and not in the least\ninclined to deviate from them. And, as for the body, that shall be\nfitted for a state of perfection, as well as the soul; for it shall be\nraised a spiritual, celestial, and glorious body, and therefore\nperfectly adapted to be a partaker with the soul, of that glory which\nthe whole man shall be possessed of; and sanctified to be a temple of\nthe Holy Ghost for ever.\n4. They shall be joined with the innumerable company of the saints and\nholy angels. The apostle speaks of an _innumerable company of angels,\nand the general assembly and church of the first-born_, Heb. xii. 22,\n23. to which we are said, in this world, to _come_ by faith; but\nhereafter these two assemblies shall be joined together, and make one\nbody, that so they may, as they are represented doing, with one consent,\n_adore_ and proclaim the _worthiness, riches, wisdom, and strength of\nthe lamb that was slain, who lives for ever and ever_, Rev. v. 11, _&\nseq._ Now since the saints and angels are described as making up the\nsame body, and engaged in the same worship, some have taken occasion to\nenquire concerning the means by which they shall converse together in\nanother world; or, in what manner this united body shall be made visible\nto each other; but these things we must be content to be ignorant of in\nthis present state. However, as to the saints, they shall converse with\none another by the organ of sense and speech; for this is one of the\nends for which the body shall be raised and re-united to the soul; and\nit may also be proved, from what we read of Moses and Elias conversing\nwith Christ at his transfiguration in such a manner, Matt. xvii. 3.\nAs for that question which some propose, relating to this matter, _viz._\nwhether there shall be a diversity of languages in heaven, as there is\non earth? This we cannot pretend to determine. Some think that there\nshall; and that as persons of all nations and tongues, shall make up\nthat blessed society, so they shall praise God in the same language\nwhich they before used when on earth; and that this worship may be\nperformed with the greatest harmony, and to mutual edification, all the\nsaints shall, by the immediate power and providence of God, be able to\nunderstand and make use of every one of those different languages, as\nwell as their own. This they found on the apostle\u2019s words, in which he\nsays, _That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and that every\ntongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord_; which, they suppose,\nhas a respect to the heavenly state, because it is said to be done both\nby _those that are in heaven, and those that are on earth_, Phil. ii.\n10, 11. But though the apostle speaks, by a metonymy, of different\ntongues, that is, persons who speak different languages, being subject\nto Christ, he probably means thereby persons of different nations,\nwhether they shall praise him in their own language in heaven, or no.\nTherefore some conjecture, that the diversity of languages shall then\ncease; inasmuch as it took its first rise from God\u2019s judicial hand, when\nhe confounded the speech of those who presumptuously attempted to build\nthe city and tower of Babel; and this has been, ever since, attended\nwith many inconveniencies. And, indeed, the apostle seems expressly to\nintimate as much, when he says, speaking concerning the heavenly state,\nthat _tongues shall cease_, 1 Cor. xiii. 8. that is, the present variety\nof languages. Moreover, since the gift of tongues was bestowed on the\napostles, for the gathering and building up the church in the first age\nthereof, which end, when it was answered, this extraordinary\ndispensation ceased; in like manner, it is probable that hereafter the\ndiversity of languages shall cease[194].\nI am sensible there are some who object to this, that the saints,\nunderstanding all languages, will be an addition to their honour, glory,\nand happiness: but to this it may be answered, that though it is,\nindeed, an accomplishment in this world, for a person to understand\nseveral languages; that arises from the subserviency thereof, to those\nvaluable ends that are answered thereby; but this would be entirely\nremoved, if the diversity of languages be taken away in heaven, as some\nsuppose it will.\nThere are some, who, it may be, give too much scope to a vain curiosity,\nwhen they pretend to enquire what this language shall be, or determine,\nas the Jews do, and with them, some of the Fathers, that it shall be the\nHebrew; since their arguments for it are not sufficiently conclusive;\nwhich are principally these, _viz._ That this was the language with\nwhich God inspired man at first in paradise, and that which the saints\nand patriarchs spake, and the church generally made use of in all ages,\ntill our Saviour\u2019s time; and that it was this language which he himself\nspake, while here on earth: and since his ascension into heaven, he\nspake unto Paul _in the Hebrew tongue_, Acts xxvi. 14. And when the\ninhabitants of heaven are described in the Revelations as praising God,\nthere is one word used, by which their praise is expressed, namely,\nHallelujah, which is Hebrew; the meaning whereof is, _praise ye the\nLord_: but all these arguments are not sufficiently convincing; and\ntherefore we must reckon it no more than a conjecture.\nAs for the opinion of those who suppose that it will not be any\nparticular language that is, or has been spoken in this world, but one\nthat is more perfect and significative, and that this is what the\napostle means when he speaks of _the tongues of angels_, in 1 Cor. xiii.\n1. To this it may be replied, that it is more than probable, that there\nshall be some language which shall be more perfect and significative\nthan any that is now known in the world; which glorified saints shall\nreceive by immediate inspiration; yet this does not fully appear to be\nthe apostle\u2019s meaning in that scripture; since it is not certain that\nangels express their ideas by the sound of words; inasmuch as they have\nno bodies, nor organs of speech; neither can we certainly determine that\nthey frame voices some other way. Therefore, _the tongue of angels_,\nwhich the apostle speaks of, is an hyperbolical expression, signifying\nthe most excellent language, or such an one as angels would speak, did\nthey use a voice; as _the face of angels_, chap. vi. 15. is expressed to\nsignify the most bright, glorious, and majestic countenance; and as\n_manna_ is called _angels food_, Psal. lxviii. 25. that is, the most\npleasant and delightful: therefore _the tongue of angels_ signifies the\nmost excellent language. But these things, though often enquired into by\nthose who treat on this subject, are very uncertain; neither is it of\nany advantage for us to be able to determine them.\nBut there is another thing arising from the consideration of the saints\nbeing joined in one society, which is much more useful, and, so far as\nwe have light to determine it, will afford a very comfortable and\ndelightful thought to us, namely, what concerns their knowing one\nanother in heaven. The scripture, indeed, does not so fully determine\nthis matter as it does some others, relating to the heavenly state; yet\nmany of God\u2019s children have died with a firm persuasion that they shall\nsee and know their friends, in another world; and have been ready to\nconclude this to be a part of that happiness which they shall enjoy\ntherein; and we cannot think this altogether an ungrounded opinion;\nthough it is not to be contended for as it were a necessary and\nimportant article of faith.\nThe arguments which are generally brought in defence of it, are taken\nfrom those instances recorded in scripture, in which persons who have\nnever seen one another before, have immediately known each other in this\nworld, by a special immediate divine revelation, given to them; in like\nmanner as Adam knew that Eve was taken out of him, and therefore says,\n_This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be\ncalled woman, because she was taken out of man_, Gen. ii. 23. He was\n_cast into a deep sleep, when God took one of his ribs, and so formed\nthe woman_, as we read of in the foregoing words; yet the knowledge\nhereof was communicated to him by God. Moreover we read, that Peter,\nJames, and John, knew Moses and Elias, Matt. xvii. as appears from\nPeter\u2019s making a particular mention of them; _Let us make three\ntabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias_, ver.\n4. though he had never seen them before. Again, our Saviour, in the\nparable, represents the _rich man_ as seeing _Abraham afar off, and\nLazarus in his bosom_, Luke xvi. 23. and speaks of him as addressing his\ndiscourse to him. From such-like arguments some conclude, that it may be\ninferred, that the saints shall know one another in heaven, when joined\ntogether in the same assembly.\nMoreover, some think that this may be proved from the apostle\u2019s words,\nin 1 Thess, ii. 19, 20. _What is our hope or joy, or crown of rejoicing?\nare not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?\nfor ye are our glory and joy_; which seems to argue that he apprehended\ntheir happiness in heaven should contribute, or be an addition to his,\nas he was made an instrument to bring them thither; even so, by a parity\nof reason, every one who has been instrumental in the conversion, and\nbuilding up others in their holy faith, as the apostle Paul was with\nrespect to them; these shall tend to enhance their praise, and give them\noccasion to glorify God on their behalf: therefore it follows, that they\nshall know one another; and consequently they who have walked together\nin the ways of God, and have been useful to one another, as relations\nand intimate friends, in what respects more especially their spiritual\nconcerns, these shall bless God for the mutual advantages which they\nhave received, and consequently shall know one another. Again, some\nprove this from that expression of our Saviour in Luke xvi. 9. _Make to\nyourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail,\nthey may receive you into everlasting habitations;_ especially if by\nthese _everlasting habitations_ be meant heaven, as many suppose it is;\nand then the meaning is, that they whom you have relieved and shewn\nkindness to in this world, shall express a particular joy upon your\nbeing admitted into heaven; and consequently they shall know you and\nbless God for your having been so useful and beneficial to them.\n_Objec._ To this it is objected, that if the saints shall know one\nanother in heaven, they shall know that several of those who were their\nintimate friends here on earth, whom they loved with a very great\naffection, are not there; and this will have a tendency to give them\nsome uneasiness, and be a diminution of their joy and happiness.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that if it be allowed that the saints\nshall know that some whom they loved on earth, are not in heaven, this\nwill give them no uneasiness, since that affection, which took its rise\nprincipally from the relation which we stood in to persons on earth, or\nthe intimacy that we have contracted with them, will cease in another\nworld, or rather run in another channel, and be excited by superior\nmotives, namely, their relation to Christ, and that perfect holiness\nwhich they are adorned with, and their being joined in the same blessed\nsociety, and engaged in the same employment, together with their former\nusefulness one to another, in promoting their spiritual welfare, as made\nsubservient to the happiness they enjoy there. And as for others who are\nexcluded from their society, they will think themselves obliged, out of\na due regard to the justice and holiness of God, to acquiesce in his\nrighteous judgments: thus the inhabitants of heaven are represented as\nadoring the divine perfections, when the vials of God\u2019s wrath were\npoured out upon his enemies; and saying, _Thou art righteous, O Lord,\nbecause thou hast judged thus: true and righteous are thy judgments_,\nRev. xvi. 5, 7.\n5. Another ingredient in the glory of heaven, which is, indeed, the\ngreatest of all, is the saints enjoying the immediate vision and\nfruition of God: this vision includes in it something more than their\nbeholding the human nature of Christ, as Job speaks when he says, _In my\nflesh shall I see God_, Job xix. 26. This, indeed, will be a delightful\nobject, not only by reason of the glory thereof, but from the love that\nthey bear to his person, who, in that nature, procured for them the\nhappiness which they are advanced to. But the principal thing contained\nin this vision of God, is, that it is contemplative and intellectual;\nfor, in other respects, he is invisible: nevertheless there are two ways\nby which persons are said to see him; the one is by faith, adapted to\nour present state; thus Moses is said to have _seen him who is\ninvisible_, Heb. xi. 27. that is, to contemplate, adore, and improve the\nglory of the divine perfections so far as he is pleased to manifest it\nto us in this world; but the other way of beholding him is more perfect,\nas his glory is displayed with the greatest clearness, and in the\nhighest degree in heaven: this the apostle opposes to that vision which\nwe have of God by faith, when he says, that in heaven _we shall see face\nto face, and know even as we are also known_, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. that is,\nwe shall have more bright and immediate discoveries of the glory of God;\nwhich, when represented by the metaphor of _seeing face to face_, has\nsome allusion to our knowing persons, when we are in their immediate\npresence, which far exceeds that knowledge which we had of them by\nreport, when at a distance from them: this the apostle expresses by such\na mode of speaking, as cannot well be understood in this imperfect\nstate, when he says,[195] _We shall see him as he is_, 1 John iii. 2.\nwhich differs from those views which the saints have sometimes had of\nthe glory of God, when manifested in an emblematical way, in this world;\nthey also behold it as shining forth in its greatest effulgency.\nMoreover, since the apostle speaks of this as a privilege which should\nbe enjoyed by the saints at Christ\u2019s appearing, who seems to be the\nobject more especially here intended, it may denote their beholding his\nmediatorial glory in its highest advancement; and this view which they\nhave of it, is said to be assimilating, as well as delightful; and\ntherefore he farther adds, _We shall be like him_. And this shall also\nbe satisfying: thus the Psalmist says, _I will_, or shall, _behold thy\nface in righteousness; when I awake I shall be satisfied with thy\nlikeness_, Psal. xvii. 15. How vastly does this differ from the\nbrightest views which the saints have of the glory of God here! It is\ntrue they know something of him as he manifests himself in the works of\ncreation and grace; but this is very imperfect; the object is not\npresented in its brightest lustre; nor is the soul, which is the\nrecipient thereof, enlarged, as it shall then be to take in the rays of\ndivine glory: however, though this vision of God be unspeakable, and\nmuch more shall be known of his perfections than we can attain to in\nthis life; yet the saints shall not have a comprehensive view thereof;\nfor that is not consistent with the idea of them as finite creatures.\nThus concerning the immediate vision of God.\nIt is farther observed, that this vision is attended with fruition; and\ntherefore it is not barely speculative or contemplative, but such as is\nfelicitating; and accordingly the saints know their interest in God, and\nsee themselves to be the happy objects of the former and present\ndisplays of the glory of his perfections, and how they have all been\nexerted in bringing them to, and fixing them in this blessed state; and\nfrom hence arises that joy which accompanies this vision of God. And\nbesides this, there are some impressions of his glory on their souls,\nwhich not only occasion, but excite this joy.\nAnd it is farther observed, that this fruition is of God the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost. The Father is beheld and enjoyed, as his glory\nshines forth in the face of Christ, as bestowing on his saints all the\nblessings which he has promised in that everlasting covenant, which was\nestablished with, and in, Christ, as their Head and Saviour; his\npurposes of grace, and all his promises, having had their full\naccomplishment in him. And the glory of Christ is beheld as the person\nto whom the whole work of redemption, together with the application\nthereof, was committed, and is now brought to perfection. And the Holy\nGhost is beheld as the person who has, by his power, rendered every\nthing which was designed by the Father, and purchased by the Son,\neffectual to answer the end which is now attained, by shedding abroad\nthe love of the Father and Son in their hearts, dwelling in them as his\ntemple, and in beginning, carrying on, and perfecting that work, which\nis so glorious in the effects and consequences thereof. In these\nrespects they have perfect and distinct communion with the Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost; which far exceeds all they can have here, and is\ninfinitely preferable to all the delight which arises from that\nenjoyment which they have of the blessed society of perfect creatures to\nwhom they are joined.\n6. The last ingredient in the happiness that believers shall enjoy in\nheaven, is, that it shall be to all eternity. As the soul is immortal,\nand the body, to which it shall be united, shall be raised\nincorruptible; so the inheritance, which is reserved in heaven for the\nsaints is such as _fadeth not away_, 1 Pet. i. 4. chap. v. 4. This will\ntend to make their happiness complete, which nothing could do, were\nthere not a full assurance of the everlasting duration thereof. It would\nbe a continual allay to it, and a very uncomfortable thought to\nconclude, that though their enjoyments are very great, yet they shall\nhave an end. The glory of heaven is not like the glories of this present\nworld, which are but for a moment, and, as it were, perish in the using;\nnor like the state of holiness and happiness in which God created man at\nfirst; which, through the mutability of his nature, it was possible for\nhim to lose: but it is established by the decree of God, founded on the\nvirtue of the blood of Christ, who purchased for his people eternal\nredemption, and in the covenant of grace settled this inheritance upon\nthem, as an everlasting possession. This is a doctrine so universally\nacknowledged, that it is needless to insist on the proof of it; and it\nis so frequently mentioned in scripture, that we scarce ever read of the\nglory of heaven, but it is described as _eternal_, See Jude ver. 6, and\nPsal. xvi. 11.\nThere is one thing more, which, though it be not particularly mentioned\nin this answer, I would not entirely pass over, that is, what may be\nsaid to a question proposed by some, _viz._ Whether there are degrees of\nglory in heaven? The Papists not only maintain that there are, but\npretend that greater degrees thereof shall be conferred on persons, in\nproportion to the merit of their good works here on earth; and therefore\nhave assigned to them the highest places there, who have performed works\nof supererogation, by doing more than was strictly enjoined them by the\nlaw of God. But all Protestant divines, who allow that there are degrees\nof glory in heaven, strenuously maintain that these are rewards of grace\nas every ingredient in the heavenly blessedness is supposed to be. And\nwhen this doctrine is made the subject of controversy among them;\nneither side ought to contend for their particular opinion, as though it\nwas one of the most important articles of faith, or charge them who\ndefend the other side of the question, as though they were maintaining\nsomething that was directly contrary to scripture, or of a pernicious\nconsequence.\nThey, on the other hand, who suppose that there are no degrees of glory\nin heaven, are afraid, that if they should assert the contrary, it\nwould, in some measure, eclipse the glory of the grace of God, and give\ntoo much umbrage to the Popish doctrine of the merit of good works. But\nthis all Protestant divines, as was but now observed, sufficiently fence\nagainst. And, inasmuch as it is farther argued against degrees of glory,\nthat those external and relative privileges, which they enjoy, such as\nelection, justification, and adoption, belong equally and alike to all\nsaints; and the same price of redemption was paid for all, therefore\ntheir glory shall be equal: this method of reasoning will not appear\nvery conclusive, if we consider that sanctification is as much the\nresult of their being elected, justified, redeemed, and adopted, as\ntheir being glorified; but that appears not to be equal in all,\ntherefore it does not follow from hence, that their glory, in a future\nstate, shall be so. And though their objective blessedness, which\nconsists in that infinite fulness of grace that there is in God, is\ninconsistent with any idea of degrees; yet it does not follow, that the\ncommunications resulting from hence, which are finite, shall be in a\nlike degree; nor can it be inferred from hence, that if there are\ndegrees of glory, the state of those who have the least degree, shall be\nimperfect in its kind, or have any thing in it which shall afford the\nleast abatement of their happiness, or be the occasion of envy or\nuneasiness, as the superior excellencies of some, in this imperfect\nstate, often appear to be, since that is inconsistent with perfect\nholiness: nor is it to be supposed that there are any degrees, with\nrespect to the deliverance of the saints from the sins, guilt, and\nmiseries of this present life, which is equal in all; nor do they, who\nthink that there are degrees of glory in heaven, in the least insinuate\nthat every one shall not be perfectly filled and satisfied, in\nproportion to his receptive disposition; as a small vessel, put into the\nocean, is equally full, in proportion to its capacity, with the largest;\nand therefore none of the saints will desire, nor, indeed, can contain\nmore than God designs to communicate to them.\nAs for that scripture which is sometimes brought in defence of this\nopinion, _viz._ the parable of the persons that were hired to work in\nthe _vineyard_, in Matt. xx. 9. in which it is said, that _they that\nwere hired about the eleventh hour, received every man a penny_, which\nis as much as others received who were hired early in the morning, and\nhad _born the heat and burden of the day_; that does not sufficiently\nprove it, since some of these labourers are represented as _murmuring_,\nand insinuating that they had wrong done them, to whom Christ replies,\n_Is thine eye evil, because I am good?_ and they are described as\n_called_, but _not chosen_, ver. 15, 16. Therefore it is not designed to\nset forth the glory of heaven, but the temper and disposition of the\nJewish church, who were partakers of the external blessings of the\ncovenant of grace, and the gospel-church, as having equal privileges; so\nthat the arguments generally insisted on to prove that there are no\ndegrees of glory in heaven, can hardly be reckoned sufficient to\noverthrow the contrary doctrine; especially if those other scriptures,\nthat are often brought to prove that there are, be understood in the\nmost obvious sense thereof; and they are such as these, _viz._ Daniel\nxii. 3. _They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the\nfirmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for\never and ever_; where the prophet speaks of those who excel in grace and\nusefulness in this world; and then considers them not only as _wise_,\nbut as _turning many to righteousness_; whose glory, after the\nresurrection, of which he speaks in the foregoing verse, has something\nillustrious and distinguishing in it, which is compared to the\n_brightness of the firmament and stars_.\nTo this it is objected, that our Saviour, in Matt. xiii. 43. illustrates\nthe happiness of all the glorified saints, whom he calls _the\nrighteous_, by their _shining as the sun_; therefore the prophet Daniel\nmeans no other glory but what is common to all saints; and consequently\nthere are no degrees of glory. But to this it may be replied, that our\nSaviour does not compare the glory of one of the saints in heaven, with\nthat of another; but intimates, that the happiness of every one of them\nshall be inconceivably great, and very fitly illustrates it by the\n_brightness of the sun_; whereas the prophet is speaking of some that\nwere honoured above others in their usefulness here; and then considers\nthem as having peculiar degrees of glory conferred upon them hereafter,\nwhich is something more than what he had said in the foregoing verse,\nwhich is common to all the saints, when he speaks of them as _awaking\nout of the dust to everlasting life_.\nAnother scripture which is also brought to prove this doctrine, is in 1\nCor. xv. 41, 42. _There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of\nthe moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from\nanother star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead_; where\nthe apostle is speaking concerning the happiness of the saints after the\nresurrection, whom he compares not with what they were when they left\nthe world; for then had no glory, being _sown in corruption and\ndishonour_; but he seems to compare the glory of one saint, after the\nresurrection, with that of another; and accordingly he illustrates it by\nthe brightness of the heavenly luminaries; every one of which has a\nglory superior to terrestrial bodies: nevertheless he seems to intimate,\nthat if we compare them together, the glory of the one exceeds that of\nthe other. Thus the glory of the least saint in heaven, is inconceivably\ngreater than that of the greatest here on earth: it is, indeed, full and\ncomplete in its kind; yet when compared with the glory of others, it may\nin some circumstances fall short of it.\nThere is another argument brought by some, to prove this doctrine, taken\nfrom the parable of the _talents_, in Matt. xxv. 14, _& seq._ in which\nthe reward is proportioned to the respective improvement thereof; which\nseems to respect some blessings which they were to receive in another\nworld; inasmuch as our Saviour compares himself to one that is\n_travelling into a far country_, and after a long time, returning and\nreckoning with his servants: by the former of which is meant, his\nascension into heaven; and by the latter, his return to judgment; and\nconsequently those regards which differ in degree, must respect some\npeculiar glory, which he will confer on his people in another world;\nand, indeed, the whole chapter seems to refer to the same thing. The\nformer parable of the _wise_ and _foolish virgins_ denotes the behaviour\nof persons here, and the consequence thereof hereafter: and the latter\npart of the chapter expressly speaks of Christ\u2019s coming to judgment, and\ndealing with every one according to his works. If therefore the\nimprovement of these talents respects some advantages that one is to\nexpect above the other, it seems to intimate that there are degrees of\nglory.\nMoreover, this is farther argued from those various degrees of grace\nthat some have in this world above others, which is a peculiar honour\nbestowed on them, and is sometimes considered as the fruit and\nconsequence of their right improvement of those graces which they had\nbefore received. And this may be considered as laying a foundation for\ngreater praise; which argues that the soul shall be enlarged in\nproportion thereunto; so that it may give unto God the glory due to his\nname, as the result thereof. Therefore if we take an estimate of God\u2019s\nfuture, from his present dispensations, it not only removes some\nobjections that are sometimes brought against this doctrine; but adds\nfarther strength to those arguments taken from the scriptures\nbefore-mentioned, to prove it. But notwithstanding all that has been\nsaid, on this subject, it is the safest way for us to confess, that we\nknow but little of the affairs of another world, and much less of the\ncircumstances of glorified saints, considered as compared with one\nanother. Nor are we to conclude, if there are degrees of glory, that the\nhighest degree thereof is founded on the merit of what any have done or\nsuffered for Christ; or, on the other hand, that the lowest is\ninconsistent with complete blessedness; which shall be proportioned to\ntheir most enlarged desires, and as much as they are capable of\ncontaining. Thus concerning the question proposed by some, _viz._\nWhether there are degrees of glory?\nThere is another which has some affinity with it, that I would not\nwholly pass over; namely, whether the saints in heaven shall not have\nsome additional improvements, or make progressive advances in some\nthings, which may be reckoned a farther ingredient in their future\nhappiness? This is to be insisted on with the utmost caution, lest any\nthing should be advanced which is inconsistent with the complete\nblessedness, which they are immediately possessed of: however, I do not\nthink that it will detract from it, if we should venture to assert, that\nthe understanding of glorified saints shall receive very considerable\nimprovements, from those objects which shall be presented to them, and\nthe perpetual discoveries that will be made of the glorious mysteries of\ndivine grace, whereby the whole scene of providence, and its\nsubserviency to their eternal happiness, shall be opened, to raise their\nwonder, and enhance their praise. Since it is not inconsistent with the\nperfect blessedness of the angels, to desire to know more of this\nmystery, which they are said to _look into_, 1 Pet. i. 12. and inasmuch\nas their joy is increased by those new occasions, which daily present\nthemselves; why may not the same be said with respect to the saints in\nheaven; especially if we consider that this will redound so much to the\nglory of God, as well as give us more raised ideas of that happiness\nwhich they shall be possessed of.\nWe shall conclude with some practical inferences from what has been said\nin this answer, concerning the happiness of the saints in heaven.\n(1.) We may learn from hence the great difference which there is between\nthe militant and triumphant state of the church. Here they meet with\nperpetual conflicts, but hereafter they shall be crowned with complete\nvictory: now they walk by faith, but then faith shall be swallowed up in\nvision, and hope in enjoyment. The saints of God are, at present, in\ntheir minority, having a right to, but not the possession of their\ninheritance. Their desires are enlarged, and their expectations raised;\nbut nothing can give them full satisfaction till they arrive to that\nstate of perfection, which God will, at last, bring them to.\n(2.) The account which we have of the happiness of heaven, as being of a\nspiritual nature, and accompanied with perfect blessedness, and the\nenjoyments thereof being agreeable thereto; this may tend to reprove the\ncarnal conceptions which many entertain concerning it, as though it were\nno other than what Mahomet promised his followers; who fancy that they\nshall have therein, those delights, which are agreeable to the sensual\nappetites of such as have no other ideas of happiness, but those which\nconsist in the pleasures of sin: neither is it enough for us to conceive\nof it, as barely a freedom from the miseries of this life (though this\nbe an ingredient therein) as if it had no reference to the bringing\nthose graces which are begun here, to perfection; or it did not consist\nin that blessed work of admiring and adoring the divine perfections, and\nimproving the displays thereof in a Mediator, which the saints shall for\never be engaged in.\n(3.) Let us not content ourselves barely with the description which we\nhave in the word of God, concerning the glory of heaven, but enquire,\nwhether we have a well-grounded hope, that we have a right to it, and\nare found in the exercise of those graces which will be an evidence\nthereof? It is a very low and insignificant thing for us to be convinced\nthat the glory of heaven contains in it all those things which shall\nrender them who are possessed of it, completely happy, if we have no\nground to claim an interest in it; and if we have this ground of hope,\nit will have a tendency to excite practical godliness, which it is\ninseparably connected with, and affords an evidence of our right to\neternal life: whereas, without this, our hope will be delusive, and we\nchargeable with an unwarrantable presumption, in expecting salvation\nwithout sanctification.\n(4.) If we have any hope concerning this future blessedness; this ought\nto be improved by us, to support and comfort us under the present\nmiseries of life; as the apostle exhorts the church to which he writes,\nto _comfort one another with these words_, 1 Thess. iv. 18. or from\nthese considerations; which should also be an inducement to us to bear\n_affliction_ with patience, since they _work for us an exceeding and\neternal weight of glory_, 2 Cor. iv. 17. And,\n(5.) Let the hope we have of the privileges to be enjoyed hereafter, put\nus upon the greatest diligence in the performance of those duties, which\nare incumbent on us, as expectants of this inheritance; and let us\nendeavour to have our conversation in heaven, and be frequently\nmeditating on the blessed employment thereof; and be earnest with God,\nthat we may be made more meet for, and in the end received to it.\n(6.) If we are enabled, by faith, to conclude that we have a right to\nthe heavenly inheritance, let us be frequently engaged in the work and\nemployment thereof, so far as is consistent with this present imperfect\nstate; let us be much in praising and blessing God, who has prepared\nthese glorious mansions for his people; and let us set a due value on\nthe blood of Christ, by which they were purchased; and give glory to the\nHoly Ghost, who has given us the earnest thereof; and having begun the\nwork of grace, will, we trust, carry it on to perfection.\nFootnote 191:\n  _Or, shall God, who justifieth?_\nFootnote 192:\n  _Vid Wits. in Symb. Exercit._ 22. \u00a7 18-20.\nFootnote 193:\n  _See Vol. I. Page 286_\nFootnote 194:\n  _What speech can be without atmosphere, and without flesh?_\nFootnote 195:\n  God is an _infinite_ being. This also is a principle established by\n  both natural and revealed religion. The soul of man is finite, and, to\n  whatever perfection it may be advanced, it will always continue to be\n  so. This is another indisputable principle. It would imply a\n  contradiction to affirm, that an infinite Spirit can be seen, or\n  _fully_ known, in a strict literal sense, as it is, by a finite\n  spirit. The human soul, therefore, being a finite spirit, can never\n  perfectly see, that is, fully comprehend, _as he is_, God, who is an\n  infinite spirit. The proposition in our text, then, necessarily\n  requires some restriction. This inference arises immediate from the\n  two principles now laid down, and this second consequence furnishes\n  another ground of our reflections.\n  But, although it would be absurd to suppose, that God, an infinite\n  spirit, can be fully known by a finite human spirit, yet there is no\n  absurdity in affirming, God can _communicate_ himself to a man in a\n  very close and intimate manner proper to transform him. This may be\n  done four ways. There are, we conceive, four sorts of communications;\n  a communication of ideas; a communication of love; a communication of\n  virtue, and a communication of felicity. In these four ways, _we shall\n  see God_, and by thus seeing him _as he is, we shall be like him_ in\n  these four respects. We will endeavour by discussing each of these\n  articles to explain them clearly; and here all your attention will be\n  necessary, for without this our whole discourse will be nothing to you\n  but a sound, destitute of reason and sense.\n  The first communication will be a communication of _ideas_. We shall\n  _see God as he is_, because we shall participate his ideas; and by\n  seeing God as he is, we shall become _like him_, because the knowledge\n  of his ideas will rectify ours, and will render them like his. To know\n  the ideas of an imperfect being is not to participate his\n  imperfections. An accurate mind may know the ideas of an inaccurate\n  mind without admitting them. But to know the ideas of a perfect spirit\n  is to participate his perfections; because to know his ideas is to\n  know them as they are, and to know them as they are is to perceive the\n  evidence of them. When, therefore, God shall communicate his ideas to\n  us, _we shall be like him_, by the conformity of our ideas to his.\n  What are the ideas of God? They are clear in their nature; they are\n  clear in their images; they are perfect in their degree; they are\n  complex in their relations; and they are complete in their number. In\n  all these respects the ideas of God are infinitely superior to the\n  ideas of men.\n  1. Men are full of _false_ notions. Their ideas are often the very\n  reverse of the objects, of which they should be clear representations.\n  We have false ideas in physic, false ideas in policy, false ideas in\n  religion. We have false ideas of honour and of disgrace, of felicity\n  and of misery. Hence we often mistake fancy for reason, and shadow for\n  substance. But God hath only _true_ ideas. His idea of order is an\n  exact representation of order. His idea of irregularity exactly\n  answers to irregularity; and so of all other objects. He will make us\n  know his ideas, and by making us know them he will rectify ours.\n  2. Men have often _obscure_ ideas. They only see glimmerings. They\n  perceive appearances rather than demonstrations. They are placed in a\n  world of probabilities, and, in consideration of this state, in which\n  it has pleased the Creator to place them, they have more need of a\n  course of reasoning on a new plan, to teach them how a rational\n  creature ought to conduct himself, when he is surrounded by\n  probabilities, than of a course of reasoning and determining, which\n  supposes him surrounded with demonstration. But God hath only _clear_\n  ideas. No veil covers objects; no darkness obscure his ideas of them.\n  When he shall _appear_, he will communicate his ideas to us, and they\n  will rectify ours, he will cause the scales, that hide objects from\n  us, to fall from our eyes; and he will dissipate the clouds, which\n  prevent our clear conception of them.\n  3. Men have very few ideas perfect in _degree_. They see only the\n  surface of objects. Who, in all the world, hath a perfect idea of\n  matter? Who ever had perfect ideas of spirit? Who could ever exactly\n  define either? Who was ever able to inform us how the idea of motion\n  results from that of body; how the idea of sensation results from that\n  of spirit? Who ever knew to which class space belongs? It would be\n  very easy, my brethren, to increase this list, would time permit; and\n  were I not prevented by knowing, that they, who are incapable of\n  understanding these articles, have already in their own minds\n  pronounced them destitute of all sense and reason. But God hath\n  _perfect_ ideas. His ideas comprehend the whole of all objects. He\n  will communicate to us this disposition of mind, and will give us such\n  a penetration as shall enable us to attain the knowledge of the\n  essence of beings, and to contemplate them in their whole.\n  4. Men have very few ideas _complex_ in their relations. I mean, their\n  minds are so limited, that, although they may be capable of combining\n  a certain number of ideas, yet they are confounded by combining a\n  greater number. We have distinct ideas of units, and we are capable of\n  combining a few: but as soon as we add hundred to hundred, million to\n  million, the little capacity of our souls is overwhelmed with the\n  multitude of these objects, and our weakness obliges us to sink under\n  the weight. We have a few ideas of motion. We know what space of body,\n  to which a certain degree of velocity is communicated, must pass\n  through in a given time: but as soon as we suppose a greater degree of\n  motion, as soon as we imagine an augmentation of velocity to this\n  greater degree; as soon as we try to apply our knowledge of moving\n  powers to those enormous bodies, which the mighty hand of God guides\n  in the immensity of space, we are involved in perplexity and\n  confusion. But God conceives _infinite combinations_. He will make us\n  participate, as far as our minds can, his ideas; so that we shall be\n  able to give a large expanse to our meditation without any fear of\n  confusing ourselves.\n  5. In fine, the ideas of mankind are incomplete in their _number_.\n  Most men think, there are only two sorts of beings, body and spirit;\n  and they have also determined, that there can be only two. A rash\n  decision in itself: but more rash still in a creature so confined in\n  his genius as man. But the ideas of God are _complete_. He knows all\n  possible beings. He will make us participate this disposition of mind,\n  and from it may arise ideas of myriads of beings, on which now we\n  cannot reason, because now we have no ideas of them. A communication\n  of ideas is the first way, in which God will make himself known to us.\n  This will be the first trait of our resemblance of him. _We shall be\n  like him, for we shall see him as he is._\n  The second communication of God to a beatified soul is a communication\n  of love. We cannot possibly partake of the ideas of God without\n  participating his love. To participate the ideas of God is to possess\n  just notions. To possess just notions is to place each object in the\n  rank, that is due to it; consequently, we shall regard the chief being\n  as the only object of supreme love.\n  What is necessary to answer the idea, that an upright soul forms of\n  the lovely? The lovely object must answer three ideas: the idea of the\n  great and marvellous; the idea of the just; and the idea of the good:\n  and, if I may venture to speak so, of the beatifying. Now, it is\n  impossible to know God without entertaining these three ideas of him\n  alone; consequently it is impossible to know God without loving him.\n  And this is the reason of our profound admiration of the morality of\n  the gospel. The morality of the gospel is the very quintessence of\n  order. It informs us, no creature deserves supreme love. It makes this\n  principle the substance of its laws. _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God\n  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind_,\n  Matt. xxii. 37.\n  How worthy of supreme love will this God appear, how fully will he\n  answer the idea of the _great_ and the _marvellous_, when _we shall\n  see him as he is_! He will answer it by his independence. Creatures\n  exist: but they have only a borrowed being. God derives his existence\n  from none. He is a self-existent being. He will answer our idea of the\n  magnificent by the immutability of his nature. Creatures exist: but\n  they have no fixed and permanent being. They arise from nothing to\n  existence. Their existence is rather variation and inconstancy than\n  real being. But God, but _I the Lord_, says he of himself, _I change\n  not_, Mal. iii. 6. _the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever_, Heb.\n  xiii. 8. He is, as it were, the fixed point, on which all creatures\n  revolve, while he is neither moved by their motion, shaken by their\n  action, nor in the least imaginable degree altered by all their\n  countless vicissitudes. He will answer the idea of the great and\n  marvellous by the efficiency of his will. Creatures have some\n  efficient acts of violation: but none of themselves.\u2014But go back to\n  that period, in which there was nothing. Figure to yourselves those\n  immense voids, which preceded the formation of the universe, and\n  represent to yourself God alone. He forms the plan of the world. He\n  regulates the whole design. He assigns an epoch of duration to it in a\n  point of eternity. This act of his will produces this whole universe.\n  Hence a sun, a moon, and stars. Hence earth and sea, rivers and\n  fields. Hence kings, princes, and philosophers. _He spake, and it was\n  done; he commanded, and it stood fast. The heavens were made by the\n  word of the Lord, and all the host of them by the breath of his\n  mouth_, Psal. xxxiii. 9. God, then, perfectly answers our idea of the\n  grand and the marvellous. He answers also the idea of the just.\n  It was he, who gave us an idea of _justice_ or order. It was he, who\n  made the greatest sacrifices to it. It was he, who moved heaven and\n  earth to re-establish it, and who testified how dear it was to him by\n  sacrificing the most worthy victim, that could possibly suffer, I mean\n  his only Son.\n  Finally, God will perfectly answer our idea of the _good_ and the\n  _beatifying_. Who can come up to it except a God, who opens to his\n  creatures an access of his treasures? A God, who reveals himself to\n  them in order to take them away from their _broken cisterns_, and to\n  conduct them to a _fountain of living waters_, Jer. ii. 13. A God,\n  whose eternal wisdom cries to mankind, _Ho, every one that thirsteth,\n  come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and\n  eat, yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.\n  Wherefore do ye spend money for that, which is not bread? and your\n  labour for that, which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and\n  eat ye that, which is good, and let your soul delight itself in\n  fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall\n  live._ Isa. lv. 1-3.\n  We cannot, then, know God without loving him. And thus a communication\n  of ideas leads to a communication of love. But this communication of\n  love will render us _like_ the God, whom we admire. For the property\n  of love, in a soul inflamed with it, is to transform it in some sort\n  into the object of its admiration. This is particularly proper to\n  divine love. We love God, because we know his attributes; when we know\n  his attributes, we know, we can no better contribute to the perfection\n  of our being than by imitating them, and the desire we have to perfect\n  our being will necessitate us to apply wholly to imitate them, and to\n  become _like him_.\n  Let us pass to our third consideration. The third communication of God\n  to a beatified soul is a communication of his _virtues_. To love and\n  to obey, in Scripture-style, is the same thing. _If ye love me, keep\n  my commandments_, is a well-known expression of Jesus Christ, John\n  xiv. 15. _He, who saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,\n  is a liar, and the truth is not in him_, is an expression of our\n  apostle, 1 John ii. 4. This is not peculiar to the love of God. To\n  love and to obey, even in civil society, are usually two things, which\n  have a very close connexion. But, as no creature hath ever excited all\n  the love, of which a soul is capable, so there is no creature, to whom\n  we have rendered a perfect obedience. It is only in regard to God,\n  that there is an inseparable connexion between obedience and love. For\n  when we love God, because we know him, we are soon convinced, that he\n  cannot ordain any thing to his creature but what is useful to him;\n  when we are convinced, he can ordain nothing to be performed by his\n  creature but what is useful to him, it becomes as impossible not to\n  obey him as it is not to love ourselves. To love and to obey is one\n  thing, then, when the object in question is a being supremely lovely.\n  These are demonstrations; but to obey God, and to keep his\n  commandments, is to be _like God_.\n  The commandments of God are formed on the idea of the divine\n  perfections. God hath an idea of order; he loves it; he follows it;\n  and this is all he ever hath required, and all he ever will require of\n  his intelligent creatures. He requires us to know order, to love it,\n  to follow it. An intelligent creature, therefore, who shall be brought\n  to obey the commandments of God, will be _like God_. _Be ye perfect,\n  as your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect_, Matt. v. 48. _Be ye\n  holy, for I am holy_, 1 Pet. i. 16. _Every man, that hath this hope in\n  him, purifieth himself even as he is pure_, 1 John iii. 3. These\n  precepts are given us here on earth, and we obey them imperfectly now;\n  but we shall yield a perfect obedience to them in heaven, when we\n  shall _see him as he is_. Here, our apostle affirms, _Whosoever\n  sinneth, hath not seen him, neither known him_, ver. 6. that is to\n  say, he who suffers sin to reign over him, doth not know God; for if\n  he knew God, he would have just ideas of God, he would love him; and,\n  if he loved him, he would imitate him. But in heaven we shall see, and\n  know him, we shall not sin, we shall imitate him, _we shall be like\n  him, for we shall see him as he is_.\n  Lastly, the fourth communication of the Deity with beatified souls is\n  a communication of _felicity_. In an economy of order, to be holy and\n  to be happy are two things very closely connected. Now we are in an\n  economy of disorder. Accordingly, virtue and felicity do not always\n  keep company together, and it sometimes happens, that for _having hope\n  in Christ we are_, for a while, _of all men most miserable_, 1 Cor.\n  xv. 19. But this economy of disorder must be abolished. Order must be\n  established. St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, _The heavens\n  must receive him until the times of the restitution of all things_,\n  Acts iii. 21. When all things shall be restored, virtue and happiness\n  will be closely united, and, consequently, by participating the\n  holiness of God we shall participate his happiness.\n  SAYRIN.\n    QUEST. XCI. _What is the duty that God requireth of man?_\n    ANSW. The duty which God requireth of man, is, obedience to his\n    revealed will.\n    QUEST. XCII. _What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of\n    his obedience?_\n    ANSW. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of\n    innocency, and to all mankind in him, beside a special command, not\n    to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,\n    was, the moral law.\nHaving, in the former part of the Catechism, been led to consider what\nwe are to believe concerning God, and those works of nature and grace,\nwherein he has displayed his glory to man, whether considered as created\nafter his image, or having lost it by sin, and afterwards redeemed, and\nmade partaker of those blessings that are consequent thereupon; we are\nnow to consider him as under an indispensable obligation to yield\nobedience to God. They who have received most grace from him, are laid\nunder the strongest ties and engagements hereunto; accordingly we may\nobserve,\nI. That, obedience is due from man to God. This results from the\nrelation we stand in to him as creatures;[196] who ought to say with the\nPsalmist, _O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the\nLord our Maker_, Psal. xcv. 6. and particularly when considered as\nintelligent creatures, having excellencies superior to all others in\nthis lower world, whereby we are rendered capable, not only of\nsubserving the ends of his providence, but performing obedience, as\nsubjects of moral government: But if we are redeemed, justified, and\nsanctified, and made partakers of all the blessings that accompany\nsalvation; this obligation to duty, is greater than that of all others,\nas the apostle says, _Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God\nin your body, and in your spirit, which are God\u2019s_, 1 Cor. vi. 2. And\nthis may be considered, not only as our duty, but our highest wisdom; as\nit is said, _The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from\nevil, is understanding_, Job xxviii. 28. hereby, in some measure, we\nanswer the end for which we came into the world. And it is our interest,\ninasmuch as it is conducive to, and inseparably connected with our\npresent and future blessedness: Nevertheless we are to be very sensible\nthat this is out of our own power, as our Saviour says, _Without me ye\ncan do nothing_, John xv. 5. Therefore we should exercise a constant\ndependence on him, who works in his people both to will and to do, of\nhis own good pleasure. We might here consider the nature and properties\nof that duty and obedience which we owe to God.\n1. If it be such as we hope God will accept or approve of, it must\nproceed from a renewed nature, and as a consequence thereof, from a\nprinciple of love to God, as a reconciled Father; not from a slavish\nfear and dread of his wrath, as a sin-revenging Judge. Thus the Psalmist\nsays, _There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared_,\nPsal. cxxx. 4.\n2. It ought to be without the least reserve, as containing a ready\ncompliance with whatever he commands; and hereby we ought to approve\nourselves to him, as our sovereign Lord and Law-giver, and consider that\nwe are under his all-seeing eye; and accordingly his glory is to be\nassigned as the highest end of all we do.\n3. It ought to be performed with constancy; and therefore it doth not\nconsist barely in a sudden fit of devotion, arising from the dictates of\nan awakened conscience, or the dread we have of his wrath, when under\nsome distressing providence; but it ought to be the constant work and\nbusiness of life. And,\n4. When we have done or suffered most for God, we are not only to\nconsider ourselves as _unprofitable servants_, Luke xvii. 10. as our\nSaviour expresses it; but we must lament our imperfections, and be\ndeeply humbled for the iniquities that attend our holy things; inasmuch\nas _there is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not_,\nEccles. vii. 20.\nII. In order to our yielding obedience, it is necessary that God should\nsignify to us, in what instances he will be obeyed, and the manner how\nit is to be performed; otherwise it would rather be a fulfilling our own\nwill than his. None but those who are authorized hereto, and receive\nwhat they impart to us by divine inspiration, can, without the boldest\npresumption, assume this prerogative to themselves, so as to prescribe\nto us a rule of duty to God; and therefore it follows, that this\nobedience must be to his revealed will. The secret purposes of God are\nthe rule and measure of his own actings; but his revealed will is the\nrule of our obedience. _Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but\nthose things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children_,\nDeut. xxix. 29.\nIII. The will of God, as thus made known to us, is called a Law: Which,\nthat we may farther understand, let us consider, that a law is the\ndecree or revealed will of a sovereign, designed to direct and govern\nthe actions of his subjects, and thereby to secure his own honour and\ntheir welfare. And if this be applied to the law of God, we must\nconsider him as our Lord and Sovereign, whose will is the rule of our\nactions; and he being infinitely wise and good, is able and inclined to\ndirect us in those things that are conducive to his own honour and our\nsafety and happiness; and this he has been pleased to do, and\naccordingly has given us a law as the rule of life.\nThe laws of God are either such as take their rise from his holy nature,\nand accordingly our obligation to yield obedience thereto, proceeds not\nonly or principally from the command of God, but from their being\nagreeable to his divine perfections, which must be assigned as the\nreason of his prescribing them as matter of duty. These are all\nreducible to what we call, in general, the law of nature; which, because\nit is agreeable to the dictates of reason, it is called, by way of\neminency, _The moral law_. Thus when we consider ourselves as creatures,\nwe are led to confess that we are subject to God, and therefore bound to\nobey him; and when we think of him as a God of infinite perfection, this\nobedience must be agreeable thereunto; and because he is a Spirit, it\nmust be performed in a spiritual manner; and as he is a holy God, he is\nto be worshipped with reverence and holy fear. Thus far we are induced\nto yield obedience by the law of nature.\nBut, on the other hand, there are many laws relating to the\ncircumstances or manner in which God will be worshipped, which are\nfounded in his sovereign will; and these we call positive laws. Of this\nkind was that law given to our first parents, not to eat of the tree of\nknowledge of good and evil; and, doubtless, there were many other laws\ngiven to them relating to their conduct of life, and mode of worship,\nthough they are not particularly mentioned in that short history we have\nof the state of man before the fall. As for the moral law, it is said,\nin one of the answers we are explaining, to have been revealed to Adam\nin his state of innocency, and to all mankind in him. Its being revealed\nto man, must be supposed to be a less proper way of speaking; inasmuch\nas that method of discovery is more especially applicable to positive\nlaws; and therefore I would rather chuse to express it as it is in a\nforegoing answer[197], by God\u2019s writing his laws in the hearts of our\nfirst parents, or impressing the commands of the moral law on their\nnature; so that by the power of reasoning, with which they were endowed,\nthey might attain to the knowledge thereof. So that man, by the light of\nnature, knew all things contained in the moral law.\nAs to what is farther said in this answer, that the moral law was given\nto man in innocency; that has been considered elsewhere. And as all\nmankind were represented by him, so we are to understand those words,\nthat it was given to all mankind in him. But these things have been\ninsisted on in another place, as also what relates to his being\nprohibited from eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I shall\npass it over, and proceed to speak more particularly concerning the\nmoral law, together with the use thereof to all sorts of men.\nFootnote 196:\n  \u201cIt may be asked, Is there no _reason_ or _nature_ of things? Yes; as\n  certainly as there are things. But the nature and reason of things,\n  considered _independently_ of the divine Will, or _without_ it, have\n  no more _obligation_ in them, than a _divine worship_ considered\n  independently of, and without any regard to the _existence_ of God.\n  For the _Will_ of God is as absolutely necessary to found all _moral\n  obligation_ upon, as the existence of God is necessary to be the\n  foundation of religious worship. And the fitness of _moral\n  obligations_, without the _Will_ of God, is only like the fitness of a\n  _religious_ worship without the _existence_ of God.\n  And it is as just to say, that he destroys the _reason_ of religion\n  and piety, who founds it upon the nature and existence of God, as to\n  say, he saps the foundation of moral obligations, who founds them upon\n  the Will of God. And as religion cannot be justly or solidly defended,\n  but by shewing its connexion with, and dependance upon, God\u2019s\n  existence; so neither can moral obligations be asserted with strength\n  and reason, but by shewing them to be the Will of God.\n  It may again be asked, Can God make that fit in _its self_, which is\n  in _its self absolutely_ unfit to be done?\n  This question consists of improper terms. For God\u2019s Will no more makes\n  actions to be fit _in themselves_, than it makes _things_ to exist\n  _in, or of themselves_. No things, nor any actions, have any\n  _absolute_ fitness, and in _themselves_.\n  A _gift_, a _blow_, the making a _wound_, or _shedding_ of _blood_,\n  considered in themselves, have no _absolute_ fitness, but are fit or\n  unfit according to any variety of incidental circumstances.\n  When therefore God, by his Will, makes any thing fit to be done, he\n  does not make the thing fit in _its self_, which is just in the _same\n  state_ considered in _its self_, as it was before; but, it becomes fit\n  for the person to do it, because he can be happy, or do that which is\n  fit for him to do, by doing the Will of God.\n  For instance, the _bare eating_ a fruit, considered in _its self_, is\n  neither fit nor unfit. If a fruit be appointed by God for our food and\n  nourishment, then it is as fit to eat it, as to preserve our lives. If\n  a fruit be poisonous, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to commit\n  self-murder. If eating of a fruit be prohibited by an express order of\n  God, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to eat our own damnation.\n  But in none of these instances is the eating or not eating, considered\n  in _its self_, _fit_ or _unfit_; but has all its fitness, or\n  unfitness, from such circumstances, as are entirely owing to the Will\n  of God.\n  Supposing, therefore, God to require a person to do something, which,\n  according to his present circumstances, _without_ that command, he\n  ought not to do, God does not make that which is _absolutely_ unfit in\n  _itself_, fit to be done; but only adds _new circumstances_ to an\n  action, that is neither fit nor unfit, moral nor immoral in _itself_,\n  but _because_ of its circumstances.\n  To instance, in the case of _Abraham_ required to sacrifice his son.\n  The killing of a man is neither good nor bad, considered _absolutely_\n  in _its self_. It was unlawful for _Abraham_ to kill his son, because\n  of the _circumstances_ he was in with regard to his son. But when the\n  divine Command was given, _Abraham_ was in a _new state_; the action\n  had _new circumstances_; and then it was as lawful for _Abraham_ to\n  kill his son, as it was lawful for God to require any man\u2019s life,\n  either by _sickness_, or any _other means_ he should please to\n  appoint.\n  And it had been as unlawful for _Abraham_ to have disobeyed God in\n  this extraordinary command, as to have cursed God at any _ordinary\n  calamity_ of providence.\u2014\n  Again, it is objected, _If there be nothing right or wrong, good or\n  bad, antecedently and independently of the Will of God, there can be\n  no reason, why God should will, or command one thing, rather than\n  another_.\n  It is answered, _first_, That all goodness, and all possible\n  perfection, is as _eternal_ as God, and as _essential_ to him as his\n  existence. And to say, that they are either _antecedent_ or\n  _consequent_, _dependent_ or _independent_ of his Will, would be\n  equally absurd. To ask, therefore, whether there be not something\n  right and wrong, antecedent to the Will of God, to render his Will\n  _capable_ of being right, is as absurd, as to ask for some antecedent\n  cause of his existence, that he may be proved to exist necessarily.\n  And to ask, how God can be good, if there be not something good\n  independently of him, is asking how he can be infinite, if there be\n  not something infinite independently of him. And, to seek for any\n  other _source_ or _reason_ of the divine Goodness, besides the divine\n  Nature, is like seeking for some external cause, and help of the\n  divine omnipotence.\n  The goodness and wisdom, therefore, by which God is wise and good, and\n  to which all his works of wisdom and goodness are owing, are neither\n  _antecedent_, nor _consequent_ to his Will.\u2014\u201d\n  HUMAN REASON.\nFootnote 197:\n  _See Quest._ xvii.\n               Quest. XCIII., XCIV., XCV., XCVI., XCVII.\n    QUEST. XCIII. _What is the moral law?_\n    ANSW. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to\n    mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and\n    perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and\n    disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of\n    all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God\n    and man; promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death\n    upon the breach of it.\n    QUEST. XCIV. _Is there any use of the moral law to man, since the\n    fall?_\n    ANSW. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness\n    and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well\n    common to all men, as peculiar, either to the unregenerate, or the\n    regenerate.\n    QUEST. XCV. _Of what use is the moral law to all men?_\n    ANSW. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy\n    nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk\n    accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of\n    the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble\n    them in a sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a\n    clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection\n    of his obedience.\n    QUEST. XCVI. _What particular use is there of the moral law to\n    unregenerate men?_\n    ANSW. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their\n    consciences to fly from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ;\n    or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave\n    them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.\n    QUEST. XCVII. _What special use is there of the moral law to the\n    regenerate?_\n    ANSW. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be\n    delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby\n    they are neither justified, nor condemned; yet beside the general\n    uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use to\n    shew them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it,\n    and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;\n    and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the\n    same in their greater care, to conform themselves thereunto, as the\n    rule of their obedience.\nIn these answers we have,\nI. A description of the moral law, in which we may observe,\n1. That it is a declaration of the will of God to mankind, that so we\nmay not be destitute of a rule to guide and regulate our behaviour, both\ntowards God and man. This is the first idea contained in a law; and\nthere is another, which respects the obligation which we are laid under\nhereby, arising from our being creatures, and consequently subject to\nGod, who, as the supreme governor, has an undoubted right to demand\nobedience from us to every thing that he prescribes and reveals to us,\nas a rule for our direction therein. Moreover, that which God requires\nof us in this law, is, personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and\nobedience thereunto.\n(1.) It must be personal, as denoting that it is not to be performed by\nproxy; so that whatever services we may expect from men, we must not\nconclude that they can perform obedience for us to God, and thereby\nfulfil the obligation we are personally laid under. Yea, we may proceed\nfarther, and assert, that what Christ has performed for us, does not\nexempt us from an obligation to yield perfect obedience; though it is\nnot to be performed by us with the same view with which he performed it,\nas will be farther considered under a following head, where we shall\nshew, that though it is not to be obeyed by us as a covenant of works;\nnevertheless we are obliged to obey it as a rule of life.\n(2.) Our obedience to the law of God must be perfect. The same\nobligation that man was under at first, to yield perfect obedience,\nremains still in force, though we are not able to perform it. The\ninsolvency of man by the fall, did not cancel or disannul this\ndebt[198]. And how much soever God may own and approve of the sincerity\nof his people, which is all the perfection which fallen man can arrive\nto in this world; yet we must not suppose, that hereby we fulfil the\nobligation which God, as a law-giver, has laid us under. This I the\nrather take notice of, that there may not be the least ground to suppose\nthat we make void the law, but rather establish it, and thereby assert\nthe right which God has to that perfection of obedience, which is due\nfrom us, though unable to perform it.\n(3.) It must be perpetual, without backsliding from God, or the least\nremissness in our duty to him; and therefore there is no abatement or\ndispensation allowed of, that may give countenance to the least defect\nof this obedience. Thus the Psalmist says, _I will never forget thy\nprecepts_, Psal. cxix. 93. and, _Every day will I bless thee, and I will\npraise thy name for ever and ever_, Psal. cxlv. 2. Moreover, we may\nobserve, that this obedience is to be performed with the whole man, and\nin particular, by the soul, with the utmost intenseness, in all the\npowers and faculties thereof. Accordingly our understandings are to be\nrightly instructed, as to what respects the matter and manner of\nperforming it; our wills to be entirely subjected to the will of God,\nand our affections engaged therein, as being sanctified and excited by\nthe Spirit, to the end, that duty may be performed with delight, arising\nfrom the love which we bear to him, whose servants we are.\nIt is also to be performed with our bodies. The former, includes in it\nthat obedience more especially which is internal; this, that which is\nexternal. This is what is styled a lower sort of obedience; and if we\nrest here, it is so far from being acceptable, as the apostle says, that\n_Bodily exercise profiteth little_, 1 Tim. iv. 8. Nevertheless, as the\nbody is an instrument of the soul in acting, that service which is\nperformed therein, is absolutely necessary; and therefore all religious\nworship is to be engaged in with a becoming reverence that is external,\nas well as that which is internal; without which the soul cannot be said\nto engage in any religious duties, in a becoming manner.\nIt is farther observed, that this obedience includes in it holiness and\nrighteousness. The former of these respects more especially our duty to\nGod, which, being a branch of religious worship, ought to be performed\nwith a reverential fear of his divine Majesty, and that due regard to\nhis infinite purity, and entire dedication and consecration of ourselves\nto him, as becomes those who are sanctified by his Spirit, and enabled\nto exercise all those graces whereby we may approve ourselves his\nfaithful servants and subjects. The latter more especially respects\nthose duties which we owe to men, in the various relations we stand in\nto them, which is incumbent on us as what is enjoined by God.\n2. The moral law is farther considered as having a promise of life\nannexed to it, and a threatning of death upon the breach thereof. This\nis what is generally called the sanction annexed to the law. A law\nwithout a sanction would not be much regarded, especially by those who\nhave not a due sense of their obligation to obedience. Persons are very\nmuch disposed to enquire, when a command is given, what the consequences\nof their obeying or disregarding it will be? and this being made known\nbefore hand, is a strong motive to obedience. If God is pleased, out of\nhis abundant grace, to encourage his people, by giving them to expect\nsome blessings that he will bestow on those that obey him, it is, in\nsome respect, necessary that this should be known. But especially since\npunishment, in proportion to the nature of the crime, will be the\nconsequence of disobedience, it is becoming the divine perfections to\nlet it be known, that the wages of sin is death. And this was not only\nannexed to the moral law, but equally impressed on the nature of man,\nwho could not but know, that rebellion against God would be punished\nwith a separation from him, and that all those miseries would attend it,\nin proportion to the respective aggravation thereof, that it deserves.\nII. We have an account of the use of the moral law since the fall; and\nthat either with respect to mankind in general, or the unregenerate and\nregenerate. And here it is observed, that no man since the fall, can\nattain righteousness and life by it; therefore it is not to be used with\nthat view. From whence we may infer, that this might have been attained\nby man before the fall, according to the tenor of the covenant which he\nwas under, the sum and substance whereof was that _the man that doth\nthese things shall live by them_, Rom. x. 5. as the apostle says.\nEternal life was promised to man in innocency; and he was then able to\nyield sinless obedience, which was the condition thereof. But it is\nimpossible for fallen man thus to obey; for how perfect soever his\nobedience may be for the future, it is supposed, from the nature of the\nthing, that it cannot be sinless, after sin has been committed; and it\nwould be a reflection on the justice and holiness of God, for us to\nconclude that he will accept of imperfect obedience, instead of perfect.\nTherefore it follows, that a right to life is not to be expected from\nour imperfect obedience to the law, as the apostle says, _By the deeds\nof the law there shall no flesh be justified_, chap. iii. 20. in God\u2019s\nsight; in this respect our own righteousness is represented not only as\nfaulty and defective, but as altogether insufficient to procure an\ninterest in the divine favour, or to exempt us from the punishment which\nis due to us for sin. It is one thing to say, that eternal life is\nconnected with obedience, so that no one can have the least ground to\nexpect it without it; and another thing to say, that it is founded upon\nit, or, that it gives us a right and title to it. Nevertheless, we are\nnot to conclude that the law is of no use; for,\n1. It is of use to all men, in several respects:\n(1.) It informs us of the holy nature and will of God, and of our duty\nto him. This is the first idea we have of a law[199], which signifies\nmore especially a doctrine; and, as the subject-matter thereof, respects\nour being taught what we are obliged to, as commanded by a law-giver, it\nsignifies a law. The divine perfections are eminently instamped on it in\nvery legible characters; his sovereignty, as having a right to demand\nobedience; his holiness in the matter thereof, and in the obligation we\nare herein laid under to be _holy in all conversation; because it is\nwritten, be ye holy, for I am holy_, 1 Pet. i. 15, 16. and therefore\nthis perfection is set forth in those threatnings that are annexed to\nit, whereby _the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and\nunrighteousness of men_, Rom. i. 18. As it is designed to discover our\nsecret faults, that we may be humbled for them, and hereby a multitude\nof sins may be prevented, so it not only sets forth the holiness, but\nthe goodness of God; and indeed there is nothing enjoined therein as our\nduty, but what includes in it some advantage. Thus the Psalmist\ndescribes it as _more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold;\nsweeter also than honey and the honey comb; and adds, that in keeping\nthereof, there is great reward_, Psal. xix. 10, 11.\n(2.) The moral law is of use to all men, as it binds them to perform\nthat which is therein enjoined as matter of duty, which is another idea\ncontained in a law, _viz._ as it is that which binds the consciences of\nmen, that so we may not vainly and presumptuously conclude, to our own\ndestruction, that we may live as we list, or say, who is Lord over us?\nIt is a great instance of the care and goodness of God, that he has\ntaken this method to prevent that ruin which would arise from our\nwithdrawing the allegiance which we owe to him, and lay us under the\nstrictest engagement to seek after that blessedness which is connected\nwith obedience to him.\n(3.) We are hereby convinced of our inability to keep the law, and of\nthe sinful pollution of our nature, hearts, and lives, as an expedient\nto humble us under the sense of sin and misery. The law being spiritual,\nwe are thereby convinced that _we are carnal_, and _sold under sin_, as\nthe apostle expresses it, Rom. vii. 14. And he also says, _I had not\nknown sin, but by the law_, ver. 7. When we consider ourselves as being\nobliged to yield perfect obedience, and compare our hearts and lives\ntherewith, we shall see nothing but holiness and purity on the one hand,\nand a wretched mass of corruption and impurity on the other. God demands\nperfect obedience; and we are unable, of ourselves, to perform any\nobedience. And our best duties being attended with many imperfections,\nwe are hereby led to be humbled under a sense of sin, whatever thoughts\nwe, before this, had of ourselves. When _the law enters, sin_ will\n_abound_, chap. v. 20. and if we were apprehensive that we were alive,\nas the apostle expresseth it, _without the law; when the commandment\ncomes, sin_ will _revive and we die_, chap. vii. 9. and see ourselves\nexposed to the miseries threatened to those that violate it.\n(4.) From hence arises a clear sight of the need that persons have of\nChrist, and of the perfection of his obedience. When we find ourselves\ncondemned by the law, and that righteousness is not to be attained by\nour own obedience to it, then we are led to see our need of seeking it\nelsewhere; and when the gospel gives us a discovery of Christ, as\nordained by God, to procure for us righteousness, or a right to eternal\nlife by his obedience, this will shew us the need we have of faith in\nhim, whereby we derive from him that which could not be attained by our\nown conformity to the law.\n2. The moral law is of use in particular to the unregenerate. We have\nconsidered, under the former head, that it is of use to all men (among\nwhom the unregenerate are included) as it gives them a discovery of the\npollution and guilt of sin; and now we are led to enquire into the\nconsequence hereof. Sin may be charged on the conscience, and the guilt\nthereof make it very uneasy, so that a person may apprehend himself\nunder the condemning sentence of the law, and yet receive no saving\nadvantage hereby; he may have a sight of sin, and not be truly humbled\nfor it or turned from it. In some, corruption is hereby excited, and the\nsoul grows worse than it was before; thus the apostle says, _sin taking\noccasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence_,\nver. 8. Others, when filled with a dread of the wrath of God, are\ninclined to stretch out their hand against him, and strengthen\nthemselves against the Almighty; resolving, some way or other, to\ndisentangle themselves, though they render their condition much worse\nthereby. These are compared to _a wild bull in a net, full of the fury\nof the Lord_, Isa. li. 20. or, as our Saviour says concerning Paul,\nbefore his conversion, _they kick against the pricks_, Acts ix. 5. Every\nstep they take to free themselves from the horrible pit and miry clay,\ninto which they are cast, sinks them deeper into it. Others are\nconvinced of sin by the law, and, at the same time, despair of obtaining\nmercy; they complain with Cain, _My punishment is greater than I can\nbear_, Gen. iv. 13. or, as it is in the margin, _Mine iniquity is\ngreater than that it may be forgiven._ These see themselves lost, or\ncondemned by the law, but have no sight of Christ as coming into the\nworld to save sinners, or, at least, the chief of them. The wound is\nopened, but there are no healing medicines applied. But there are others\nwhose condition is no less dangerous, in whom the _wound is healed\nslightly_, who _say, Peace, peace, when there is no peace_, Jer. vi. 14.\nThey are indeed, convinced of sin, and this is attended sometimes with\nan external humiliation, arising from the dread of God\u2019s judgments. This\neffect it had in Pharaoh, Exod. x. 16, 17. and Ahab, 1 Kings xxi. 27-29.\nand they are willing to part with some particular sins, while they\nindulge others, that by this partial reformation they may free\nthemselves from the condemning sentence of the law; but all this is to\nno purpose, sin gains strength hereby, and the guilt thereof is still\nincreased. This is a wrong method taken to flee from the wrath to come;\nand therefore, when these convictions of sin have a good issue, in\nflying from it, they have recourse to Christ. This is called a being\ndriven to Christ; by which we are to understand that they see themselves\nunder an unavoidable necessity of going to him, as not being able to\nfind peace or solid rest elsewhere. But since this effect is, in a\npeculiar manner, ascribed to the gospel, the law being only the remote\nmeans hereof, I would rather express it by their being drawn to him, or\nencouraged by the grace contained therein, to close with him by faith;\nand then the work is rendered effectual, and convictions end in a saving\nconversion. But if it be otherwise, or they apply themselves to indirect\nmeans, to ease themselves of the burden that lies on them, they are\nfarther described as left inexcusable, and still remaining under the\ncurse and condemning sentence of the law.\n3. The moral law is of use to the regenerate. In considering which it\nmay be observed; that there is something supposed in the answer, which\ntreats on this subject, namely, that they who believe in Christ are\ndelivered from it as a covenant of works; which is the only sense in\nwhich we are to understand those scriptures, which speak of believers as\n_not_ being _under the law_, Rom. vi. 14. and being _dead to the law_,\nchap. vii. 4. as _being redeemed from the curse thereof_, Gal. iii. 13.\nThe moral law is to be considered in two respects, as a rule of life,\nand so no one is delivered from it; or else, as a covenant of works, in\nthe same sense in which it was given to man in innocency, the condition\nof which was his performing perfect obedience, in default whereof he was\nliable to a sentence of death. In this latter respect a believer is\ndelivered from it.\nThis is the great privilege that such are made partakers of in the\ngospel; which sets forth Christ as our Surety, performing perfect\nobedience for us, and enduring the curse we were liable to; so that\nthough it was a covenant of works to him, it ceases to be so to them who\nare interested in him; and accordingly it is farther added, that they\nare hereby neither justified nor condemned. Not justified; thus the\napostle says, _By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified_,\nRom. iii. 20. This is therefore only to be expected from him who is _the\nLord our righteousness_, Jer. xxiii. 6. _in whom all the seed of Israel\nshall be justified, and glory_, Isa. xlv. 25. Nor are they condemned by\nthe law; for that is inconsistent with a justified state; as the apostle\nsays, _There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus_, Rom.\nviii. 1. However, we must distinguish between a believer\u2019s actions being\ncondemned by the law, or his being reproved thereby, and laid under\nconviction, for sins daily committed; and his being in a condemned\nstate, according to the sentence thereof. We are far from denying that a\nbeliever is under an obligation to condemn or abhor himself, that is, to\nconfess that he deserves to be condemned, by God, for the sins that he\ncommits, which, if he should mark, or punish him according to the\ndemerit of, he could not stand. Thus the Psalmist says, though speaking\nof himself as a believer, and consequently in a justified state, _Enter\nnot into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living\nbe justified_, Psal. cxliii. 2. This a believer may say, and yet not\nconclude himself to be in a state of condemnation; inasmuch as he sees\nhimself, by faith, to have ground to determine that he is delivered\nfrom, and so not condemned by the law, as a covenant of works.\nMoreover, it is observed, on the other hand, in the answer under our\npresent consideration, that the moral law is of use to a believer, in\nthose respects in which it is of use to all men; and therefore he is\nlaid under the strictest obligation to perform all the duties which we\nowe to God and man, and to be humbled for those defects which he has\nreason to charge himself with, which call for the daily exercise of\nrepentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.\nBut as to the special use of the moral law to those who are regenerate,\nas distinguished from all others, it is said to shew them how much they\nare bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse\nthereof in their stead, and for their good. Thus _Christ is_ said to be\n_the end of the law for righteousness_, Rom. x. 4. that is, he has\nanswered the end and demand of the law, by performing that obedience\nwhich it requires, and thereby procuring a justifying righteousness,\nwhich is applied to every one that believes. This lays them under a\nsuperadded obligation to obedience, peculiar to them as believers; so\nthat they are not only engaged to the practice of universal holiness,\nfrom the consideration of the sovereignty of God commanding in common\nwith all others, but from _the love of Christ_, which does as it were\n_constrain them_ hereunto, 2 Cor. v. 14. And hereby they are said to be\nprovoked to more thankfulness, as they have greater inducements hereunto\nthan any others; and this gratitude cannot be better expressed than by\nthe utmost care to approve themselves to him in all things. Therefore\nthe grace of God is so far from leading to licentiousness, that all who\nhave experienced it, are hereby put upon the exercise of that obedience\nwhich they owe to God as their rightful Lord and Sovereign, and to\nChrist as their gracious Redeemer, whom they love entirely; and\ntherefore keep his commandments.\nI cannot but here take occasion to observe, not only with dislike, but a\njust indignation, how some, under a pretence of religion, sap the very\nfoundation of it, while they frequently make mention of the gospel, and\nthe liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free, and at the same\ntime abuse it, not only by practising, but pleading for licentiousness.\nThe Epicureans were libertines among the Heathen, and the Sadducees\namong the Jews; but these were vile and profligate out of principle;\neither denying the being of a God, or disowning his perfections as well\nas future rewards and punishments; and therefore it is no wonder they\nhad no regard to the divine law. But I want words to express the\nwickedness of those who pervert the gospel of Christ, as though that\nexempted them from the obligation which all are under to universal\nobedience.\nThe apostle had to do with some such in his day; and therefore he\nrepresents them as saying, _Is the law sin?_ that is, since we are\ndelivered from the condemning sentence thereof, may we not take\nencouragement from thence to sin? or, as he elsewhere brings them in as\nsaying, _Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?_ chap. vi. 1.\nTo both which he replies, with the greatest detestation, _God forbid_.\nAfter this, in an early age of the church, the Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 6.\nand Gnostics, and among them, the Valentinians held these pernicious\nopinions, and encouraged themselves in the practice of the greatest\nimmoralities[200]. And Augustin speaks of the Aetians and Eunomians, who\nlived in his time, who pretended that any one who persisted in the\nvilest crimes, would receive no detriment thereby, provided they adhered\nto the sentiments which they advanced[201]. And there are many, in later\nages, whose sentiments have been, in this respect, subversive of all\nreligion; and from their denying the obligation we are under, to yield\nobedience to the law of God, are justly called Antinomians.\nHowever, that we may not appear to be unjust to the characters of men,\nlet it be considered, that we are not here speaking of the charge of\nAntinomianism, which some, who defend or oppose the doctrines of grace,\nbring against each other; as supposing that their respective sentiments\nlead to licentiousness. The Papists and Pelagians pretend, though\nunjustly, that the doctrine of predestination, efficacious grace, and\nthe final perseverance of the saints, is liable to this charge; while\nthey on the other hand, lay themselves open to the like charge, by\nadvancing doctrines which have the most pernicious tendency, as\nsubversive of practical godliness, in various instances; particularly\ntheir asserting, that God in the gospel-covenant, dispenses with\nimperfect obedience instead of perfect; and this is no other than what\nwe are able to perform without the aids of divine grace. But this we\npass over, leaving each party to defend their scheme from this\nimputation.\nAs to others, who are more especially known by the character of\nAntinomians, these are of two sorts, namely, such who openly maintain\nthat the moral law is not a rule of life in any sense; and that good\nworks are not to be insisted on as having any reference to salvation;\nand therefore, if persons presume, as they, according to them, ought to\ndo, that Christ died for them, and they were justified before they had a\nbeing, they may live in the practice of the greatest immoralities, or\ngive countenance to them that do so, without entertaining the least\ndoubt of their salvation; and that it is a preposterous thing for those\nwho thus presumptuously conclude themselves to be justified, to confess\nthemselves guilty of sin; since that would be to deny that they are in a\njustified state, or in any sense, to pray for the pardon thereof; since\nthat would argue that it is not forgiven. Neither can they, with any\ntolerable degree of patience, entertain the least exhortations to\npractical godliness; because they pretend, that they are exempted from\nthe obligation to perform any branch thereof, by their not being under\nthe law. Nay, some of them have been so impudent, and daringly wicked,\nas to assert, that if they should commit murder, adultery, or any other\ncrimes of the like nature, even this would be no bar in the way of their\nsalvation; nor the most vile sins that can be committed, do them any\nhurt, or in the least affect their eternal state. I have, indeed,\nsometimes thought that this representation of Antinomianism was no other\nthan a consequence, deduced from some absurd doctrines that have been\nmaintained; or that so much of hell could never put on the mask or shew\nof religion in any degree; and that this character belonged to none but\nthose who are open and professed Atheists. But though my lot has not\nbeen cast among persons of so vile a character, yet I have been\ninformed, by those whose souls have been grieved with such conversation,\nthat there are some in the world who thus set themselves against the law\nof God.\nThere are others, indeed, who are styled Antinomians, whose conversation\nis blameless, and are not therefore to be ranked with these men, or\njudged Antinomians in practice; who, nevertheless, do great disservice\nto the truth; and, it may be, give occasion to some to be licentious, by\nadvancing unguarded expressions, which will admit of a double\nconstruction, without condescending to explain some bold positions,\nwhich they occasionally lay down.\nThus when they maintain eternal justification, without considering it as\nan immanent act in God, or as his secret determination, not to impute\nsin to those who are given to Christ; but ascribe that to it, which is\nonly to be applied to justification, as it is the result of God\u2019s\nrevealed will, in which respect it is said to be by faith: and when they\nencourage persons from hence, to conclude that their state is safe; and\nto maintain that it is the duty of every one to believe that he is thus\njustified; this has certainly a tendency to lead some out of the way of\ntruth and holiness, whether they design it or no. And when others speak\ndiminutively of good works as though they were in no sense necessary to\nsalvation, because they are not the matter of our justification. This\nmay give occasion to some to think that they may be saved without them.\nAnd when others deny the law to be a rule of life, or assert that\nbelievers have nothing to do with it; though, it may be, they understand\nnothing else by it, but that it is not that rule, according to which God\nproceeds in justifying, or giving his people a right to eternal life;\nor, that a believer is not under the law, as a covenant of works; yet\nmany would be ready to think the words had a different meaning, and so\nbe led out of the way thereby, how far soever this might be from their\nintention. And if a person seems studiously to avoid confessing of sin,\nor praying for forgiveness, some would be ready to judge of his\nsentiments by his practice; and certainly our denying this to be a duty\nin any sense, is not only contrary to scripture, but inconsistent with\nthat humility and faith which are essential to practical godliness. Or\nwhen persons deny that self-examination is a duty; and speak of all\nmarks and evidences of grace, though never so just and agreeable to the\nscripture-account thereof, as legal, or a low way, in order to a\nperson\u2019s coming to the knowledge of himself; or suppose that they are\nunnecessary, as being inconsistent with the Spirit\u2019s testimony: This has\na tendency to lead to presumption, which is a degree of licentiousness.\nMoreover, when they assert that God is not angry with his people for\ntheir sins, nor, in any sense, punishes them for them, without\ndistinguishing between fatherly chastisements, and the stroke of\nvindictive justice, or the external and sensible effects of that hatred\nwhich God cannot but exercise against sin, and his casting them out of a\njustified state: Such doctrines as these lead some persons to\nlicentiousness, whatever be the secret meaning of those that advance\nthem.\nWe have an instance of this, as the historian observes[202], in\nAgricola, who was Luther\u2019s towns-man, and great admirer; who, as it is\nprobable, did not thoroughly understand what he maintained concerning\nthe subserviency of the law to the gospel, and its having no place in\nthe justification of a sinner; or else, from some unguarded expressions,\nwhich he was sometimes apt to make use of; this friend of his took\noccasion to advance some Antinomian tenets, _viz._ that repentance ought\nnot to be urged from the consideration of the breach of the law; and\nthat the gospel ought to be preached to sinners before they are brought\nunder conviction by the law; and that how scandalous and debauched\nsoever persons be in their lives, yet, if they do but believe the\npromises of the gospel, they shall be justified. In this, Agricola was\nfollowed by a party of men; and accordingly Antinomianism is said to\nhave taken its rise, in this part of the world, from that time. Luther,\non the other hand, was forced to take a great deal of pains to rectify\nhis mistakes; which, though it tended to his conviction, yet it did not\nput a stop to the spread of his errors, which he had before propagated.\nAs for those who were charged with Antinomianism in England, in the last\ncentury, such as Dr. Crisp, Eaton, Saltmarsh, Town, and others, whatever\ntheir design might be, and how much soever they were remote from the\ncharge of Antinomianism in practice; though it be alleged in their\nvindication, by some, that the principal thing they had in view, was to\nbear their testimony against the prevailing doctrine of Arminianism,\nthat was studiously propagated by some persons of great character and\ninfluence in the nation: Nevertheless, we cannot but conclude, that they\nhad done more service to the cause of truth, had they been more cautious\nin explaining their sentiments, and saved those, who had favourable\nthoughts of them in other respects, the trouble of producing some\nexpressions out of their writings, to convince the world that they did\nnot hold those dangerous notions which were charged upon them: and it is\ntoo evident to be denied, that many have taken them in the worst sense;\nwho have from hence been ready to charge the most important doctrines of\nthe gospel, as leading to licentiousness, and this has made some more\nsparing in defending those truths which ought to have been insisted on,\nand explained, though in other words more intelligible and\nunexceptionable.\nFootnote 198:\n  _It is a known maxim in the civil law, Cessante capacitate subditi non\n  cessat obligatia._\nFootnote 199:\n  _Thus the word_ \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4, _is derived from_ \u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, didicit, _or_ viam\n  monstravit.\nFootnote 200:\n  _Vid. Cov. Hist. lit. Tom. I. Page 30._\nFootnote 201:\n  _Vid. Aug. de H\u00e6res. Cap. liv. where speaking of Eunomius, he says,\n  Fertur etiam usque adeo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, ut asseveraret,\n  quod nihil cuique obesset, quorumlibet perpetratio ac perseverantia\n  peccatorum, si hujus qu\u00e6 ab illo docebatur, fidei particeps esset._\nFootnote 202:\n  _See Slled. Comment. de Stat. Relig. & Repub. Lib._ xii.\n    QUEST. XCVIII. _Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?_\n    ANSW. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten\n    commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon mount\n    Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone, and are recorded\n    in the twentieth chapter of Exodus; the four first Commandments\n    containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.\nHaving considered the moral law, as written on the heart of man at\nfirst, and the knowledge thereof, in some degree attainable by all who\nexercise their reasoning powers: We are in this, and some following\nanswers, led to consider that epitome, or abstract thereof, that was\ngiven to the Israelites by the voice of God upon mount Sinai, which is\ncontained in the Ten Commandments.\nBut since we are considering this instance of divine condescension to\nthem, it may not be reckoned altogether foreign to our present design,\nfor us to give some brief account of those other laws which God gave,\ntogether with the moral law; most of which were communicated from mount\nSinai: And therefore we may observe, that together with the moral law,\nthere were several forensic or judicial laws given by God for the\ngovernment of the people of Israel, which more especially respected\ntheir civil rights. And there were other laws which had a more immediate\nsubserviency to their attaining the knowledge of those things which\nrelated to the way of salvation by the promised Messiah, which are more\nfully revealed in the gospel: And this is what we call the ceremonial\nlaw. Both these are to be considered before we come to speak concerning\nthe moral law, as summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.\nI. Concerning the judicial law. It cannot be supposed that so great a\npeople, so much interested in the care of God, to whom he condescended\nto be their king, should be without a body of laws for their government:\nAccordingly there were some given them by him, which were founded in,\nand agreeable to the law of nature and nations; which all well-governed\nstates observe unto this day, viz. that murder should be punished with\ndeath; theft with restitution, or some other punishment that may best\ntend to deter from it. Moreover, besides these, there were other\njudicial laws given to Israel, which had a more immediate tendency to\npromote their civil welfare, as a nation distinguished from all others\nin the world; which laws expired when their civil policy was extinct.\nAnd these were,\n1. Such as tended to prevent the alienation of inheritances from the\nrespective families to which they were at first given. Accordingly God\ncommanded, that if a man died without children, his brother should marry\nhis widow to raise up seed to him, to inherit his estate and name, Deut.\nxxv. 5, 6. Matt, xxii. 24.\n2. If an Israelite was waxen poor, and obliged to sell his land, for the\npayment of his debts; the purchaser was to admit any of his family to\nredeem it; or, if they could not, he was, nevertheless, to restore the\nland at the _year of Jubilee_, which was every _fiftieth_ year, Levit.\n3. If an Hebrew servant was sold for the payment of debts, which he\ncould not otherwise discharge; his master was obliged to release him\nafter six years service, Exod. xxi. 2. But if the servant chose to stay\nwith his master longer than that time, out of the love he bore to him;\nthen he was to have his ear bored, as a token that he should serve him,\nwithout being subject to the aforesaid laws, which made provision for\nhis discharge after a certain number of years, ver. 5, 6.\n4. The land was to lie untilled, and the vine-yards and olive-yards were\nto be free for every one to come and eat of the fruit thereof every\n_seventh_ year; designed more especially for the relief of the poor,\namongst them, who had no distinct inheritance of their own, chap. xxiii.\n5. They were prohibited from taking usury of an Israelite, though they\nmight of a stranger. The reason of which law might be, either that they\nmight exercise brotherly kindness and charity to one another, in which\nsense the law is in force to this day; especially when the poor borrow\nmoney to supply themselves with necessary food, in which case it is now\nunlawful to take usury. Or else it is to be considered, that the\nIsraelites lived upon their farms or cattle, by which they seldom got\nmore than what was a necessary provision for their families. And\ntherefore the paying usury whenever they were necessitated to borrow\nmoney, would have procured their ruin in the end. Therefore they were\nnot to take usury of an Israelite, but of a stranger they might; because\nthey enriched themselves by merchandise, and were gainers in a way of\ntrade, by what they borrowed.\n6. All the males were to come up to Jerusalem, to appear before God, and\nperform public worship in the temple three times a year, viz. at the\nsolemn festivals; the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles,\n7. Six cities of refuge were appointed for those to fly to, for\nprotection, who killed any one by accident. Though a near kinsman, as an\navenger of blood might kill the man-slayer before he came to one of\nthese cities. The design of which law was to induce them to take care\nthat none might lose their lives through inadvertency. And there was\nprovision made in these cities for the man-slayer to dwell safely;\nwhereby a just difference was put between such an one, and a wilful\nmurderer, Numb. xxxv. 15, 26, 27. Thus concerning the judicial laws.\nII. We now proceed to consider the ceremonial laws that were given them,\nthe end whereof was to lead them into the knowledge of Christ, and the\nway of salvation by him, then to come, Heb. x. 1. Gal. iii. 24, 25.\nThese may be considered under six heads, which we shall speak briefly\nto;\n[1.] It was ordained, that all their males should be circumcised. This\nwas designed to be a visible mark put on the church, whom God had set\napart for himself, that hereby they might be distinguished from the\nworld: But the principal design hereof was, that it might be a sign or\nseal of the blessings of the covenant of grace, in which God promised\nthat he would be _a God to them_; and they were hereby to own themselves\nas his people, Gen. xvii. 7, 10.\n[2.] There were various ways whereby persons were reckoned unclean, and\nordinances appointed for their cleansing. They were rendered unclean, by\neating those birds, beasts, fishes, and creeping things, which God had\npronounced unclean, and not designed for food, Lev. xi. Moreover, they\nwere polluted by touching the dead bodies of such unclean birds, beasts,\nfishes, or creeping things, ver. 31. Again, some diseases, incident to\nthe bodies of men, which were more than ordinarily noisome, rendered\nthem unclean, as the issue, leprosy, _&c._ Lev. xv. 2, _& seq._ and ch.\nxiii. and the clothes they wore, the houses they lived in, the beds on\nwhich they lay, their ovens and the vessels used in eating or drinking,\nwere, on several accounts, deemed unclean, and accordingly were either\nto be cleansed or destroyed; otherwise the owners thereof would be\npolluted hereby[203].\nThis law was designed to signify how odious and abominable sin, which is\na moral pollution, is, in God\u2019s account, who is _of purer eyes than to\nbehold iniquity_, Hab. i. 13. We might also observe; that there are\nvarious ordinances appointed for their cleansing, in order to which,\nseveral sacrifices were to be offered, and divers washings with water,\nLev. xiii\u201415. The former of these signified the way of our being\ndelivered from sin by the blood of Christ, as the procuring cause of\nforgiveness, Heb. ix. 13, 14. Eph. i. 7. the latter, our being cleansed\nfrom sin by the internal, powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, in\nregeneration and sanctification, Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. Heb. x. 22. Tit.\n[3.] There were holy places, such as the tabernacle and temple, with the\nvessels and ornaments thereof. The tabernacle was erected according to\nthe pattern which God shewed to Moses in the mount, Exod. xxv. 40. and\nwas so framed, that it might be taken to pieces, and removed from place\nto place, as often as the host of Israel changed their station in the\nwilderness: And accordingly there were Levites appointed to take it down\nand set it up; and also waggons with oxen, to carry it, excepting those\nparts of it which belonged to the holiest of all, which were to be\ncarried on their shoulders, Numb. vii. 6.\nThe temple was that fixed place appointed for public worship at\nJerusalem; first built by Solomon, and afterwards rebuilt by Zerubbabel.\nAnd both this and the tabernacle signified, that God would dwell in the\nmidst of his people, and accept of that solemn and instituted worship\nthat was to be performed by his church, in all ages. This was designed\nto be a type of the incarnation of the Son of God, who is styled\n_Emmanuel, God with us_; and in allusion hereunto, he calls his body _a\ntemple_, John ii. 19.\nMoreover, the courts of this tabernacle and temple, and the ministry\nperformed therein, had each their respective signification annexed to\nthem. That, in which the priests came daily to minister, wherein gifts\nand sacrifices were offered, prefigured Christ\u2019s offering himself a\nsacrifice upon earth, for the sins of his people. And the inner court,\nwhich was the holiest of all, into which none but the high-priest was to\nenter, and that with blood and incense, signified Christ\u2019s _entering\ninto heaven, to appear in the presence of God for us_, Heb. ix. 24.\nAs for the vessels of the tabernacle and temple, these were either such\nas were in the first court, which is also called _the sanctuary; in\nwhich was the candlestick, the table, and the shew-bread_, Lev. xxiv.\n2-7. Heb. ix. 2. the laver and the altar, Exod. xxx. 18. all which were\ndesigned for types. The candlestick signified the church, and the\npreaching the gospel therein; whereby light is held forth to the world,\nRev. i. 20. Matt. v. 14. The shew-bread set up, signified the communion\nwhich the members of the church have with Christ, and with one another,\n1 Cor. x. 17. as he styles himself, the _bread of life_, or, _the bread\nof God, which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world_,\nJohn vi. 33. The laver signified, that when we draw nigh to God, our\npersons and services ought to be pure and holy; to which the apostle\nalludes, when he says, _Let us draw near with a true heart, in full\nassurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,\nand our bodies washed with pure water_, Heb. x. 22. The altar, which was\nholy, and sanctified the gift that the high-priest offered thereon,\nMatt, xxiii. 19. so that _every thing that touched it was holy_, Exod.\nxxix. 37. this signified, that the divine nature of Christ added an\ninfinite worth to what he did in the human; in which he offered himself\na sacrifice to God. These were the vessels in the outer court.\nThe vessels in the inward court, or holiest of all _in which were the\ngolden censer, the ark of the covenant, and the Cherubims of glory\nshadowing the mercy seat_, Heb. ix. 3-5. were a symbol and type of God\u2019s\nspecial presence with his people, which is their glory; or of the Son of\nGod\u2019s dwelling with us, in our nature. The mercy-seat, which was placed\nover it, signified that the mercy of God was displayed to sinners,\nthrough Christ. The cherubims of glory with their wings spread,\novershadowing and looking down upon the mercy-seat, signified that the\nangels behold and admire the stupendous work of redemption, 1 Pet. i.\n12. The altar of incense, and the golden censer, were types of the\nintercession of Christ for his people; and its fragrancy typified the\nacceptableness thereof in the sight of God.\nThere were, besides these, three more things in the holiest of all,\nwhich are particularly mentioned, viz. the _pot of manna_, which was\nmiraculously preserved from corruption throughout their generations, as\na memorial of the bread which God had fed them with in the wilderness,\nand a type of Christ, the bread of life, who was to come down from\nheaven, John vi. 48-50. There was also Aaron\u2019s rod, which was preserved\nin memory of the wonders that were wrought by it in Egypt, at the Red\nSea, and in the wilderness: And it is said to have _blossomed and\nyielded almonds_, Numb. xvii. 8. which seemed to typify the flourishing\nstate of the gospel; which is called, _The rod of God\u2019s strength_, Psal.\ncx. 2. Moreover, the two tables of the law were put into the ark,\nwhereby the exceeding holiness of it was signified; and also that the\nlaw should be fulfilled and magnified by Christ, when he came to dwell\namong us. Thus we have given a brief account of the holy vessels of the\ntemple and tabernacle.\nWe might also have added, that there were various ornaments thereof;\nthey were adorned with silver, gold, and precious stones, carved, and\ncurious needle-work; which rendered them exceeding rich and beautiful.\nThe temple in particular, was the wonder of the world, far surpassing\nall other buildings, either before or since, Exod. xxv. 3-7. 1 Chron.\nxxix. 2-5. And this may be supposed to shadow forth the spiritual beauty\nand glory of the gospel-church, and of the heavenly state, in which it\nshall be brought to its utmost perfection, Rev. xxi. 11-23. Thus\nconcerning those holy places, which were immediately designed for\nworship.\nThere were other holy places, such as the land of Canaan, which was\nstyled the _Holy land_, and the inhabitants thereof a holy nation, or\n_the people of his holiness_, Isa. lxiii. 18. And as this was a place\nwhere God gave them rest, and a settlement, after forty years travel in\nthe wilderness, it was a type of that rest which the church was to\nexpect from Christ under the gospel, Isa. xi. 10. Heb. iv. 9. Moreover,\nJerusalem was an holy city, Nehem. xi. 1. Matt. iv. 5. because thither\nthe tribes went up to worship, Psal. cxxii. 4. and God was present with\nthem there, Ezek. xxxvii. 27, 28.\n[4.] There were other laws that respected those whom God had appointed\nto be ministers in holy things. These were the Priests and Levites, who\nwere to assist them in some parts of their office; but especially the\nhigh-priest, who was the chief or head of them all, who is considered as\nan eminent type of Christ\u2019s Priestly office in several respects, Heb. v.\n1-5. And there were various ceremonies instituted, which were observed\nin their consecration of them; particularly they were to be washed with\nwater, Exod. xxix. 4. which was a rite used in the consecration of\npersons and things; and signified, that they who ministred in holy\nthings, should be holy in their conversation. Moreover, there were\nseveral garments to be made and put on them, which are styled _holy_,\nand designed _for glory and for beauty_, chap. xxviii. 2, _& seq._ These\nsignified the dignity and holiness of Christ\u2019s priesthood. And\nparticularly the breast-plate, which was only worn by the high-priest,\nadorned with precious stones, on which the names of the children of\nIsrael were engraven, with which he was to go into the holy of holies.\nThis signified the concern of Christ\u2019s people in the execution of his\nPriestly office, and his representing them when appearing in the\npresence of God for them. Again, they were anointed with the precious\nointment, compounded for that purpose, chap. xxx. 25, 30. whereby they\nwere set apart, or consecrated to minister in the priest\u2019s office, and\nwere types of Christ; upon which account he is said to be _anointed with\nthe oil of gladness above his fellows_, Psal. xlv. 7.\n[5.] There were other laws respecting the temple-service, or the gifts\nand sacrifices that were to be offered there. There were many gifts\npresented or devoted to God; some of which were not designed for\nsacrifice, but to testify their acknowledgment of God\u2019s right to all we\nare and have; and among these, the first ripe fruits were offered, or\npresented, as gifts to him, Exod. xxix. 29. As for those things that\nwere designed for sacrifice, these were offered, and their blood poured\nforth on the altar; which signified the expiation of sin by the blood of\nJesus, Heb. ix. 22, 23, 26. And that part of the high-priest\u2019s office,\nwhich respected his carrying the blood with the incense, into the\nholiest of all, was a type of Christ\u2019s _entering into heaven, there to\nappear in the presence of God_ for his people, chap. ix. 24.\n[6.] There were other laws that respected the holy times or festivals,\nappointed for solemn worship. Some of these were monthly, as the new\nmoons; others annual, as the passover; which was not only a sign\nmemorizing their having been formerly delivered from the sword of the\ndestroying angel, when he slew the first-born of Egypt; but it typified\nour deliverance from the stroke of vindictive justice, on which account\nChrist is called _our passover_, 1 Cor. v. 7. There was also the feast\nof harvest, in which the first-fruits were presented to God as an\nacknowledgment that he has a right to the best of our time and service.\nThere was also the feast of tabernacles; which not only called to\nremembrance their dwelling in tents in the wilderness, but was an\nacknowledgment that we are strangers and sojourners upon earth; and was\nalso a type of Christ, who was expected to come and pitch his tabernacle\namong us in his incarnation. There are many other laws, both judicial\nand ceremonial, that I might have mentioned; but since these things are\nonly spoken of occasionally, as being imparted by God to Israel, by the\nhand of Moses, from mount Sinai, at the same time, or soon after, the\nTen Commandments were given, Deut. iv. 12, 13. we shall add no more\nconcerning them, but proceed,\nTo consider what is particularly mentioned in this answer, concerning\nGod\u2019s giving this abstract of the moral law contained in them, which\nwere first delivered by a voice; in which respect God is said to have\n_talked with them face to face_, chap. v. 4. but at the same time there\nwere many ensigns of terrible majesty attending the delivery of this\nlaw; the _mountain burned with fire_, Exod. xix. 18. There were\n_lightnings, thunderings, and earthquakes, and the sound of a trumpet,\nthat waxed louder and louder; which made the people, and Moses himself,\nexceedingly tremble_, Exod. xx. 18. Heb. xii. 18, 19. and there was the\nministry of angels who performed that part of the work which they were\nemployed in on this solemn occasion. This is described in a majestic\nstyle, becoming the subject insisted on, when it is said, _The Lord came\nfrom Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount\nParan, and he came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand\nwent a fiery law_, Deut. xxxiii. 2. Their ministry might probably\nconsist in their forming the thunder, lightnings, and tempest.\nNevertheless, the law was not originally from them, but given\nimmediately by God. And the design of its being given in such an awful\nand majestic way was, that God might hereby set forth his greatness, and\nfill them with a reverential fear of him; and to intimate, that if they\ndid not yield obedience to him, they were to expect nothing else but to\nbe consumed by the fire of his jealousy. However, it was not an\nintimation that he designed to destroy, but to prove them; as it is\nsaid, that _his fear might be before their faces, that they should not\nsin_, Exod. xx. 20. That which we may farther observe is, that after God\nhad delivered the Ten Commandments by words; he wrote them with his own\nfinger, on two tables of stone; in which the moral law is summarily\ncomprehended; which is particularly explained in several following\nanswers.\nFootnote 203:\n  _See a particular account hereof in Lev. xi 15. Chapters._\n    QUEST. XCIX. _What rules are to be observed for the right\n    understanding of the Ten Commandments?_\n    ANSW. For the right understanding of the Ten Commandments, these\n    rules are to be observed,\n    I. That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity\n    in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire\n    obedience, for ever, so as to require the utmost perfection of every\n    duty, and to forbid the least decree of every sin.\nThis implies, that how unable soever we are to yield perfect obedience,\nyet it does not cease to be a duty. And though some sins are smaller\nthan others, yet the least is contrary to the law of God; and therefore\nnot to be committed by us.\n    II. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will,\n    affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as words,\n    works, and gestures.\nThis denotes that obedience ought to be performed in a spiritual manner.\nGod is to be worshipped with our spirits; without which, all external\nmodes of worship will avail nothing. Nevertheless, external worship is\nto be performed and expressed by words, works, and gestures; which\nsupposes that our understandings are rightly informed, or that we do not\nworship an unknown God, and that our wills express a readiness to obey\nhim out of choice, and without the least reluctancy; and our affections\nmust centre in him, as performing the duties incumbent on us, with the\nutmost delight and pleasure.\n    III. That, one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required\n    or forbidden, in several commandments.\nThus covetousness is forbidden in the Tenth Commandment. Nevertheless,\nas hereby the world is loved more than God, it is a breach of the first\nCommandment, and as such is styled _idolatry_, Col. iii. 5.\n    IV. That, as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is\n    forbidden, and where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is\n    commanded. So, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening\n    is included; and where a threatening is annexed, the contrary\n    promise is included.\nThus the fifth Commandment requires us to honour our superiors;\ntherefore it forbids our reproaching or doing any thing dishonourable or\ninjurious to them, Matt. xv. 4. The eight Commandment forbids stealing;\nand it also requires the contrary duty, namely, that we should labour\nfor a competent maintenance, that we may not be exposed to any\ntemptation thereunto. Thus it is said, _Let him that stole, steal no\nmore, but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which\nis good, that he may have to give to him that needeth_, Eph. iv. 28.\nMoreover, as there is a promise of long life annexed to the fifth\nCommandment, this includes the contrary threatening to those that break\nit. Thus it is said, _The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth\nto obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the\nyoung eagles shall eat it_, Prov. xxx. 17. And on the other hand,\nwhatever threatening is annexed to any commandment, the contrary promise\nis included, and belongs to those that repent of, or abhor, and turn\nfrom the sin therein forbidden. Thus it is said, _At what instant I\nspeak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to\npull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against whom I have\npronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I\nthought to do unto them_, Jer. xviii. 7, 8.\n    V. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he\n    commands, is always our duty, and yet every particular duty, is not\n    to be done at all times.\nThus sin is, under no pretence to be committed. Accordingly Moses, when\nhe was in a prosperous condition in Pharaoh\u2019s court, though he might\nhave pretended, that his greatness, and the advantages which Israel\nmight have expected from it, might have been an excuse for his\ncontinuing to enjoy the pleasures of sin there. Nevertheless, he was\nsensible that this would not exempt him from guilt; therefore _he\nforsook Egypt, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of\nGod, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin_, Heb. xi. 25. Again, what God\ncommands is always a duty; so that there is no season of life in which\nit ceases to be so: as for instance, praying, reading, hearing the word,\n&c. Nevertheless these duties are not actually to be engaged in every\nmoment of our lives. It is always our duty to visit the sick, comfort\nthe afflicted, defend the oppressed; but such objects do not always\npresent themselves to us, so as to render it our duty at all times.\n    VI. That, under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden\n    or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and\n    appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.\nThus, according to the fourth Commandment, it is our duty to sanctify\nthe Sabbath, and consequently to avoid every thing that may be a means\nor occasion of our breach of it. In the sixth Commandment murder is\nforbidden; so is likewise all sinful passion or anger with our brethren\nwithout a cause, Matt. v. 22. And in the seventh, adultery is forbidden;\nso is also _looking on a woman to lust after her_, Matt. v. 28. And as\nwe are obliged to _abstain_ from every sin forbidden, so _from all\nappearance of evil_, 1 Thes. v. 22. or what may be an occasion of it.\nThus _fathers_ are _not to provoke their children to wrath_, Eph. vi. 4.\nand according to the moral reason of the command, we are not to provoke\nany one to wrath, or do that which may excite their corruptions.\n    VII. That, what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are\n    bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided\n    or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.\nNot to endeavour to prevent sin in others, is, in effect, to commit it\nourselves. Thus Eli contracted the guilt of his sons crimes, by not\nendeavouring to prevent them. And persons are said to _hate their\nbrethren in their hearts_ who _do not rebuke them, but suffer sin upon\nthem_, Lev. xix. 17. And Abraham is commended in that he _should command\nhis household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord_,\nGen. xviii. 19. From hence it follows, that it is a duty for parents to\ninstruct their children in the ways of God, Deut. vi. 6, 7.\n    VIII. That, in what is commanded to others, we are bound according\n    to our places and callings, to be helpful to them, and to take heed\n    of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.\nThat we are to be helpful to others, in that which is their duty,\nappears, from our obligation to endeavour that God may be glorified.\nTherefore we are, to our utmost, to promote their faith and joy in\nChrist. Thus the apostle says, _We are helpers of your joy_, 2 Cor. i.\n24. And, on the other hand, we ought to take care that we do not partake\nwith others in their sin. Thus the Psalmist says, _When thou sawest a\nthief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with\nadulterers_, Psal. l. 18.\n    QUEST. C. _What special things are we to consider in the Ten\n    Commandments?_\n    ANSW. We are to consider in the Ten Commandments, the preface, the\n    substance of the Commandments themselves, and several reasons\n    annexed to some of them, the more to inforce them.\n    QUEST. CI. _What is the preface to the Ten Commandments._\n    ANSW. The preface to the Commandments is contained in these words\n    [_I am the Lord thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of\n    Egypt, out of the house of bondage_] wherein God manifesteth his\n    sovereignty, as being Jehovah, the eternal, immutable, and almighty\n    God, having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his\n    words, and works; and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel\n    of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their\n    bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;\n    and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and\n    to keep all his Commandments.\n    QUEST. CII. _What is the sum of the four Commandments, which contain\n    our duty to God?_\n    ANSW. The sum of the four Commandments containing our duty to God,\n    is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our\n    soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.\nThese answers contain some things necessary to be observed; as,\nI. That the substance of each commandment is to be considered by us, or\nwhat it is, that God enjoins or forbids therein; in which we find that\nevery Commandment contains a distinct head of duty, and is to be\nexplained according to the rules laid down in the foregoing answer. And\nalso that some of them have reasons annexed to them; which is an\ninstance of God\u2019s condescending goodness, that besides the consideration\nof our obligation to obey whatever he commands, because it is his will,\nwe may have other motives to enforce this obedience. What these reasons\nor motives are, will be considered in their proper place.\nII. That here is a general preface, which God has set before the\ncommandments, which contains several motives to obedience; some of which\nwere indeed peculiarly adapted to the Israelites, whereby they were put\nin mind of their late deliverance out of the land of Egypt.\nNevertheless, if we consider the moral reason thereof, as this, together\nwith the subject-matter of the commandments, to which it is prefixed,\nmay be applied to God\u2019s people under all ages, we shall find that it\nextends farther than the obligation which Israel was under, as delivered\nfrom the Egyptian bondage. Therefore it may be observed,\n1. That God reveals himself as the Lord, whose name alone is Jehovah, a\nGod of infinite sovereignty and almighty power, as well as faithful to\nhis promises; so that whatever he obliges us to do, or gives us\nencouragement to expect from him, we have the highest motive and\ninducement thereunto.\n2. He styles himself his people\u2019s God; and so puts them in mind of that\nrelation which they stand in to him, as the result of the covenant of\ngrace, in which he gives them a warrant to lay claim to those spiritual\nblessings which he bestows on a people nigh unto him; and this is\nconsidered as a farther obligation to obedience. The covenant of grace\nrespects either the external dispensation thereof, which belongs to the\nchurch in general, viz. to all who are made partakers of the glad\ntidings of salvation, which are contained in the gospel; or else that\nparticular claim which believers have to saving blessings which are made\nover to them therein, which respects all those graces which God is\npleased to give his people here, and that glory which he has reserved\nfor them hereafter; and this must certainly be reckoned the highest\nmotive to duty.\n3. As to what respects God\u2019s having brought Israel out of the land of\nEgypt, out of the house of bondage; this is to be extended farther than\nthat particular providence, which was then fresh in their memories; and\ntherefore it denotes all the deliverances which God is pleased to\nvouchsafe to his people, whether temporal or spiritual; and in\nparticular, that which was procured for us by Christ, from the bondage\nand thraldom of sin and Satan, the condemning sentence of the law,\ntogether with that salvation which is inseparably connected with it;\nwhich is to be improved by us as an inducement to yield universal\nobedience to all God\u2019s commandments.\nThere are some, indeed, who think that this is a part of the first\nCommandment, and so the meaning is, Thou art to know, and practically\nconsider, that I am the Lord thy God, as containing the affirmative part\nthereof; and then follows the negative, Thou shalt have no other gods;\nor else they suppose it to be a reason annexed to this Commandment in\nparticular. But it seems most probable, that it is a preface to all the\nCommandments, and accordingly to be applied as a motive to enforce\nobedience to every one of them.\nIII. We have farther an account of the sum of the four Commandments,\nwhich contain our duty to God. Here it maybe observed,\n1. That the sum of all the commandments is love. This is what the\napostle intends, when he says, that _the end of the commandment is\ncharity_, or rather _love_, as it ought to be rendered, 1 Tim. i. 5. and\naccordingly he says, _He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law_,\nRom. xiii. 8. This love hath either God or man for its object, and\ncomprizes in it the duties which we owe to God and man: and they are all\nreduced to this general head; that hereby we may understand; that\nobedience, whether it be to God or man, is to be performed with delight;\notherwise it will be a burden to us and unacceptable to him, who has\nobliged us to love him and keep his commandments; because he first loved\nus.\n2. These commandments, as they respect our duty to God and man, are\ncomprized in two tables, which are to be divided according to their\nrespective objects. Some ancient writers, indeed, have very\ninjudiciously supposed that the five first Commandments belong to the\nfirst table, and the others to the second; and so make an equal division\nthereof; and the Papists have assigned but three to the first table,\nmaking the second Commandment an appendix to the first; and that the\nnumber ten may be compleat, they divide the tenth Commandment into two.\nThe reason urged by them for this matter, will be considered in its\nproper place; but we are bound to conclude that the four first\nCommandments contain the duties of the first table, which respect those\nwhich we immediately owe to God; and these are to be performed, as our\nSaviour says, _with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all\nour mind_, Luke x. 27. which is an idea superior to that which is\ncontained in the duty we owe to man. And the six last Commandments\ncontain the duties of the second table, of which our neighbour is the\nmore immediate object.\nThat this division of the Commandments is just, appears from what the\napostle says, when speaking concerning the duty contained in the fifth\nCommandment, _Honour thy father and mother_, who calls it _the first\nCommandment with promise_, Eph. vi. 2. Whereas it is not the first\nCommandment that has a promise annexed to it, since the second\nCommandment contains a promise of mercy to thousands of them that love\nGod and keep his commandments; nor is it the first of the ten\nCommandments. Therefore the apostle can intend nothing hereby but that\nit is the first Commandment of the second table.\nAnd now we are considering the Commandments as thus contained in two\ntables, and distinguished with respect to the more immediate objects\nthereof, we may farther observe; that though both of them are enjoined\nby the authority of God, and consequently are equally binding, so that\nthe obedience which is acceptable in his sight, must be so extensive, as\nthat we must _have respect to all his commandments_, Psal. cxix. 6. Yet\nit may be observed,\n(1.) That the duties of the first table, in which we have to do with God\nas the more immediate object thereof, are to be considered as acts of\nreligious worship, whereby we not only confess our obligation to obey\nhim; but in performing it, adore and magnify his divine perfections as\nthe highest end and reason thereof; which is not included in the idea of\nthe duties which we owe to our neighbour, as contained in the\ncommandments of the second table. These, indeed are to be religiously\nobserved, not from any circumstance respecting our neighbour, but as\nduties which we perform in obedience to God[204].\n(2.) Though the principal and most excellent branch of religion consists\nin our obeying the commandments of the first table; yet our obedience is\nnot only defective, but unacceptable to God, if we neglect to perform\nthose of the second. And, on the other hand, the performance of the\nduties of the second table is not sufficient to denominate a person a\nreligious man, who lives in the neglect of those which are contained in\nthe first.\n(3.) The duties which we owe to our neighbour, as contained in the\nsecond table, are, for the most part, to give way to those which we owe\nto God, pursuant to those which are enjoined in the first, especially\nwhen they are considered as standing in competition with them. Thus we\nare obliged, in the fifth Commandment, to obey our parents or superiors.\nNevertheless, if they command us to break the Sabbath, profane the name\nof God, or attend on such worship which he has not required, we are to\ndisobey them, or to _obey God rather than men_, Acts iv. 19. And\nelsewhere it is said, _If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy\nson, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is\nas thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go, and serve\nother gods: thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him_,\nDeut. xiii. 6, 8. This our Saviour calls _hating father and mother,\nwife, children, and brethren_, Luke xiv, 26. without which we cannot be\nhis disciples. By which he intends, that if the love which we otherwise\nowe to them, be inconsistent with that obedience which he requires of\nhis followers; or, if we cannot oblige them, and at the same time\nperform the duties which we owe to him, the inferior obligation must\ngive way to the superior.\nFootnote 204:\n  _The former of these are generally styled the Elicit acts of religion,\n  the latter the Imperate._\n    QUEST. CIII. _Which is the first commandment?_\n    ANSW. The first commandment is, _Thou shalt have no other gods\n    before me_.\n    QUEST. CIV. _What are the duties required in the first commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the first commandment, are, the knowing\n    and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; and\n    to worship and glorify him accordingly, by thinking, meditating,\n    remembering, highly esteeming, honouring, adoring, choosing, loving,\n    desiring, fearing of him, believing him, trusting, hoping,\n    delighting, rejoicing in him, being zealous for him, calling upon\n    him, giving all praise and thanks, and yielding all obedience and\n    submission to him, with the whole man, being careful in all things\n    to please him, and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended, and\n    walking humbly with him.\nThe duties required in this Commandment, are contained in three general\nheads.\nI. We are obliged to know God. This supposes that our understanding is\nrightly informed as to what relates to the divine perfections, which are\ndisplayed in the works of creation and providence, by which we are led\ninto the knowledge of his eternal power and Godhead; and this is called\nthe natural knowledge of God: but that knowledge which we are to\nendeavour to attain, who have a brighter manifestation of his\nperfections in the gospel, is of a far more excellent and superior\nnature; inasmuch as herein we see the glory of God the Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost; or behold the perfections of the divine nature, as displayed\nin and through a Mediator; which is that knowledge which is absolutely\nnecessary to salvation, as our Saviour says, _This is life eternal; that\nthey might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast\nsent_, John xvii. 3. By this means we not only know what God is, but our\ninterest in him, and the foundation which we have of our being accepted\nin his sight.\nII. We are farther commanded to acknowledge or make a visible profession\nof our subjection to God, and in particular, to Christ, as our great\nMediator: His name, interest, and glory, should be most dear to us; and\nwe are, on all occasions, to testify, that we count it our glory to be\nhis servants, and to make it appear that he is the supreme object of our\ndesire and delight, as the Psalmist says, _I cried unto thee, O Lord, I\nsaid, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living_, Psal\ncxlii. 5. And elsewhere, _Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is\nnone upon earth that I desire besides thee_, Psal. lxxiii. 25.\nIII. We are farther obliged by this Commandment, to worship and glorify\nGod, pursuant to what we know, and the profession we make of him as the\ntrue God and our God. To worship and glorify God, is to ascribe all\npossible glory and perfection to him, and to have our hearts suitably\naffected therewith, as sensible of that infinite distance which we stand\nat from him. This is considered under several heads, which contain the\nsubstance of what is required in this Commandment; as,\n1. We must make God the subject of our daily meditation; calling to mind\nwhat he is in himself, and what he is to us, or does for us; which is to\nbe considered as a means to preserve us from sin, and a spur, to duty, a\nmotive to holy fear and reverence.\n2. We are to honour, adore, and fear him for his greatness. Thus the\nPsalmist says, _Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord; who\namong the sons of the mighty can be likened to the Lord? God is greatly\nto be feared in the assemblies of the saints, and to be had in reverence\nof all them that are about him_, Psal. lxxxix. 6, 7.\n3. As God is the best good, and has promised that he will be a God to\nus; so he is to be desired, loved, delighted, and rejoiced in, and\nchosen by us; as the prophet says, \u2018With my soul have I desired thee in\nthe night,\u2019 Isa. xxvi. 9. and the church, \u2018I sat down under his shadow\nwith great delight,\u2019 Cant. ii. 3. and the apostle, \u2018Lord, thou knowest\nthat I love thee,\u2019 John xxi. 15.\n4. As he is a God of truth, we are to believe all that he has spoken;\nand in particular, what he has revealed in his promises or threatnings,\nrelating to mercies which he will bestow, or judgments which he will\ninflict. Thus our Saviour says, \u2018If I say the truth, why do ye not\nbelieve me,\u2019 John viii. 46. And it is said, when Israel \u2018saw that great\nwork which the Lord did upon the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord,\nand believed the Lord, and his servant Moses,\u2019 Exod. xiv. 31.\n5. As he is able to save to the utmost, and faithful in fulfilling all\nhis promises, we are to trust him with all we have from him, and for all\nthose blessings which we hope to receive at his hands. Thus the prophet\nsays, \u2018Trust ye in the Lord for ever; for in the Lord Jehovah is\neverlasting strength,\u2019 Isa. xxvi. 4. And the apostle speaks of his\n_having committed_ all to him, 2 Tim. i. 11. as the consequence of what\nhe knew him to be.\n6. When the name, interest, and glory of God is opposed in the world, we\nare to express an holy zeal for it. Thus the prophet Elijah says, \u2018I\nhave been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of\nIsrael have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain\nthy prophets with the sword,\u2019 1 Kings xix. 10. And as to what concerns\nour conversation in general, we are to be \u2018not slothful in business, but\nfervent in spirit, serving the Lord,\u2019 Rom. xii. 11.\n7. Since he is a God hearing prayer, we are daily to call upon him, \u2018O\nthou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come,\u2019 Psal. lxv. 2.\n8. As he is the God of all our mercies, we are to thank and praise him\nfor them. Thus the Psalmist says, \u2018O give thanks unto the Lord, for he\nis good; for his mercy endureth for ever,\u2019 Psal. cxxxvi. 1.\n9. His sovereignty and dominion over us, calls for subjection and\nobedience, and a constant care to please him, and approve ourselves to\nhim in all things. Thus the apostle says, \u2018Submit yourselves to God,\u2019\nJames iv. 7. And the Psalmist speaks of a person\u2019s \u2018cleansing his way,\nby taking heed thereto according to his word,\u2019 Psal. cxix. 9.\n10. As he is an holy, jealous, and sin-hating God, we are to be filled\nwith grief and sorrow of heart when he is offended, either by ourselves\nor others, as Ephraim says, \u2018I was ashamed, yea, even confounded;\nbecause I did bear the reproach of my youth,\u2019 Jer. xxxi. 19. And the\nPsalmist, \u2018Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they,\u2019 that is,\nthe world in general, \u2018keep not thy law,\u2019 Psal. cxxix. 136.\n11. A sense of our unworthiness and daily infirmities should excite us\nto _walk humbly with God_. This is enjoined as a necessary duty, Mic.\nvi. 8. and is called a _being clothed with humility_, 1 Pet. v. 5. Thus\nconcerning the duties required in this Commandment.\nThat which may be farther observed is, that it is fitly placed before\nall the other Commandments, because it is, from the nature of the thing,\nnecessary to our performing the duties which are required in them. The\nobject of worship must first be known before we can apply ourselves, in\na right manner, to perform any duty prescribed, whether respecting God\nor man.\nIt may be also farther considered, that it is not an easy matter to keep\nthe Commandment, because of the spirituality and vast extent thereof,\nand the many graces that are to be exercised by those that would perform\nit aright; and therefore we ought earnestly to beg of God that our\nhearts may be set aright with him, and inclined and excited hereunto by\nhim; which is a peculiar blessing to be desired and expected from the\nHoly Spirit. Thus the Psalmist says, _Incline mine heart unto thy\ntestimonies_, Psal. cxix. 36.\n    QUEST. CV. _What are the sins forbidden in the first Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the first Commandment, are, Atheism, in\n    denying, or not having a God; idolatry, in having, or worshipping\n    more gods than one, or any with, or instead of the true God; the not\n    having and avouching him for God, and our God; the omission or\n    neglect of any thing due to him required in this Commandment,\n    ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy\n    and wicked thoughts of him, bold and curious searching into his\n    secrets, all profaneness, hatred of God, self-love, self-seeking,\n    and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will,\n    or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him, in\n    whole or in part; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief,\n    distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, insensibleness under judgments,\n    hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of\n    God, using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means, carnal\n    delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal,\n    lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God, estranging\n    ourselves, and apostatizing from God, praying, or giving any\n    religious worship to saints, angels, or any other creatures, all\n    compacts, and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his\n    suggestions, making men the lords of our faith and conscience,\n    slighting and despising God and his commandments, resisting and\n    grieving of his Spirit, discontent, and impatience at his\n    dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on\n    us, and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can\n    do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature.\n    QUEST. CVI. _What are we especially taught by these words_ (before\n    me) _in the first Commandment?_\n    ANSW. These words _before me_, or before my face, in the first\n    Commandment, teach us, that God who seeth all things, takes special\n    notice of, and is much displeased with the sin of having any other\n    god; that so it may be an argument to dissuade from it, and to\n    aggravate it, as a most impudent provocation, as also to persuade us\n    to do, as in his sight, whatever we do in his service.\nThe sins forbidden in this Commandment may be reduced to two general\nheads, Atheism and Idolatry.\n_First_, Atheism; whereby men are so far from taking God for their God,\nthat they deny that there is a God; or, at least, that he is what he has\nrevealed himself to be. Thus the wicked man, who is styled a _fool_, is\nrepresented as _saying in his heart, There is no God_. Psal. xiv. 1.\nThis Atheism is either speculative or practical. The former of these is\nthat which is seated in the minds and consciences of men; who are so far\nblinded, perverted, and deluded, as to think that there is no God.\nThough, indeed, there are very few among these who are so bold and\nprofane as to deny this truth when they attend to the dictates of\nnature, or duly exercise those reasoning faculties with which God has\nendowed them; which, if they neglect to do, they must be reckoned but\none remove from brutes. Some, indeed, are ready to wish that there were\nno God, or inclined to deny those divine perfections that are essential\nto him, cast contempt on his government, or, it may be, deny a\nprovidence; which is, in effect, to deny that there is a God. Though it\nmust be observed, that none proceed to this degree of wickedness, till,\nby a long continuance in sin, they are given up to judicial hardness of\nheart, and blindness of mind, Rom. i. 28. Eph. iv. 17-20. And even these\nhave been forced, at some times, to confess that there is a God, with\nwhom is terrible majesty; when he has broken in on their consciences,\nand filled them with the dreadful apprehensions of his wrath, as a\nsin-revenging Judge. But where there is one speculative Atheist, there\nare a thousand practical ones, who live without God in the world; and\nthese are described in this answer, as being guilty of those sins which\nnone who duly consider his divine perfections would venture to commit.\nTo enlarge on every one of those instances, particularly mentioned in\nthis answer, in which this sin is supposed to consist, would require a\ndistinct treatise, and be inconsistent with our designed brevity in\nexplaining the Ten Commandments. All that we shall therefore attempt at\npresent, shall be to consider some instances, in which practical Atheism\ndiscovers itself, together with the aggravations of this sin; and then\nwe shall enquire what judgment we are to pass concerning those who\ncomplain of atheistical and blasphemous thoughts; and consider whether\nthis be a degree of that Atheism which we are speaking of; together with\nthe causes of this sin, and the remedies against it.\nI. The instances in which practical Atheism discovers itself. And,\n1. They are chargeable with it who are grossly ignorant, and know\nnothing of God but the name, being utter strangers to those perfections\nwhereby he makes himself known to the world, or who entertain carnal\nconceptions of him, as though he were altogether such an one as\nourselves, Psal. l. 21.\n2. When persons, though they know, in some measure, what God is, yet\nnever seriously exercise their thoughts about him; which forgetfulness\nis a degree of Atheism, and will be severely punished by him, Psal. ix.\n3. When persons maintain corrupt doctrines, and dangerous heresies,\nsubversive of the fundamental articles of faith, and contrary to the\ndivine perfections. Of this kind are those that militate against his\nsovereignty and dominion over the wills, consciences and affections of\nman; when persons conclude that his counsels and determinations may be\ndisannulled or defeated; or when we suppose that he changes, as we do;\nor when, under a pretence of advancing one perfection, we set aside the\nglory of another, when in order to magnify his mercy, we disregard his\nholiness or justice, and so presume of being happy without being holy;\nor when we give way to despairing thoughts, from the consideration of\nhis vindictive justice, without improving the displays of his mercy, as\nset forth in the gospel.\n4. When we repine and quarrel at his providence, and pretend to find\nfault with the dispensations thereof, or charge God foolishly, and go\nabout to prescribe laws to him, who is the Governor of the world, and\nmay do what he will with the work of his hands.\n5. When we refuse to engage in those acts of religious worship which he\nhas appointed, or to attend on his ordinances, in which we may hope for\nhis presence and blessing.\n6. When we behave ourselves, in the conduct of our lives, as though we\nwere not accountable to him, and had no reason to be afraid of his\njudgments. Accordingly, when we set our affections on other things, and\ntake them off from him, when we are guilty of wilful impenitency and\nunbelief, and are incorrigible under divine rebukes; when our hearts and\nlives are estranged from him, as though we desired not the knowledge of\nhis ways; when we resist and grieve his Spirit, are discontented and\nimpatient under his hand, or ascribe that to second causes, or think\nthat those things come by chance which are under the direction of his\nprovidence. In these, and many other instances, persons are notoriously\nguilty of practical Atheism, which is forbidden in this Commandment.\nII. We are now to consider the aggravations and dreadful consequences of\nthis sin.\n1. It is contrary to the light of nature, and the dictates of\nconscience, a disregarding those impressions which God has made of his\nglory on the souls of men. And in those who have been favoured with the\nrevelation of the grace of God in the gospel, in which his perfections\nhave been set forth to the utmost, it is a shutting our eyes against the\nlight and casting contempt on that which should raise our admiration,\nand excite in us the highest esteem of him whom we practically disown\nand deny.\n2. It is directly opposite to, and entirely inconsistent with all\nreligion, and opens a door to the greatest degree of licentiousness. To\nlive without God in the world, is to give the reins to our own\ncorruptions; it is not barely a sin of infirmity or inadvertency, but a\nrunning in all excess of riot; and therefore the consequence hereof must\nbe dreadful; for that which strikes at the very being of God, cannot but\nexpose the sinner to the sorest condemnation. But since there are some\nsins mentioned in this answer, which contain a degree of practical\natheism; which believers themselves are prone to fall into, and complain\nof, as forgetfulness of God, unbelief, distrust of his providence,\ninsensibleness under judgments, too great a degree of hardness of heart,\npride, carnal security, discontent and impatience under his\ndispensations; this may tend very much to discourage them, and make them\nconclude that they are not in a state of grace; especially when they\nfind, as sometimes they do, atheistical and blasphemous thoughts\nsuggested to their minds. Therefore we must inquire,\nIII. What judgment we are to pass concerning those who are ready to\ncharge themselves with practical atheism, especially as to what respects\nthose unbecoming thoughts and conceptions which they sometimes have of\nthe divine Majesty? whether this be altogether inconsistent with the\ntruth of grace, together with the causes thereof, and the remedies\nagainst it? It is certain, that the best of God\u2019s people are sanctified\nbut in part, and therefore are prone to commit those sins which seem to\ncontain in them a denial, at least, a neglect of that regard which we\nought to have for the divine perfections, and especially when we are not\nonly followed with vain, but blasphemous thoughts; which gives great\ndisturbance to us, when engaged in holy duties. This ought to be\nreckoned a very great affliction, and occasion many searchings of heart;\nsince sometimes it brings much guilt with it. Nevertheless, we are not\nalways from hence to conclude that we are in a state of unregeneracy. It\nis the prevalency of corruption, or the dominion of sin, which is\ninconsistent with the truth of grace, not the remainders thereof. A\nperson may have faith, who yet complains of unbelief; he may have a due\nregard to God, as to what respects the course and tenor of his actions;\nbut yet, in many instances, be chargeable with forgetfulness of him. He\nmay have a love to him, and yet sometimes be guilty of indiscreet zeal,\non the one hand, or lukewarmness and deadness of heart, on the other;\nhis mind and affections may be sanctified, and yet he be sometimes\nfollowed with atheistical and blasphemous thoughts.\nWe have instances in scripture of good men, who have spoken, not only\nunadvisedly, but, as we may term it wickedly with their lips. Thus Job\nis justly reproved by Elihu for charging God with _finding occasions\nagainst him; putting his feet in the stocks, and marking all his paths_,\nJob xxxiii. 10, 11. as though his dealings with him had been unjust and\nsevere; especially when he says at the same time, _I am clean, and\nwithout transgression; I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me_,\nver. 9. And Jonah, when he was reproved by God for his passionate\nbehaviour towards him, vindicates himself, and says, _I do well to be\nangry, even unto death_, Jonah iv. 9. These are expressions that favour\nof a degree of Atheism; and so do those unbecoming conceptions of God,\nwhereby our thoughts are sometimes defiled and depraved. But it is one\nthing to be guilty of this through surprise and the prevalency of\ntemptation; and another thing to have those thoughts indulged by, and\nlodged in us unrepented of.\nAnd there are some instances in which believers are afflicted with\natheistical and blasphemous thoughts, when it is hard to say that they\ncontract guilt thereby, or, at least, it must only be reckoned an\ninfirmity arising from this imperfect state; and that more especially\nwhen they are injected by Satan, and are without the consent of our\nwills; but treated with the utmost abhorrence, constantly bewailed and\nresisted with all our might; more particularly when we take occasion\nhereby to exercise those graces which discover that we have other\napprehensions of God than what are suggested at those times, when we are\nhurried by these temptations, and can scarce say, that we have the\ngovernment of our own thoughts; especially if we are able to say, at\nsuch a time as our Saviour did, when unadvisedly tempted by Peter, who,\nwas at that time the Devil\u2019s instrument, to persuade him to relinquish\nthe work which he came into the world about. _Get thee behind me Satan,\nthou art an offence to me_, Matt. xvi. 23.\nAnd this leads us to consider the causes of such atheistical and\nblasphemous thoughts. Sometimes they proceed from a neglect of waiting\non God in his ordinances, or indulging a carnal and stupid frame of\nspirit therein, and not maintaining that holy reverence, or becoming\nsense of his all-seeing eye, which we ought always to have. Moreover,\nthere is nothing that has a greater tendency hereunto, than our\nconversing with those who make religion the subject of their profane wit\nand drollery; especially if we do this out of choice, and do not at the\nsame time testify a just abhorrence of it.\nAs for those remedies which are to be made use of to fence against, and\ncure the sinfulness of our thoughts in such-like instances; it behoves\nus to repent of those sins, which may have been the occasion of, or\ngiven rise to them. And inasmuch as it is not in our own power to govern\nour hearts or affections, or restrain the breaking forth of corruption;\nit is necessary for us to commit our souls into Christ\u2019s hands, with\nearnest supplications to him that he would sanctify, regulate, and\ncleanse our thoughts, and bring us into, and keep us in a good frame. We\nought also to desire, seek after, and improve all opportunities of\nconversing with those whose discourse is holy and profitable, Mal. iii.\n16. by which means our affections may be raised, and our thoughts\ntinctured with divine things, which will leave an abiding impression\nbehind them, Luke xxiv. 32. Which leads us,\n_Secondly_, To consider this Commandment as forbidding idolatry. Thus,\nwhen it is said, _Thou shalt have no other gods_; the meaning is, thou\nshalt not worship idols, or set a creature in the place of God, or pay\nthat regard to it that is due to him alone.\nHere it may not be inconvenient to consider the difference between\nidolatry as it is a breach of the first and second commandment. As it is\na breach of the first Commandment, it contains in it a giving divine\nhonour to that which is not God; but as it is against the second\nCommandment, it is a worshipping God by the creature, to whom an\ninferior kind of worship is given. Thus when the Papists worship God by\nimages, supposing them to be a help to their devotion, or a means of\nperforming that worship which they pretend to be given ultimately to\nGod. Or when they ascribe any branch of divine glory to saints or\nangels; notwithstanding what they say to exculpate themselves from the\nbreach of the first Commandment, they are justly chargeable with the\nbreach of the second.\nWe are here to consider, the idolatry more especially that is forbidden\nin the first Commandment. Which is either what is more gross, such as\nthat which is found among the heathen; or that which is more secret, and\nmay be found in the hearts of all, and is discovered by the practice of\nmultitudes of Christians, who profess the utmost detestation of idolatry\nin the other sense.\n1. As to idolatry, in the former sense, together with the rise and\nprogress thereof. In considering the first rise of it we may observe,\n(1.) That it proceeded from the ignorance and pride of man, who, though\nhe could not but know, by the light of nature, that there is a God; yet\nbeing ignorant of his perfections, or of what he has revealed himself to\nbe in his word, was disposed to frame those ideas of God, which took\ntheir rise from his own invention. Accordingly the apostle says, _When\nye knew not God, ye did service unto them, which, by nature, are no\ngods_, Gal. iv. 8.\n(2.) When iniquity abounded in the world, and men withdrew from, and\ncast contempt on the ordinances of God, they invented and worshipped new\ngods. This some suppose Cain and his posterity did, when he _went out\nfrom the presence of the Lord_, Gen. iv. 16. and the _sons_ of God, that\nis, the church, when they contracted marriages with the _daughters of\nmen_, chap. vi. 2. and joined with them in idolatry; so that it is no\nwonder if persons leave the true worship of God, that they should chuse\nto themselves other gods.\n(3.) Hereupon God gave them up to judicial blindness; so that they\n_worshipped the host of heaven_, Acts vii. 42. as the apostle says the\nHeathen did.\n(4.) As to what concerns the idolatry which was practised among the\nIsraelites, that took its rise from the fond ambition which they had to\nbe like other nations, who were abhorred of God; counting this a\nfashionable religion, and finding the true worshippers of God to be\nfewer in number than the rest of the world, so that, as the prophet\nspeaks, they were _like a speckled bird_, despised and hated by the\nHeathen _round about them_, Jer. xii. 9. they approved of, and learned\ntheir ways. It was this that occasioned Solomon to _cleave to them in\nlove_, 1 Kings xi. 2. which was not much unlike to the argument used by\nDemetrius and his followers, why Diana should be worshipped; namely,\n_because all Asia and the world worshipped her_, Acts xix. 27.\n(5.) The Devil was permitted, for the trial of the faith of God\u2019s\npeople, and as an instance of his righteous judgment on his enemies, to\nabuse the unthinking part of the world by various signs and lying\nwonders. Thus we read of _prophets_, and _dreamers of dreams_, who gave\nforth signs and wonders, which God sometimes judicially suffered to come\nto pass; whereby many took occasion to go _after other gods_, Deut.\nxiii. 1-3. and Antichrist is said _to come after the working of Satan,\nwith all power, and signs, and lying wonders_, 2 Thess. ii. 9. This was\nmanaged by the craft and covetousness of the priests, who made a gain of\nit, and amused the common people thereby. And the Heathen oracles, so\nmuch spoken of by ancient writers, which gave countenance to their\nidolatry, are reckoned, by some, to have been no other than a\ncontrivance of those who had little else but secular interest in view.\nAnd when they predicted things future, or revealed secrets, this was\ngenerally done in doubtful expressions: so that whether the thing really\ncame to pass or no, the end designed might be answered thereby; and\ndoubtless there was a hand of Satan herein, to harden the world in that\nidolatry which was then practised by them. The gods they worshipped were\nas numerous as the countries and kingdoms where idolatry prevailed;\naccordingly every nation, yea, every city had its particular god and\ndistinct modes of worship.\n[1.] Some worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, supposing that their\nregular motion and influence on earthly bodies, was not to be attributed\nto the all-wise providence of God, but to some intelligent being, which\nresided in, and gave that motion and influence to them: upon the account\nwhereof they worshipped them as gods. This some did in that early age in\nwhich Job lived, Job xxxi. 26. and the Israelites were warned against\nit, Deut. iv. 19. And afterwards we read of _idolatrous priests_, who\n_burnt incense to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to\nall the host of heaven_, and dedicated _horses and chariots to the sun_,\n2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11.\n[2.] Others worshipped the earth, and many creatures therein, especially\nthose that they received a more than ordinary advantage from. Thus the\nEgyptians worshipped the river Nile; by the overflowing of which, their\ncountry was rendered fertile. And some who lived in maritime towns,\nworshipped the sea, thinking thereby to prevent an inundation from it.\nAnd the Philistines worshipped Dagon; inasmuch, as living near the sea,\nit afforded them plenty of fish.\n[3.] Others worshipped those parts of the earth which they most\ndelighted in; such as gardens, woods, groves, springs, _&c._ which they\nsupposed to be inhabited by some gods, who produced the advantages which\nthey received hereby, without regarding the providence of God, to which\nevery thing is to be ascribed, that the earth brings forth for the\nsupport and delight of men.\n[4.] Others supposed that there were particular gods, who had the\noversight of men, succeeded their undertakings in the various affairs of\nlife, conducted them when travelling by sea or land, gave good or ill\nsuccess to their secular employments, and preserved them in sickness and\nhealth; and accordingly they paid divine adoration to them.\n[5.] Others expressed the regard they had to virtue by worshipping some\nmen after their death, who had signalized themselves by inventing some\nthings which were of common advantage to mankind while they lived. And\nthe Romans were so much addicted to this practice of idolatry, that some\nof their emperors, though tyrants and monsters in wickedness, while they\nlived, obliged their subjects to perpetuate their memories by\nworshipping them as gods when they were dead.\n[6.] Some were so stupid, as that they worshipped stocks and stones,\nascribing divinity to them; in which they acted below the reason of\nintelligent creatures. Thus the prophet speaks of their idols as first\n_growing in the wood_, then _framed by the smith_, or carpenter, _into\ngods_, and afterwards _worshipped by them_, Isa. xliv. 9-17. And the\nPsalmist, on this occasion, justly observes, _They that make them are\nlike them; so is every one that trusteth in them_, Psal. cxv. 4-7,\ncompared with 8.\nWe might, under this head, consider some things mentioned in scripture;\nin which idolaters not only acted contrary to the dictates of reason,\nbut discovered themselves to be cruel and inhuman in their modes of\nworship. Thus Baal\u2019s worshippers in Ahab\u2019s time, cut themselves with\nknives and lancets, till the blood gushed out of them, 1 Kings xviii.\n28. and others made their children pass through the fire, in the worship\nthey paid to Molech, or the sun, which the Psalmist refers to, when he\nsays, _They sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and\nshed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their\ndaughters_, Psal. cvi. 37, 38. This, indeed, some think, intends nothing\nelse but their passing between two fires; so that they were scorched by\nthem. Yet others, with greater reason, suppose that they were inclosed\nin that brazen idol, and so burnt to death in the most barbarous\nmanner[205].\nThe use which we ought to make of this doctrine, should be to excite us\nto bless God for the clear light of the gospel, whereby we are led to\nturn from dead idols to serve the living and true God: nevertheless we\nare to take heed lest we be chargeable with heart-idolatry; whereby we\nmay be said to break this Commandment, though it be in a different way\nfrom that in which the Heathen did. This leads us to consider,\n2. That idolatry which is sometimes found among Christians; who, though\nthey abhor the thoughts of giving divine worship to a creature, yet, if\nthey look into their own hearts, will have reason to charge themselves\nwith those things which are in scripture called idolatry; namely, when\nthey put any thing in the room of God, or love it more than him; and\nthis may be considered in the following instances.\n(1.) Self may be reckoned among those idols which many, who make\nprofession of the true religion, pay a greater regard to than to God.\nThus the apostle, speaking concerning the great degeneracy of the world,\namong other things, says, that _men should be lovers of their\nownselves_, 2 Tim. iii. 2. so that self-love turns away the heart from\nGod, and excludes all practical religion. This we may be said to be\nguilty of; in which respect we are chargeable with heart-idolatry.\n[1.] When we reject, or refuse to give credit to any of the great\ndoctrines contained in divine revelation, unless we are able to\ncomprehend them within the shallow limits of our own understandings;\nupon which account some are inclined to treat the most sacred mysteries\nof our religion with contempt; and for the same reason they might as\nwell deny and disbelieve what is said concerning the infinite\nperfections of the divine nature, because they cannot be comprehended by\nus. This is no other than a setting up our own understanding, which is\nweak and liable to err, in opposition to the wisdom of God, and, in some\nrespects, a giving superior glory to it.\n[2.] When we are resolute and incorrigible under the various rebukes of\nprovidence, and persist in our rebellion against God, notwithstanding\nthe threatenings which he has denounced, or the judgments which he\nexecutes. When the will of man is obstinately set on those things which\nare directly contrary to the will of God; and, though we are warned of\nthe danger thereof, resolve notwithstanding, to add rebellion to our\niniquities, like the wild ass used to the wilderness, or the swift\ndromedary traversing her ways, that cannot be easily turned out of her\ncourse. In this respect the will of man is set in opposition to God; and\ntherefore he is, for this reason, justly chargeable with idolatry.\n(3.) This also discovers itself in our affections, when they are either\nset on unlawful objects, or immoderately pursue those that would\notherwise be lawful; when we love these things which God hates, or covet\nwhat he has expressly forbidden, as Achan did the wedge of gold, and the\nBabylonish garment; upon which account _covetousness_ is, by the\napostle, called _idolatry_, Col. iii. 5. And to this we may add, that we\nare chargeable with this sin, when we _make provision for the flesh, to\nfulfil the lusts thereof_, Rom. xiii, 14. Thus the apostle speaks of\nsome _whose god is their belly_, Phil. iii. 19.\nAnd as for those things which are otherwise lawful, we may be guilty of\nidolatry in the immoderate pursuit of them, when they take up too much\nof our thoughts, time, and concern; when our affections are so much set\nupon them, as though we had nothing better to mind; when we are not\nwilling to part with them when God calls for them at our hands, and are\nmore cast down at the loss of them, than we are when deprived of those\nspiritual blessings which are of the highest importance. In these\ninstances we may be said to set up self as our idol in opposition to\nGod.\nAnd to this we may add, that there is a more subtle kind of idolatry,\nwhereby self enters into, and takes its place in those religious duties,\nwhich believers are engaged in. Thus when they attempt to perform them\nin their own strength, as though they had a sufficiency in themselves,\nand had no occasion to depend on the almighty power of God to work in\nthem that which is pleasant in his sight. And we are farther guilty of\nthis sin, when, through the pride of our hearts, we are apt to applaud\nourselves when we have performed some religious duties, and expect to be\njustified thereby; which is a setting up self as an idol, in the room of\nChrist. And lastly, when self is the end designed in what we do in\nmatters of religion, and so robs God of that glory which is due to his\nname.\n(2.) There is another idol, which is put in the room of God; and that is\nthe world. When the profits, pleasures, or honours thereof are thought\nof with the greatest delight, as though they were our chief good, and\npursued with more earnestness than Christ\u2019s interest and glory. When it\nhas not only the highest place in our affections, but, as it were,\nengrosses them; this is that love of the world which, as the apostle\nsays, is inconsistent with the love of the Father, 1 John ii. 15. and\ndenotes us guilty of that idolatry which we are now speaking of; more\nparticularly,\n[1.] When our thoughts are so much engaged in the pursuit of it, that we\ngrow not only cold and remiss as to spiritual things; but allow\nourselves no time for serious meditations on them, or converse with God\nin secret.\n[2.] When the world has our first and last thoughts every day; when we\nare so far from following the Psalmist\u2019s example, when he says, _When I\nawake, I am still with thee_, Psal. cxxxix. 18. as considering ourselves\nunder the care of providence, and beholden to God for the mercies which\nwe enjoy, that we are taken up with nothing else but the projects and\nschemes which we lay for the gaining or increasing our wealth, or\nworldly estate therein. And this having been the great business of the\nday, takes up and engages our wakeful thoughts by night, as though it\nwere the main work and business of life.\n[3.] When we pursue the world, without depending on God for his blessing\nto attend our lawful undertakings, and do not consider the good things\nthereof as his special gift, nor the disappointments that attend us\ntherein, as ordered by his overruling providence, to engage us to walk\nmore closely with him, and take up our rest in him as our only\nhappiness.\n[4.] When our hearts are hereby hardened, and grow cold and indifferent\nin religion, or when it follows and disturbs us in holy duties, and\nrenders us formal in the discharge thereof.\n[5.] When the riches, honours, and pleasures of the world have a\ntendency to quiet our spirits, and give us full satisfaction, though\nunder spiritual declensions, and destitute of the special presence of\nGod, which is our greatest happiness.\n[6.] When we fret, or repine at the providence of God, under the\ndisappointments we meet with in our secular affairs in the world. And,\n[7.] When we despise the members of Christ, because they are poor in the\nworld, are ashamed of his cross, and refuse to bear reproach for his\nsake.\n(1.) There is another instance of heart-idolatry, _viz._ when we adhere\nto the dictates of Satan, and regard his suggestions more than the\nconvictions of our own consciences, or the Holy Spirit. Satan\u2019s design\nin his temptations, is to turn us away from God; and when we are drawn\naside thereby, we may be said to obey him rather than God. This is what\nall are more or less guilty of; but some are said, in an uncommon\ndegree, to be his servants. Thus the apostle Paul styles the _sorcerer,\nwho sought to turn aside the deputy from the faith, a child of the\ndevil_, Acts xiii. 10. and our Saviour tells the Jews, _Ye are of your\nfather the devil; and the lusts of your father ye will do_, &c. John\nviii. 44. He is also called _The god of this world_, 2 Cor. iv. 4. and\n_the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the\nchildren of disobedience_, Eph. ii. 2. and accordingly he attempts to\nusurp the throne of God; by which means he has led a great part of the\nworld after him. And, as he tempted our Saviour to fall down and worship\nhim, Matt. iv. 9. though without success, he prevails upon others to do\nit to their own ruin. Here it may be observed,\n[1.] That he has propagated several doctrines, in opposition to the\ngospel; and, indeed, all those doctrines which are subversive thereof,\ntake their rise from him. Thus the apostle, speaks of some who, _in the\nlatter times, should depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing\nspirits, and doctrines of devils_, 1 Tim. iv. 1. This they do when they\ndepart from the way of truth.\n[2.] He has sometimes invented those modes of worship, which have been\nobserved by some, in imitation of the sacrifices which God had ordained;\nand whatever pretence there might be of religion herein, he had\ndoubtless a design, by this means, to set up himself, in opposition to\nGod.\n[3.] He has amused and hardened the hearts of his subjects, by pretended\nmiracles, designed to oppose, and lessen the credit of those real\nmiracles which have been wrought, to confirm the truth, by the finger of\nGod, Exod. viii. 7.\n[4.] He has endeavoured to extirpate the true religion, by raising\npersecutions against the faithful worshippers of God; which has been his\nconstant practice, so far as he has been permitted, in all ages.\n[5.] He has excited, in some of his subjects, the greatest degree of\nhatred, opposition to, and rebellion against God. Thus he _entered into\nthe heart of Judas_, Luke xxii. 3. and _filled the heart of Ananias,\nthat he lied to the Holy Ghost_, Acts v. 3. and has hardened the hearts\nof others, that they bade defiance to the Almighty, as Pharaoh, who\nsaid, _Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?_ Exod. v. 2.\n[6.] He has persuaded many of his subjects to enter into a kind of\nconfederacy with him, and with one another, to promote his wicked\ndesigns. Thus those wretched Jews did, who _bound themselves under a\ncurse, that they would neither eat or drink till they had killed Paul_,\nActs xxiii. 14. And we read of others who had _made a covenant with\ndeath and with hell_, Isa. xxviii. 15. The vilest instances of sins of\nthis nature, were found among some who used sorcery, divination,\nwitch-craft, and other diabolical practices; which is so horrid a crime,\nand so contrary to the dictates of human nature, that had we not an\naccount of some in scripture, who used those abominable arts, we should\nbe ready to think that none were ever guilty of them.\nI will not deny but that many things, which are commonly related\nconcerning witch-craft and sorcery, as practised in latter ages, are\nfabulous and incredible; and some things, said to be done by the power\nof the Devil, may be accounted for by natural causes; and others are\nascribed to it, which are performed by the concealed arts of some who\nget a livelihood by cheating the unthinking part of mankind:\nnevertheless, I am far from thinking that the account we have hereof in\nscripture, is without any manner of foundation, as some modern writers\nsuggest. That famous story of the witch of Endor, mentioned in 1 Sam.\nxxviii. 7-20. is an argument that there were such persons, at that time,\nin the world.\nI am sensible that it will be objected to this, that she was a cunning\nwoman, who lived by her wits, and deceived Saul, by pretending that she\nused some infernal art, as expedient to bring him to the speech of\nSamuel; which it may not be amiss for us to inquire into. Therefore let\nit be observed,\n_1st_, That it is by no means to be supposed that she raised Samuel from\nthe dead; for it is out of the Devil\u2019s power to call the soul of a saint\nout of heaven, with a design to subserve his interest thereby, and to\nset up his kingdom in opposition to Christ\u2019s; and it is not reasonable\nto suppose that Samuel should do the Devil so much service after his\ndeath, who was so great an enemy to him in his life. Besides, he was\nburied at Ramah, 1 Sam. xxv. 1. and can we think that he should be now\nraised at Endor?\n_2dly_, On the other hand, we are not to imagine, that it was a mere\ntrick or juggle of the woman, whereby she imposed on Saul; for though it\nis true, he did not see a shape, yet he heard a voice, and made a reply\nthereunto. Moreover we read, that he had an intimation given him, that\nIsrael should be delivered into the hands of the Philistines; and that\nhe and his sons should be with him to-morrow; that, is in the state of\nthe dead; which the woman was not cunning enough to foretel;[206] or if\nshe had guessed that it would be so, she would hardly have ventured to\ntell Saul such ungrateful tidings; which, if he had lived to see himself\ncheated, and her prediction confuted, it would have endangered her life.\nHad it been nothing but a cheat or juggle, she would rather have told\nhim, that he would be safe and victorious; for which, if it had come to\npass, she might have expected a reward; and if not, she had nothing to\nfear from him as a just punishment of her impiety.\n_3dly_, We must therefore suppose, that she was a professed servant of\nthe Devil, and _had_, as the text says, _a familiar spirit_; by which we\nare to understand that she conversed with Satan; who, that he might\nharden her the more in her sin, and lead others, like Saul, into a\ncredulous, diabolical presumption, might reveal some secrets to her,\nand, at the same time, either assume the shape, or, at least,\ncounterfeit the voice of Samuel.\nThus concerning those, who, by the practice of these arts, have\nprofessed themselves to be in a kind of confederacy with Satan. It is\ncertain no good man ever practised them; and therefore some have found\nit very difficult to understand the sense of that scripture in Gen.\nxliv. 5. concerning the cup that was in Benjamin\u2019s sack; _Is not this\nthe cup wherein my Lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?_ And\nJoseph himself says, in ver. 15. _Wot ye not that such a man as I can\ncertainly divine?_ Though Joseph was a prophet, it is certain he was no\ndiviner in that sense in which the word is commonly used in scripture;\nnor was this cup an instrument by which he practised any such art.\nTherefore, for the understanding of this scripture, we may consider,\n_1st_, That the word which we render _to divine_, denotes, as it is\nobserved in the margin, to make trial of, or search after, or to\ndiscover, or find out a matter; and instead of _whereby_, or _by which_,\nit ought rather to have been rendered _concerning which_; and then the\nmeaning of the scripture is only this; _Is not this the cup wherein my\nlord drinketh?_ And therefore, if it were lost or stolen, he would soon\nmiss it; and make inquiry to find out the thief, as he has now done. And\nwhen Joseph says, ver. 15. _Wot ye not that such a man as I can divine?_\nThe meaning is, Do you think that one who is so diligent and industrious\nin the management of all those affairs that are incumbent on me, would\nlose the cup in which I drink, and make no inquiry after it? Did you\nexpect to go undiscovered, when you had such an one as I to deal with,\nwho not only have an inclination, but all the advantages that can be\ndesired, to make search after those who have dealt unjustly by me, as\nyou have done?\n_2d_, To _divine_ may signify to _prophesy_; and so it may be taken in a\ngood sense as well as in a bad one. Accordingly, when Joseph\u2019s servants\nspeak of him as divining concerning the cup, they consider him as one\nwho had an extraordinary gift from God of revealing secrets. Therefore,\nthey might easily conclude that he would, by this means, find out the\nperson who had stolen his cup. This is agreeable to the Egyptian mode of\nspeaking; for those whom the Hebrews called _prophets_, they called\n_diviners_. And Joseph used the same expression when he says, _Wot you\nnot that such a man as I could divine?_ that is, Did you not know that I\nwas a prophet, and by this means was advanced to my present honour in\nPharaoh\u2019s court? So that, whether we take the words in this or the other\nsense, it does not follow, that he used any arts that were diabolical or\nunlawful.\nAnd now we are speaking concerning those arts, by which Satan deludes\nthem, who, either directly, or by consequence, pay that regard to him\nwhich is due only to God. It may farther be inquired; what we are to\nconclude concerning the practice of judicial astrology, by those, who,\nin scripture, are called _star-gazers_, as a term of contempt, whose\nprofession is universally condemned therein.\nThese are, especially in our age, a generation of men, who impose on the\nweakness of many superstitious and ignorant people, who, by encouraging\nthem, are partakers with them in their sin. The art they pretend to, is\nnot only uncertain, but presumptuous, and contains in it a contempt of\nthe providence of God, in regarding the signs and intimations, which\nthey suppose they receive from the stars, concerning the future\ncontingent events, or those actions which take their rise from the\nfree-will of man.\nThat which I would observe in general, concerning this practice, is,\nthat we no where find in scripture, that the stars were designed to\nsignify the prosperous or adverse circumstances in which men shall be in\nthe world; or to foretel the riches or poverty, sickness or health,\nwhich we should experience in our passage through it, or how long we\nshall continue in it; our times and circumstances in the world being\nonly in God\u2019s hand; and it is in mercy to us that he has concealed these\nfuture events from us. To this we may add, that this art, and those that\nuse it, is very often spoken against in scripture, and the church warned\nagainst it; when God says, _Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not\ndismayed at the signs of heaven_, Jer. x. 2. And elsewhere, _Thou art\nwearied in the multitude of thy counsels, let now the astrologers, the\nstar-gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up and save thee_, Isa.\nxlvii. 13. And elsewhere, they are ranked with _diviners_, and called\n_liars_, chap. xliv. 25.\nIf it be inquired, Whether any good men have ever practised this art,\nthough without pretending to have had any intimation from Satan, but\nonly proceeding according to the rules prescribed therein? It is not my\nbusiness to censure men, but things. Therefore the best that can be said\nthereof is; that if any good men have studied or practised it, they have\ngenerally blamed themselves for it afterwards, or, at least, confessed\nthe uncertainty and presumption thereof. And we read of some that, in\nthe time of their ignorance, had addicted themselves thereunto; who,\nwhen it pleased God to convert them, have laid it aside, and burned the\nbooks from whence they learned it, Acts xix. 19.\nIt is objected against what has been said concerning the unlawfulness of\njudicial astrology, that Moses addicted himself to the study thereof, of\nwhom it is said, That _he was learned in all the wisdom of the\nEgyptians_, chap. vii. 22. To which it may be replied, that if, by _the\nwisdom of the Egyptians_, we understand, as most expositors do, judicial\nastrology, Moses might know, but not approve of, or practise this art,\nwhich was so much in use among the Egyptians. But it may be, nothing\nmore is intended by it, but his knowing the regular motion of the stars,\nand the wisdom of God seen therein, without judging of future events\nthereby; which is not only lawful, but commendable: though, I am apt to\nthink, that by the _wisdom of the Egyptians_, we are to understand those\nmaxims of state, and the secrets of Pharaoh\u2019s court, which he had an\nopportunity to know, as being a great favourite with him, as Josephus\nobserves, who thinks that he designed that he should succeed him in the\nthrone[207]. Thus having considered this Commandment as being broken by\nAtheism and idolatry, and the various kinds and degrees thereof; which\nis called our having other gods;\nWe proceed now to inquire what is meant by these words [before me] in\nthe first Commandment, which are an intimation of the aggravation of the\nsins forbidden therein; whereby God puts us in mind of his all-seeing\neye, which ought to deter us from the breach of it; especially when we\nconsider, that inasmuch as he beholds all our actions, he cannot but be\nexceedingly displeased when we entertain any conceptions of him that\ntend to question his authority, dethrone his sovereignty, or alienate\nour affections from him, and set up any thing in competition with him.\nAnd this should teach us how we ought to set the Lord always before us,\nconsidering him as the heart-searching God, who is jealous for his own\nhonour, and will not suffer this sin to go unpunished.\nFootnote 205:\n  _To this the poet\u2019s observation might well be applied_, Tantum religio\n  potuit saudere malorum! _Lucet. de Nat. Rer. Lib._ 1. _And that human\n  sacrifices were offered, appears from what we read of the_ king of\n  Moab, _who_ took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his\n  stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering, 2 Kings iii. 27.\nFootnote 206:\n  Satan knew the state of the armies, and wished to drive Saul to\n  despair.\nFootnote 207:\n  _Vid. Jos. Antq. Lib. II. Cap. 5._\n    QUEST. CVII. _Which is the second Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The second Commandment is _Thou shalt not make unto thee any\n    graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,\n    or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the\n    earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I the\n    Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers\n    upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that\n    hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands, of them that love me and\n    keep my commandments._\n    QUEST. CVIII. _What are the duties required in the second\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the second commandment are the\n    receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such\n    religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word,\n    particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ, the\n    reading, preaching, and hearing of the word, the administration and\n    receiving of the sacraments, church-government, and discipline, the\n    ministry and maintenance thereof, religious fasting, swearing by the\n    name of God, and vowing unto him. As also the disapproving,\n    detesting, opposing all false worship; and according to each ones\u2019\n    place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.\n    QUEST. CIX. _What are the sins forbidden in the second Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the second Commandment, are, all\n    devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any ways approving any\n    religious worship not instituted by God himself, tolerating a false\n    religion, the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of\n    the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly, in any\n    kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever, all\n    worshipping of it, or God, in it, or by it; the making of any\n    representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or\n    service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the\n    worship of God, adding to it, taking from it, whether invented and\n    taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others; though\n    under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any\n    other pretence whatsoever, simony, sacrilege, all neglect, contempt,\n    hindering and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath\n    appointed.\n    QUEST. CX. _What are the reasons annexed to the second Commandment\n    the more to enforce it?_\n    ANSW. The reasons annexed to the second Commandment, the more to\n    enforce it, contained in these words, [_For I the Lord thy God am a\n    jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the\n    children, unto the third and fourth generation, of them that hate\n    me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep\n    my commandments_] are, besides God\u2019s sovereignty over us, and\n    property in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his\n    revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a\n    spiritual whoredom, accounting the breakers of this commandment such\n    as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations,\n    and esteeming the observers of it, such as love him, and keep his\n    commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.\nBefore we proceed to consider the subject-matter of this Commandment, we\nshall premise something, in general, concerning the difference between\nit, and the first Commandment. The first Commandment respects the object\nof worship; the second, the manner in which it is to be performed.\nAccordingly the former forbids, our not owning God to be such an one, as\nhe has revealed himself to be, in his word; as also the substituting any\ncreature in his room, or acknowledging it, either directly, or by\nconsequence, to be our chief good and happiness; the latter obliges us\nto worship this God, in such a way as he has prescribed, in opposition\nto that, which takes its rise from our own invention. These two\nCommandments therefore being so distinct, we cannot but think the\nPapists to be chargeable with a very great absurdity, in making the\nsecond to be only an appendix to the first, or an explication of it; the\ndesign whereof seems to be, that they might exculpate themselves from\nthe charge of idolatry, in setting up image-worship, which they think to\nbe no crime; because they are not so stupid as to style the image a god,\nor make it the supreme object of worship; whereas this Commandment,\nforbidding false worship, is directly contrary to their practice of\nworshipping God thereby.\nThe method, in which this Commandment is laid down, is the same with\nthat of several others, _viz._ as we have therein, an account of the\nduties required, the sins forbidden, and the reasons annexed to enforce\nit. We shall therefore\nI. Consider the duties commanded. These are contained in two heads.\n1. The obligation we are under to observe, or attend upon, such\nreligious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed. Religious\nworship is that whereby we address ourselves to God, as a God of\ninfinite perfection; profess an entire subjection and devotedness to him\nas our God; put our trust in him for a supply of all our wants, and\nascribe that praise and glory, that is due to him, as our chief good,\nmost bountiful benefactor, and only portion and happiness.\nAs for the ordinances, our attendance on them depends on a divine\ncommand, to which God has annexed a promise of his gracious presence,\nwhereby our expectations are raised, that we shall obtain some blessings\nfrom him, when we engage therein in a right manner, in which respect\nthey are instituted means of grace, and pledges of that special favour\nwhich he designs to bestow on his people. This is that which more\nespecially renders a duty enjoined, an ordinance. Accordingly our\nSaviour says, _Where two or three are gathered together in my name,\nthere am I in the midst of them_, Matt. xviii. 20.\nNow these ordinances are either solitary or social; such as we are\nobliged to perform in our closets, chap. vi. 6. in our families; or in\nthose public assemblies where God is worshipped. These are particularly\nmentioned in this answer; and they are prayer, thanksgiving, reading,\npreaching, and hearing the word, the administration and receiving the\nsacraments; to which we may add, praising God by singing; all which will\nbe insisted on in a following answer, and therefore we pass by them at\npresent, and shall only observe; that as these are duties which are\ndaily incumbent on us, so there are other duties or ordinances, which\nare only to be performed as the necessity of affairs require it; such as\nreligious fasting, whereby we express public tokens of mourning and\nhumiliation, and perform other duties agreeable thereunto, when God is\nprovoked by crying sins; or when his judgments are upon us, and our\nfamilies, or the church of God in general. Thus the prophet Joel, when\nspeaking concerning several desolating judgments, which Israel was\nexposed to, commands them _to sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly;\nand to weep between the porch and the altar; and say, spare thy people,\nO Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach_, Joel ii. 15, 17. This\nis not to be done at all times, but when the providence of God calls for\nit. Therefore we have no warrant for the observation of annual fasts;\nwhen that which was the first occasion thereof, is removed; much less\nfor those weeks of fasting which the Papists observe, which they call\nLent; for which, no sufficient reason can be assigned why it should be\nobserved at that rather than any other time of the year. And their\nfasting on certain days of the week cannot be vindicated; much less\ntheir doing this without joining other religious duties to it, or their\nabstaining from some kinds of food, while they indulge themselves in\neating others that are equally grateful to the appetite; which is a\nludicrous and superstitious way of fasting.\nAgain, another occasional duty or ordinance is, our setting apart time\nfor thanksgiving to God for deliverances from public or national\ncalamities, or those which more immediately respect ourselves and\nfamilies; in which those religious duties are to be performed, that tend\nto express our spiritual joy and thankfulness to God, who is the Author\nthereof, and at the same time, we are to pray, that he would enable us\nto walk as such who are hereby laid under renewed engagements to be his;\nthus the Jews observed some days of thanksgiving for their deliverance\nfrom Haman\u2019s conspiracy, Esth. ix. 20, _& seq._ And this is to be\nreligiously observed, wherein it differs from that carnal joy, which is\ngenerally expressed by those who receive mercies, but do not give glory\nto God, the sole Author thereof.\nMoreover, besides these occasional ordinances, there is another\nmentioned in this answer, namely, vowing to God. Thus the Psalmist says,\n_Vow, and pay unto the Lord_, Psal. lxxvi. 11. which either, more\nespecially, respects their entering into a solemn obligation, or promise\nto give something that was to be applied to the support of the public\nand costly-worship which was performed under the ceremonial law; upon\nwhich account it is said, in the following words, _Bring presents unto\nhim_; or it may be considered as to what concerns the moral reason of\nthe thing, as including in it our resolution to set apart, or apply some\nportion of our worldly substance, as God has prospered us in our secular\naffairs, to the maintaining and promoting his cause and interest in the\nworld. And we ought, at the same time, to devote ourselves to him,\nwhereby we acknowledge his right to us, and all that we have. Thus the\napostle says, concerning the churches of Macedonia, not only that they\ndevoted their substance to God, but that they _gave themselves_, also\n_unto the Lord_, 1 Cor. viii. 5.\nThis does not include in it our resolution to do those things that are\nout of our own power; or, that we will exercise those graces that are\nthe special gift of the Spirit of God, but rather a dedication of\nourselves to him, in hope of obtaining that grace from him which will\nenable us to perform those duties, which are indispensably necessary to,\nand inseparably connected with salvation. This is such a vowing to God,\nas will not have a tendency to ensnare our own consciences, or detract\nfrom his glory, who is alone the Author of all grace; nor does it\ncontain in it the least instance of presumption, but it is a duty which\nwe ought to perform by faith, to his glory and our own edification.\nAnd to this we might add another ordinance, mentioned in this answer;\nnamely, swearing by the name of God; which, as we have elsewhere\nexpressed it, contains a swearing fealty to him, and our consecrating\nand devoting ourselves to him[208]. And as to what respects swearing, as\nit is a religious duty to be performed in subserviency to civil duties,\nwe shall have occasion to speak of that under the third Commandment; and\ntherefore we pass it over at present, and proceed to consider,\n2. That these, and all other religious duties or ordinances which God\nhas enjoined, are to be kept pure and entire. As we are not to cast off\nthe ordinances of God in general, so we must take heed that we do not,\nwhile we perform some, live in the neglect of others; for that is not to\nkeep them entire. Thus private duties are not to shut out those which\nare social in our families or the public assemblies; nor entrench on\nthat time which ought to be allotted for them; and, on the other hand,\nit is not sufficient for us to worship God in public, and, at the same\ntime, cast off all secret duties. This reproves the practice of some\nmodern enthusiasts, who pray not, unless moved by the Spirit, as they\npretend; and deny their obligation to observe the ordinances of baptism\nand the Lord\u2019s supper.\nMoreover, as we are to keep the ordinances of God entire, we are also to\nkeep them pure; that is, to allow of, or practise nothing but what is\nwarranted by the rules which God has given us in his word, in opposition\nto those who corrupt his worship, by intruding those ordinances into it\nwhich are of their own invention; and pretending, that though God has\nnot commanded them, yet the service which we perform (which can be no\nother than will-worship) will be acceptable to him. This leads us,\nII. To consider the sins forbidden in this Commandment. The general\nscope and design hereof, as to what concerns the negative part of it, is\nGod\u2019s prohibiting all false worship, either in our hearts, outward\nactions or gestures, whereby we adhere to our own imaginations rather\nthan his revealed will; which is the only rule of instituted worship.\nThe things forbidden in this commandment may be reduced to three heads;\n1. A not attending on the ordinances of God with that holy, humble, and\nbecoming frame of spirit, that the solemnity of the duties themselves,\nor the authority of God enjoining, or the advantages which we may expect\nto receive by them, call for. When we do not seriously think what we are\ngoing about before we engage in holy duties, or watch over our own\nhearts and affections, or else worship God in a careless and indifferent\nmanner, in which case we may be said to draw nigh to him with our lips,\nwhile our hearts are far from him.\n2. We farther break this commandment, when we invent ordinances which\nGod has no where in his word commanded; or think to recommend ourselves\nto him by such gestures, or modes of worship, which we have no precedent\nor example for in the New Testament; this is what is generally called\nsuperstition and will-worship. Thus we read in the degenerate age of the\nchurch, that _the statutes of Omri were kept, and the works of the house\nof Ahab_, Micah vi. 16. as intimating that false worship which was\npractised by them. And here we cannot but observe, that there are many\nthings in which the Papists are chargeable with superstition and\nwill-worship, if not with idolatry. As for instance,\n(1.) Their worshipping the bread in the sacrament, as supposing it to be\nthe real body and blood of Christ, and not barely the sign thereof;\nunderstanding the words of our Saviour, in which, in instituting this\nordinance, he says, _This is my body_, Matt. xxvi. 26. in a literal\nsense; whereas it ought to be taken in a figurative. Again,\n(2.) Their lifting up the bread in the sacrament, pretending that this\nis a real offering of Christ, and, at the same time, the people being\nobliged to shew all possible marks of sorrow; such as beating their\nbreasts, shaking their heads, &c. as though they really saw Christ on\nthe cross; whereas it is a profaning the Lord\u2019s supper, to say that\nChrist is really and visibly offered therein by the hands of the priest;\nwhich is contrary to what the apostle says of his being but _once\noffered to bear the sins of many_, Heb. ix. 28.\n(3.) They use several superstitious ceremonies in baptism, which have,\nindeed, a shew of religion, but want a divine sanction, and are no other\nthan an addition to Christ\u2019s institution. Thus they use spittle, salt,\nand cream, besides the water with which the child is to be baptised, and\nanoint it with oil, and use exorcism, commanding the unclean spirit to\ndepart out of it, and signing it with the sign of the cross; at which\nthey suppose the Devil to be so terrified, that he is hereby obliged to\nleave it, being by this means, as it were, frighted away. But the\nprincipal reason they give for their adding this ceremony to Christ\u2019s\ninstitution, is to signify that the child is hereby obliged to fight\nmanfully under Christ\u2019s banner; which obligation is neither increased\nnor diminished thereby; and it is a sign which he makes no mention of.\n(4.) Their frequent crossing of themselves, as a preservative against\nsin, and a means to keep them from the power of the Devil, and to render\ntheir prayers acceptable in the sight of God.\n(5.) The splendor and magnificence of their churches, and especially the\nshape and figure of them, as accommodated to that of Solomon\u2019s temple,\nand their situation east and west; and also their bowing to the altar,\nwhich is placed in the east; for which there is not the least shadow of\nargument in scripture, nor example in the purest ages of the church.\n(6.) The ludicrous and unwarrantable ceremonies used in the consecration\nof churches, and the reverence that every one must shew to places thus\nconsecrated, though it be not in the divine worship. And to this we may\nadd, that there are many superstitious ceremonies in consecrating all\nthe vessels and utensils that are used in their churches; yea, the very\nbells are baptised, or, as they express it, consecrated that so the\nDevil may be afraid of the sound thereof, and keep his distance from\nthose places of worship in which they are fixed; which charms can be\nreckoned no other than the sport of the powers of darkness, or looked on\nby them with contempt.\n(7.) They ascribe a divine, yea, a meritorious virtue, to the frequent\nrepeating the Lord\u2019s prayer in Latin, commonly called _Pater noster_,\nand the angel\u2019s salutation of the virgin Mary, mentioned in Luke i. 28.\ncalled _Ave Maria_; which words they put a corrupt sense upon, contrary\nto the proper meaning thereof; which, if only recited, whether\nunderstood or no, it is reckoned acceptable service.\n(8.) The distinction of garments, and the relative holiness of persons\nthat wear them as signified thereby. To which we may add, the canonical\nhours which are appointed for the performing divine service; especially\nif we consider the reason which they allege for it, namely, because\nthere was something remarkable done or suffered by Christ, at those\nhours in the day. These things argue them guilty of superstition.\n(9.) We might also take notice of the many things which they make\nmerchandise of, as consecrated bread, wax candles, &c. to which they\nascribe a spiritual virtue, or some advantages to be received hereby, by\nthose that purchase them; which tends to advance the price thereof.\nThere are also the relicts which they call the church\u2019s treasure, or\nthose rarities which they purchase at a great rate; though some of the\nwiser Papists have made but a jest of them. We pass by many other\nsuperstitious ceremonies used by them, for brevity sake, and shall only\nobserve,\n(10.) Their bowing at the name of Jesus; which can hardly be vindicated\nfrom the charge of superstition, especially because no extraordinary\ninstance of reverence is expressed at the mention of those\nincommunicable attributes of God, which are ascribed to him; nor,\nindeed, do they bow the knee at the mentioning of the word Saviour,\nChrist, or Emmanuel, or when any other divine characters are given him.\nThe only scripture they make use of to vindicate this practice, is in\nPhil. ii. 10. _That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow_; whereas\nit is plain, that this _bowing the knee_ does not signify a bodily\ngesture, but only a subjection of soul to Christ, as _angels,\nauthorities and powers are_ said to be _made subject to him_, 1 Pet.\niii. 22. These, indeed, are a very considerable part of the inhabitants\nof heaven, but they have no knees to bow; and as for _things under the\nearth_, to wit, the powers of darkness; they do not bow to him in a way\nof worship, but are subjected to him as conquered enemies. Which leads\nus to consider,\n3. That they are guilty of the breach of this Commandment, who frame an\nimage of any of the persons of the Godhead, or of any creature in heaven\nor earth, as a means or help made use of in order to their worshipping\nGod. Here it must be enquired,\n(1.) Whether the making images, absolutely, or in all respects, be\nunlawful. To which it is generally answered, that if pictures\nrepresenting creatures, either in heaven or earth, be made with no other\ndesign, but in an historical way, to propagate the memory of persons,\nand their actions to posterity, it seems not to be a breach of this\nCommandment. But the sin forbidden therein, expressed in those words,\n_Making to ourselves the image or likeness of creatures in heaven or\nearth_, is when we design to worship God by them; and accordingly the\nusing bodily gestures to them, such as those which are used in the\nworship of God; as bowing, uncovering the head, &c. wherein a person\ndesigns an act of worship, is idolatry. And if nothing else is intended\nbut the worshipping of God by them, it can hardly be excused from the\nappearance of idolatry at least; so that, according to one of the rules\nbefore laid down for the understanding the Ten Commandments, it is to be\nreckoned a breach of the second Commandment; which is what we are now\nconsidering[209].\n(2.) It must farther be enquired, whether it be unlawful to represent\nany of the persons in the Godhead, by pictures or carved images? to this\nwe answer, that God being infinite and incomprehensible, it is\nimpossible to frame any image like him, Isa. xl. 18. chap. xlvi. 5. Acts\nxvii. 29. Moreover, he assigns this as a reason why Israel should make\nno image of him, _because they saw no manner of similitude when he spake\nto them in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire_; and adds, _lest ye\ncorrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image_, Deut. iv. 15, 16. And\nthe apostle styles this an offering the highest affront to God, when he\nspeaks of some who _changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an\nimage made like to corruptible man_. Rom. i. 23.\nThere are others, who, though they do not much care to defend the\npractice of making pictures of God, yet plead for describing an emblem\nof the Trinity, such as a triangle, with the name Jehovah in the midst\nof it. But that which I would observe concerning this practice is, that\nif the design hereof be to worship God by it, it is idolatry; but if\nnot, it is unwarrantable, and, indeed, unnecessary; since a Trinity of\npersons in the unity of the divine essence, is to be understood as\nrevealed in scripture, and not brought to our remembrance by an emblem,\nwhich is an ordinance of our own invention.\nIt is farther enquired, whether we may not describe our Saviour, as he\nsometimes is by the Papists, in those things that respect his human\nnature? whether we may not pourtray him as an infant in his mother\u2019s\narms; or, as conversing here on earth, or hanging on the cross; as they\nnot only describe him, but adore this image or representation of Christ\ncrucified, which they call a crucifix? To this we answer; that whatever\nof Christ comes within the reach of the art of man to delineate or\ndescribe, is only his human nature, which is not the object of divine\nadoration; and therefore this rather tends to debase than give us raised\nand becoming conceptions of him as such.\nAs to what is argued by some, to prove that it is not unlawful to make\nan image of God, inasmuch as he is sometimes represented as having a\nbody, or bodily parts; and the prophet Daniel describes God the Father,\nas _the ancient of days_, Dan. vii. 9. therefore, they suppose, that it\nis not unlawful for them to make such representations of him by images.\nTo this it may be answered, that God\u2019s being described by the parts of\nhuman bodies, is in condescension to the weakness of our capacities, or\nagreeable to human modes of speaking; in which _the eye_ signifies\nwisdom, _the arm_ power, _the heart_ love, &c. We are, notwithstanding\nthose modes of expression, to abstract in our thoughts, every thing that\nis carnal, or applicable to the creature when conceiving of him, and\ntherefore not to give occasion to any to think that he is like\nourselves, by describing him in such a way. The Papists not only plead\nfor making such like images, but set them up in churches, calling them\nthe laymen\u2019s books, with a design to instruct them in those things which\nthe image represents. To which it may be replied, that such a method of\ninstruction is without any warrant from scripture, as well as contrary\nto the practice of the purest ages of the church, who always thought\nthat the word of God was sufficient to lead them into the knowledge of\nhimself, without making use of a picture to that end.\nBut notwithstanding this colour is put on their practice, of setting up\nsuch-like images in churches; yet there are some who plead for the\nworship of images, only with this distinction, that it is a subordinate\nor a relative worship that they give to them, while, at the same time,\nthe highest worship is given to God only; in which respect they cannot\nexculpate themselves from the charge of idolatry. And, indeed, in some\nof their books of devotion, we find the same expressions used, when they\naddress themselves to the creature, as though they were paying divine\nadoration to God; particularly in the book, that is well known among\nthem, called the _Virgin Mary\u2019s Psalter_; in which her name is often\ninserted instead of the name of God, which is the highest strain of\nblasphemy. Thus when it is said, _O come let us kneel before the Lord\nour Maker_, Psal. xcv. 6. instead of _the Lord_, they put the _Virgin\nMary_. And when it is said, _Have mercy upon me, O God_, &c. Psal. li.\n1. they pray, _Have mercy upon me, O Lady_, &c. which expressions cannot\nbe read without detestation. And there are many more to the like\npurpose, in that book.\nWhen this has been objected against them as a specimen of their\nidolatry, all the reply they make to it is; that the book was written by\na private person, as an help to devotion, but not established by the\nauthority of the church, which is not to be charged with every absurdity\nwhich some of their communion may advance. To which it may be replied,\nthat the church of Rome has been very ready to condemn better books,\nwritten by those who were not in their communion; whereas they never\npublicly condemned this book, but rather commended it, as written with a\ngood design.\nBesides we may farther observe, that there are many blasphemous\nexpressions given to the virgin Mary, in their Breviaries and Missals,\nwhich are used by public authority. Thus she is often addressed to in\nsuch characters as these, viz. the mother of mercy, the gate of heaven,\nthe queen of heaven, the empress of the world; and sometimes she is\ndesired not only to pray her son to help them, but, by the authority of\na mother, to command him to do it. At other times they desire her to\nhelp and save them herself; and accordingly they give her the title of\nRedeemer, and Saviour, as well as our Lord Jesus Christ. And sometimes\nthey profess themselves to put their trust and confidence in her. If\nthis be not idolatry, where is there any to be found in the world?\nTo this we may also add, that idolatry which is practised by them in\ntheir devotion, to the images of other saints. Every saint in their\nKalendar is called upon, in his turn; among whom some indeed were good\nmen, as the martyrs, who refused to be worshipped while on earth; how\nmuch soever these worship them now they are in heaven. But there are\nothers whom the Popes have canonized for saints, who were little better\nthan devils incarnate, while they were here upon earth; and others have\nbeen rebels and traitors to their king and country, and suffered the\njust reward of their wickedness; such as these are found among those\nwhom they pay this worship to. There are also others whom they\nworshipped as saints; concerning whom it may be much questioned whether\nthere ever were such persons in the world; these may be called fabulous\nsaints. Nevertheless, images are made to their honour, and prayers\ndirected to them. And there are other things worshipped by them, which\nnever had life, as the picture of the cross, and many pretended relics\nof the saints. So that upon the whole, we cannot but think that we have,\nin this mode of worship, a notorious instance of the breach of this\nCommandment. And we cannot but conclude, that herein they have\napostatized, or turned aside from the purity of the gospel.\nIt may be observed, that the church, for the first three hundred years\nafter Christ, had comparatively, but little superstition, and no\nidolatry; but in the fourth Century, superstition began to insinuate\nitself into it; then it was that the pictures of the martyrs, who had\nsuffered in Christ\u2019s cause, were first set up in churches, though\nwithout any design of worshipping them; and this was not universally\napproved of. As for image-worship, it was not brought into the church\ntill above seven hundred years after Christ; and then there was a\nconsiderable opposition made to it by some; and this kind of worship was\nset up in one reign, and prohibited in another; but afterwards it\nuniversally prevailed in the Romish church, when arrived to that height\nof impiety and idolatry, without opposition, as it is at this day. We\nnow proceed to observe,\nIII. The reasons annexed to this Commandment, which are taken from the\nconsideration of what God is in himself; _I am the Lord_, or _Jehovah_;\nwhich being a name never given to any creature, is expressive of all his\ndivine perfections, which render him the object of worship, and oblige\nus to perform that worship which he requires, in such a way as is\nagreeable thereunto; he also styles himself a God to his people, _I am\nthy God_; therefore to set up strange gods, or to worship him in a way\nnot prescribed by him, is a violation of his covenant, as well as not\nperforming the duty we owe to him, and would render us unfit to be owned\nby him as his people. And it is farther observed, that they who thus\ncorrupt themselves, and pervert his worship, are styled haters of him,\nand therefore can expect nothing but to be dealt with as enemies. This\nhe gives them to understand, inasmuch as he styles himself _a jealous_,\nor sin-revenging _God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the\nchildren_. For the understanding of which, let it be considered,\n1. That though God does not punish children with eternal destruction,\nfor the sins of their immediate parents, yet these oftentimes bring\ntemporal judgments on families. Thus, all the children of Israel that\nmurmured and despised the good land, so far bare their fathers iniquity,\nthat they wandered in the wilderness near forty years.\n2. These judgments fall heavier on those children that make their\nparents sins their own; which was the case of the Jews. Upon which\noccasion our Saviour tells them, that _all the blood that was shed upon\nthe earth, should come upon them, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto\nthe blood of Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the\naltar_, Matt, xxiii. 35. They approved of, and committed the same sins\nwhich their fathers were guilty of, and consequently are said to fill up\nthe measure of their sins; therefore the judgments of God, which they\nexposed themselves to, were most terrible.\n3. Whatever temporal judgments may be inflicted on children for their\nparents sins, shall be sanctified, and redound to their spiritual\nadvantage, as well as end in their everlasting happiness, if they do not\nfollow their bad example; and therefore it is farther observed, that God\n_shews mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and keep his\nCommandments_. These are very great motives and inducements to enforce\nthe observation of all God\u2019s Commandments, and this in particular.\nFootnote 208:\n  _See more of this in Vol. I. Page 226._\nFootnote 209:\n  _See Page 498._\n                   Quest. CXI., CXII., CXIII., CXIV.\n    QUEST. CXI. _Which is the third Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The third Commandment is, _Thou shalt not take the name of the\n    Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that\n    taketh his name in vain_.\n    QUEST. CXII. _What is required in the third Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The third Commandment requires, that the name of God, his\n    titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths,\n    vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes\n    himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation,\n    word, writing, by an holy profession, and answerable conversation,\n    to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves and others.\n    QUEST. CXIII. _What are the sins forbidden in the third\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the third Commandment are, the not using\n    of God\u2019s name as is required, and the abuse of it, in an ignorant,\n    vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or\n    otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works; by\n    blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots;\n    violating of our oaths, and vows, if lawful, and fulfilling them, if\n    of things unlawful, murmuring and quarrelling at, curious prying\n    into, and misapplying of God\u2019s decrees, and providences,\n    misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any\n    part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions,\n    vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines, abusing it,\n    the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to\n    charms, or sinful lusts and practices, the maligning, scorning,\n    reviling, or any ways opposing of God\u2019s truth, grace, and ways,\n    making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends;\n    being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by uncomfortable, unwise,\n    unfruitful, and offensive walkings, or backslidings from it.\n    QUEST. CXIV. _What are the reasons annexed to the third\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The reasons annexed to the third Commandment in these words\n    [_the Lord thy God_] and [_for the Lord will not hold him guiltless\n    that taketh his name in vain_] are, because, he is the Lord and our\n    God, and therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused\n    by us, especially, because he is so far from acquitting and sparing\n    the transgressors of this Commandment, as that he will not suffer\n    them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit, many such escape the\n    censures and punishments of men.\nAs the second Commandment respects the manner in which God is to be\nworshipped, agreeably to his revealed will; in this we are commanded to\nworship him with that frame of spirit which is suitable to the greatness\nof the work, and the Majesty of him with whom we have to do. By the name\nof God we are to understand all those things whereby he is pleased to\nmake himself known; and these are his names, titles, attributes, words\nand works. The attributes of God have been largely insisted on in that\nquestion, _What is God[210]?_ His names and titles have also been\nconsidered, as belonging to all the persons of the Godhead, in proving\nthat the Son and Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father[211]. His word\nis that in which the glory that is contained in his names, titles and\nattributes, is set forth in the most glorious manner. Thus the Psalmist\nsays; _Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name_, Psal. cxxxviii.\n2. or, thou hast given a brighter discovery of thyself in thy word, than\nthou hast done in any thing else, by which thou hast made thyself known\nto thy creatures. And as for the works of God, whether of nature or of\ngrace, these are designed to lead us into the knowledge of his power,\nwisdom, goodness, holiness and faithfulness, which are eminently\nglorified in all that he does. Now this Commandment respects our having\na due regard to all those ways whereby he makes himself known, and\ncontains a prohibition of every thing that may tend to cast the least\ndishonour upon them.\nThe method in which we are led to speak to it, is to consider,\nI. What is required in it. This supposes, that it is an indispensible\nduty for us to make mention of the name of God. Since he has given us\nsome discoveries of himself, by what means soever he has done it, it\nwould be an instance of the highest contempt of the greatest privilege,\nfor us to express no regard to them; which they may be said practically\nto do, who make no profession of religion, and desire not to be\ninstructed in those things which relate to the name and glory of God;\nwhich argues a person to be abandoned to the greatest wickedness, and to\nlive without God in the world.\nNow there are several duties mentioned in this answer, in which we are\nsaid to make use of God\u2019s name; particularly, when we attend on his\nordinances, viz. the word, sacraments and prayer; and take religious\noaths, and make solemn vows; which, doubtless, are to be performed with\nthe utmost reverence. We have many instances, in scripture, of holy men\nwho, when they have drawn nigh to him in prayer, have adored his divine\nperfections, with a becoming humility. Thus Solomon, at the dedication\nof the temple, addresses himself to God; _There is no god like thee, in\nheaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with\nthy servants, that walk before thee with all their heart_, 1 Kings viii.\n23. And Jacob, when wrestling with God in prayer, says, _O God of my\nfather Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the Lord which saidst unto\nme, Return to thine own country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal\nwell with thee. I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of\nall the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant_, Gen. xxxii. 9,\n10. And Hezekiah expresses himself thus in prayer, _O Lord God of\nIsrael, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even\nthou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and\nearth_, 2 Kings xix. 25. And Daniel in prayer, styles him, _The great\nand dreadful God, keeping the covenant, and mercy to them that love him,\nand to them that keep his commandments_, Dan. ix. 4. And Abraham, when\nstanding before the Lord, and pleading in behalf of Sodom, says,\n_Behold, now I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but\ndust and ashes_, Gen. xviii. 27. And the inhabitants of heaven, who are\nnearest the throne of God, are represented as worshipping him with the\ngreatest reverence, _casting their crowns before the throne_, in token\nof their being unworthy of the honour that they are advanced to, and\nsaying, _Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour and\npower_, Rev. iv. 10, 11. which is to be understood of him, exclusive of\nall others. And as this reverence is to be expressed when we ask any\nthing at the hand of God, by a parity of reason, it ought to expressed\nin any other religious duty, on which he has made, some impressions of\nhis glory.\nIf it be enquired, whether this reverence is consistent with that\nboldness which believers are said to have in prayer, when they are\nexhorted to _come boldly unto the throne of grace_, Heb. iv. 16. and to\n_have boldness to enter into the holiest of all, by the blood of Jesus_,\nchap. x. To this it may be answered, that the word there used[212],\nwhich is called boldness, may be rendered a liberty of speech. So that\nthough he be infinitely above us, and a God of infinite holiness and\npurity, and therefore has the utmost abhorrence of sin, which we have\nreason to charge ourselves with, yet we are encouraged to come to him,\nas sitting on a throne of grace: from whence he displays his glory, as a\nsin-pardoning God, who otherwise appears in his jealousy, as a\nsin-revenging Judge. Therefore this _boldness_ is nothing else but our\nmaking use of that liberty which God gives us to come into his presence\nwith hope of being accepted in his sight, in and through a Mediator.\nWe might farther observe, that as we are to express an holy reverence,\nin drawing nigh to God, in all religious duties; so we ought not to\nthink of any of his works, but with a due regard to, and the highest\nveneration of, his glory shining forth therein. Thus it is said,\n_Remember that thou magnify his work, which men behold_, Job xxxvi. 24.\nand this reverence is to be expressed in our meditations, words and\nwritings; so that we should never think or treat of divine subjects, but\nin an holy manner; we should never speak of any thing, by which God\nmanifests his glory, but with a design to beget in ourselves and others,\na reverential fear of, and the highest esteem for him.\nII. We are now to consider the sins forbidden in this Commandment; and\naccordingly, we violate it by not using the name of God in such a way as\nit is required. This includes in it,\n1. The not making any profession of religion, as being afraid or ashamed\nto own, that in which the name of God is so much concerned. Persons,\nindeed, do not usually arrive to this height of wickedness at once; but\nthe mind is alienated from God, and his worship, by degrees. There is\nfirst a great deal of lukewarmness, formality, and hypocrisy, reigning\nin the heart of man; so that if they attend on the ordinances of God\u2019s\nworship, it is with great indifferency, many prejudices entertained\nagainst them, and with such a frame of spirit as savours more\nprofaneness than true religion. After this they are ashamed of Christ\nand his cause, being influenced by the reproach that is cast on it in\nthe world. Thus the Jews pretended, concerning Christianity, that it was\n_a sect every where spoken against_, Acts xxviii. 22. And Demas forsook\nthe apostle, _having loved this present world_, 2 Tim. iv. 10. being\nmore concerned for his reputation in it, than for Christ\u2019s interest.\nAfter this, such cast off all public worship; and this is generally\nattended with a seared conscience, and running into all excess of riot.\n2. Persons take the name of God in vain, when though they make a\nprofession of religion, yet it is not in such a way as God has required;\nand this is done by using his titles, attributes, or any ordinances or\nworks, in which he makes himself known in an unbecoming manner; with\nignorance, when we speak of the divine perfections, and, at the same\ntime, have no just ideas of what is intended thereby; or when we use the\nname of God with a vanity or levity of spirit, and mention sacred things\nin a common way, whereby we may be said to profane them; or when we\nsuperstitiously pay a kind of veneration to the sound of words, relating\nto divine matters, but regard not the thing signified thereby. This is\nusing the name of God in such a way as he has not required, and\nconsequently taking it in vain.\n3. The name of God is taken in vain by blasphemy; which is a thinking or\nspeaking reproachfully of him, as though he had no right to the glory\nthat belongs to his name; which is, in effect, a cursing him in our\nhearts, and offering the greatest injury that can be done, to a God of\ninfinite perfection; which, though it be no real lessening his essential\nglory, yet it argues the greatest malignity, and highest degree of\nimpiety in those that are guilty of it. This was so great a crime, that,\nby God\u2019s command, it was punished with death, Lev. xxiv. 16.\n4. This Commandment is broken by not using religious oaths in a right\nmanner, or by violating them; and, on the other hand, by all sinful and\nprofane oaths and cursing.\n(1.) By not using religious oaths in a right manner. It is certain, that\nwe are, upon extraordinary occasions, to make mention of the name of\nGod, by solemn oaths, in which we appeal to him as a God of truth, the\nsearcher of hearts, and the avenger of falsehood. That this is a duty,\nappears,\n[1.] In that we have various instances, in scripture, of God\u2019s\ncondescending to confirm what he has spoken, by an oath; wherein he\nappeals to his own perfections for the confirmation of our faith. Thus\nhe is represented as _swearing by himself_, and by _his holiness_, Gen.\nxxii. 16, 17. Psal. lxxxix. 35.\n[2.] There are several examples and commands, in scripture, which make\nit our duty to appeal to God, on some occasions, by solemn oaths. Thus\nit is said, _Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt\nswear by his name_, Deut. vi. 13. And elsewhere, _To me every knee shall\nbow, and every tongue shall swear_, Isa. xlv. 23. But we must observe\nthat there is a vast difference between God\u2019s swearing by himself, or by\nany of his perfections, and man\u2019s swearing by him. When God swears by\nhimself, it is a display of the glory of his perfections, as a God that\ncannot lye; but when man swears by him, it is an act of religious\nworship, containing an acknowledgment of his perfections, and an appeal\nto him, as a God of truth, and the avenger of a lye. Therefore an oath\nis not to be taken, but in matters of great importance, which cannot be\ndecided without it; and being an act of religious worship, it ought to\nbe performed in the most solemn manner; otherwise we profane the name of\nGod, and so violate this commandment. This respects not so much the form\nused in swearing, as the levity of spirit with which it is done, or our\npretending to confirm that which is false hereby.\nThe form used in solemn oaths has been various.\n_1st_, We read of some ceremonies used in swearing, that were only\noccasional. Thus when Jacob and Laban took a solemn oath to each other,\nat their parting, a _pillar was erected_, and a _heap of stones_\ngathered together, and they both eat upon the heaps and _sware by the\nGod of Abraham and Nahor, and the fear of Isaac, that they would do no\ninjury to each other_, Gen. xxxi. 45,-53. Also we read, that when\nAbraham made his servant swear, that he would take a wife for Isaac,\nfrom among his kindred, and not out of the land where he dwelt, he\nordered him to _put his hand under his thigh_, chap. xxiv. 2, 3, 4. This\nform of swearing seemed to be an appeal to God, as having promised that\nhis seed should be increased and multiplied, and that in his seed, all\nthe families of the earth should be blessed; which was a circumstance\nwell adapted to the matter and occasion of the oath, viz. that he should\nprovide such a wife for Isaac as God approved of.\n_2dly_, The common form of swearing used of old, seems to have been by\n_lifting up the hand_ to heaven, thereby signifying their appeal to God,\nwhose throne is there; accordingly the _lifting up the hand to heaven_\nimports the same thing as to swear, according to the scripture-mode of\nspeaking, Deut. xxxii. 40. In this manner Abraham sware, Gen. xiv. 22,\n23. and the angel which appeared to John, Rev. x. 5. and this is\nundoubtedly, a very good and justifiable form of swearing; and it is\nused, in some Protestant countries, even at this day.\nAs to the form used by us in public solemn oaths, viz. laying the hand\non the Bible, or on the gospels, and kissing the book, it is no where\nwarranted by scripture, and therefore is not so eligible as that lifting\nup the hand; yet because it is the common legal form used among us, it\nis rather to be complied with, than that the duty should be neglected;\nbecause, as has been but now observed, some forms of swearing are said\nto have been used in scripture, and not reproved, which were of men\u2019s\ninvention. And the thing principally to be looked at in an oath, is, the\nsolemn appeal made therein to God. Therefore it is the frame of spirit\nwith which this is done, that is chiefly to be regarded. And what we\nhave promised to do, is religiously to be observed, that so our oaths\nmay not be violated.\n_Obj._ The objections against the use of religious oaths, are\nprincipally taken from two or three scriptures, not rightly understood,\nin which they seem to be forbidden; as when our Saviour says, _I say\nunto you, Swear not at all_, Matt. v. 34. and in James v. 12. the\napostle speaks to the same purpose; and it is farther objected, that the\nprophet speaks of this as a national sin; when he says, _Because of\nswearing the land mourneth_, Jer. xxiii. 10.\n_Answ._ In these scriptures profane swearing is forbidden; whereby\npersons make use of the name of God to confirm what they say, in a light\nand trifling manner; or swearing by creatures, as the heaven, the earth,\nor any creature therein. But they do not forbid swearing, as containing\nin it a religious appeal unto God in a solemn manner, for the confirming\nof what we assert. And when the prophet speaks of the _land\u2019s mourning\nbecause of swearing_, it may be rendered, as in the margin of our\nBibles; _because of cursing the land mourneth_, intimating, that it was\na custom among them, to imprecate the wrath of God against one another;\nwhich was a sin highly provoked to the Majesty of heaven. And, besides,\nit appears that the prophet is speaking of profane cursing or swearing,\nby what is said in the words immediately following; _for both prophet\nand priest are profane_. So that people of all ranks and degrees, were\nprofane; the prophets and priests by abusing the sacred mysteries; and\nthe people, in their common discourse, using oaths and curses; for which\nthings the land mourned. This is the plain sense of that scripture; and\ntherefore no arguments can be drawn from thence to prove that solemn and\nreligious oaths are unlawful.\nIt is, indeed, unlawful to swear by creatures, as is observed in the\nscriptures but now mentioned; for they are not omniscient, and therefore\nnot to be appealed to for the decided matters, which are known to none\nbut ourselves, and the Searcher of hearts; neither are they to be\nreckoned avengers of the cause of injured truth; for they have not a\nsovereignty over man, or a right to judge and punish them in such a way\nas God has; for that belongs only to him, and therefore to swear by\ntheir name, is to give them a branch of his glory, and consequently to\ntake his name in vain.\n(2.) This Commandment is broken by violating religious oaths, both those\nthat are assertory or promissory. Therefore, when men assert that, for\ntruth, which is uncertain; or, especially if they know it to be false,\nand so design to deceive, they break this Commandment. As for promissory\noaths, they contain an appeal to God concerning what respects some\nthings to be done by us, conducive to the good of others. Now we are\nguilty of the breach of this Commandment.\n[1.] When we assert a thing, without implying this condition that ought\nto be contained in it, if God will, or he be pleased to enable us to do\nit. This the apostle particularly mentions, when he blames those who\nsay, _To day or to morrow we will go to such a city, and continue there\na year, and buy, and sell, and get gain. Whereas they know not what\nshall be on the morrow._ And therefore, they _ought to say, If the Lord\nwill, we shall live, and do this, or that_, James iv. 13, 15.\n[2.] When we promise a thing, that is out of our power to perform; and,\nmuch more, when we do not design to perform it.\n[3.] When we promise a thing, which is in itself unlawful; as the Jews\ndid, who _bound themselves under a curse, that they would not eat nor\ndrink till they had killed Paul_, Acts xxiii, 12. If we have obliged\nourselves by an oath, to perform that which is unlawful, as we sin in\nmaking, we should do so in fulfilling it. There are, however, some cases\nin which persons may not perform what they have sworn to do, and yet not\nbe guilty of perjury, or violation of their oaths; as,\n_1st_, When they have used their utmost endeavours to fulfil what they\nhave promised to do, but yet cannot accomplish it. Though here it must\nbe observed, that if the thing promised was absolutely out of their\npower when the promise was made, the oath (as we but now observed) was\nunlawful. But supposing the thing was in their power when they promised\nit; but an unforeseen providence has put it out of their power at\npresent, though they have used their utmost endeavours to perform it,\nthey are not chargeable with the guilt of perjury.\n_2dly_, If we have promised to do a thing that is for the advantage of\nanother; but now see reason to alter our mind, apprehending some\ndetriment will accrue thereby to ourselves; we must, notwithstanding,\nfulfil our promise. Thus the Psalmist says, _he sweareth to his own\nhurt, and changeth not_, Psal. xxv. 4. However, if the person to whom we\nhave made the promise, who is to receive the advantage by our fulfilling\nit, is willing to discharge us from our obligation, we may omit to do\nit, and not be guilty of perjury.\nHere it might be enquired; whether we are always obliged to fulfil a\npromise extorted from us by violence? In answer to which, it is\ngenerally supposed, by divines, that we are not. Nevertheless, the\nperson can hardly be excused from sin in snaking such a promise, when he\ndesigns not to perform it, though some small degree of force or\nthreatening were used; especially since the will cannot be obliged to\nconsent, or the tongue to utter the promise. And to all this we may add,\nthat they are guilty of the breach of this Commandment (how much soever\nthey may think themselves guiltless) who use equivocations, or mental\nreservations, in taking solemn and religious oaths. Thus the Papists\nmake no scruple of swearing to support the government under which they\nlive, and yet take the first opportunity that offers to subvert it,\npretending they swore to support it as it stood before the reformation;\nor when they swear allegiance to their sovereign, and yet do what they\ncan to dethrone him; and have this mental reservation, that they\nintended only to do it for the present, till they have a convenient\nopportunity to join in a successful rebellion. By this means they break\nthrough the solemn tie of religious oaths, elude the law, and impose\nupon the common sense of mankind, in such a way, as even the Heathen\nthemselves are afraid and ashamed to do.\n(3.) This farther leads us to consider this Commandment as broken by\nswearing profanely; namely, when we make use of the name of God, and\npretend to confirm what we assert by an appeal to him, and, at the same\ntime, are far from doing this in a religious manner. This many do, who\ngive vent to their passions by profane swearing, by invoking the name of\nGod upon light and trifling occasions, without that due regard that\nought always to be paid to his divine Majesty.\nUnder this head we may observe, that cursing is a vile sin, whether a\nman imprecates the wrath of God on himself or others. They who curse\nthemselves, do, in effect, pray that God would hasten their everlasting\ndestruction; as though their damnation slumbered, or as if it were a\nthing to be wished for. These do that which the devils themselves would\nnot venture to do. And to curse others is to put up a profane wicked\nprayer to God, to pour out his vengeance upon them, which is the highest\naffront to him; as though the vials of his wrath were to be emptied on\nmen, when they pleased, to satisfy their passionate revenge against\nthem. This also includes in it a vile instance of uncharitableness,\ntowards those whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, Matt. xxii.\n39. And how contrary is it to that golden rule laid down by our Saviour,\n_All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so\nto them?_ chap. xvii. 12. Thus we are said to break this Commandment by\nperjury or profane swearing. And to this we may add, that it is\nnotoriously broken by sinful vows; either when we resolve, or determine,\nto do what is unlawful, or bring ourselves under solemn engagements, to\ndo that which is lawful, to our own strength, without dependance on the\ngrace of God in Christ.\n(4.) It is farther observed in this answer, that men take the name of\nGod in vain, by sinful lots; but this is to be farther explained.\nTherefore let it be considered; That when lots were an ordinance by\nwhich God, in an extraordinary manner, determined things that were\nbefore unknown; they being an instituted means of appealing to him for\nthat end; as in the case of Achan and others, Josh. vii. 13, 14. Acts i.\n26. then lots were not to be used in a common way, for that would have\nbeen a profaning a sacred institution. But since this extraordinary\nordinance is now ceased, it does not seem unlawful, so as to be an\ninstance of profaneness, to make use of lots in civil matters; [213]\nprovided we do not consider them as an ordinance which God has\nappointed, in which we think we have ground to expect his immediate\ninterposure; and to depend upon it as though it were a divine oracle. In\nthis view it would be unlawful at present, to use lots in any respect\nwhatsoever.\n(5.) Persons are said to break this Commandment by murmuring,\nquarrelling at, curiously prying into, and misapplying God\u2019s decrees or\nprovidences, or perverting what he has revealed in his word, _i. e._\nwhen we apply things sacred to profane uses, and have not a due regard\nto the glory of God, which is contained therein; when we pervert\nscripture, by making use of those sacred expressions that are contained\ntherein, in our common discourse, as some make the scripture the subject\nof their profane wit and drollery. This is certainly a taking God\u2019s name\nin vain. And, it is farther added, that we do so, by maintaining false\ndoctrines, _i. e._ when we pretend, that such a doctrine is from God,\nwhen it is not, or that he makes himself known hereby; when the doctrine\nis altogether disowned by him.\n(6.) This Commandment is farther broken, by making use of God\u2019s name as\na charm; as when the writing, or pronouncing some name of God, is\npretended to be an expedient to heal diseases, or drive away evil\nspirits; which is a great instance of profaneness, and that which he\nabhors.\n(7.) This Commandment is farther broken, by reviling or opposing God\u2019s\ntruth, grace, and ways; whereby we cast contempt on that which is most\nsacred, and lightly esteemed that which he sets such a value on, and\nmakes himself known by. To this we may add, that this is done by\nhypocrisy, and sinister ends in religion, whereby we walk, so that we\nare an offence to others, and backslide from the ways of God. This is an\nabuse of that which ought to be our glory, and a disregarding that,\nwhereby God manifests his name and glory to the world.\nIII. We are now to consider the reasons annexed to the third\nCommandment. And these are taken,\n1. From the consideration of what God is in Himself, as he is the Lord,\nwhose name alone is Jehovah; whereby he puts us in mind of his\nsovereignty over us, and his undoubted right to obedience from us; and\nhereby intimates that his excellency should fill us with the greatest\nreverence and humility, when we think or speak of any thing, by which he\nmakes himself known. Moreover, he reveals himself to his people as their\nGod, that so his greatness should not confound us, or his dread, as an\nabsolute God, whom we have offended, make us despair of being accepted\nin his sight. Therefore we are to look upon him as our reconciled God\nand Father in Christ; which is the highest motive to obedience.\n2. The observation of this Commandment is farther enforced, by a\nthreatening denounced against those that break it; concerning whom it is\nsaid, That the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in\nvain. This implies that there will be a judgment, a reckoning day, when\nall shall be called to an account; and it shall be known whether they\nare guilty or not guilty. It is farther observed, that the profaning of\nGod\u2019s name is a sin that carries in it a great weight of guilt, and\nrenders the sinner liable to punishment, in proportion thereunto; and\naccordingly God is said not to hold them guiltless, or that they shall\nnot escape the punishment from him; though they may, and often do,\nescape punishment from men.\nThere are many instances of the profanation of the name of God, which no\nlaws of man can reach. As when we attend on his ordinances without that\ninward purity of heart, and those high and becoming thoughts of him,\nwhich we ought always to entertain. On the other hand, human laws\nagainst open profaning the name of God, are not severe enough to deter\nmen from it; and if they are, they are seldom put in execution; which is\none reason why we behold the name of God so openly blasphemed, and yet\nthis iniquity go unpunished from men. Nevertheless, such are to expect\nthat God will follow them with the tokens of his displeasure, sometimes\nwith temporal, at other times with spiritual judgments. And this is\nassigned as a reason why we ought to make mention of the name of God, or\nof every thing whereby he makes himself known, in such a way, as that we\nmay glorify him thereby.\nFootnote 210:\n  _See Vol. I. Quest._ iv.\nFootnote 211:\n  _Quest._ xi.\nFootnote 212:\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\nFootnote 213:\n  If they appeal to God in an irreverent manner, they are a violation of\n  this commandment. If they be not appeals to him, they are in fact, an\n  application to him without any knowledge of him, and this is Atheism.\n    QUEST. CXV. _Which is the fourth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The fourth Commandment is, _Remember the Sabbath day to keep\n    it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the\n    seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not\n    do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant,\n    nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is\n    within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,\n    the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day;\n    wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it._\n    QUEST. CXVI. _What is required in the fourth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The fourth Commandment requireth of all men, the sanctifying,\n    or keeping holy to God, such set time as he hath appointed in his\n    word; expressly, one whole day in seven, which was the seventh from\n    the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the\n    first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of\n    the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament,\n    called the Lord\u2019s day.\nIn this Commandment it is supposed, that God is the sovereign Lord of\nour time; which is to be improved by us, to the best purposes, as he\nshall direct. And, inasmuch as there are some special reasons which he\nhas appointed for the exercise of religious worship, these are called\n_holy days_, and as we are to abstain from our secular employments\ntherein, while engaging in religious duties, they are called _sabbaths_;\nand that more especially, because they are sanctified, by God, for his\nservice. These are considered more generally, as including in them all\nthose set times which God has appointed in his word, which is contained\nin the moral reason of this Commandment; and therefore, if he was\npleased to institute, as he did under the ceremonial law, various\nSabbaths, or days appointed for rest, and the performance of religious\nworship, his people are obliged to observe them. And therefore, I take\nthe meaning of this commandment to be, Remember a sabbath day, or every\nsabbath day, or every day which God hath sanctified for that end, to\nkeep it holy; and then follows the particular intimation of the weekly\nsabbath. This, as is observed in the answer we are explaining, was the\nseventh day of the week, from the beginning of the world, to the\nresurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since; which\nis the Christian Sabbath, and, in the New Testament, is called the\nLord\u2019s day. In considering the subject-matter of this Commandment, we\nmust\nI. Inquire, since it is contained in the decalogue, which is an abstract\nof the moral law; whether we are obliged to observe the Sabbath by the\nlaw of nature, or by some positive law. For the understanding of which,\nlet it be premised, that some laws are moral by way of eminency, or, in\nthe highest sense, as distinguished from all positive law; and others we\nmay call moral-positive, that is, the laws are positive; but yet there\nis some moral reason annexed to enforce our obedience to them. And this\nmoral reason is either what is founded in the sovereignty of God\ncommanding, which takes place in all positive laws, which, in this\nrespect, are moral, though they could not be known without a divine\nrevelation; or else positive laws may have a moral circumstance annexed\nto them, to engage us to obedience, taken from some glory that redounds\nto God, or good to ourselves, by the observation thereof; or from some\nother reason which God annexes to them. As for instance, the reason\nannexed to the fourth Commandment, is taken from God\u2019s resting from the\nwork of creation on the seventh day, and its being sanctified for our\nperforming religious duties therein. Here we shall consider,\n1. In what respects the Sabbath is moral in the highest and most proper\nsense of the word, as before mentioned. That this may appear, we shall\nlay down the following propositions, which may be considered in their\nrespective connexion.\n(1.) It is a branch of the moral law, that God should be worshipped.\nThis is founded in his divine perfections, in the relation we stand in\nto him, and in the consideration of our being intelligent creatures,\ncapable of worship.\n(2.) The moral law obliges us to perform social worship. This appears\nfrom hence, that man, as a creature, is capable of society, and\nnaturally inclined and disposed to it: which we cannot but know, when we\nlook into ourselves, and consider the disposition of all intelligent\ncreatures, leading them together with ourselves, to this end; so that\nwithout any positive law to direct us, we should be naturally inclined\nto converse with one another.\n(3.) As man is a creature designed to worship God, as the law of nature\nsuggests, so it appears, from the same law, that he is obliged to\nperform social worship. For if we are obliged to converse with one\nanother, and thereby to be helpful to each other, in other respects;\ncertainly we are obliged, by the same law to converse with one another\ntherein, and to express our united concurrence in those things that\nrelate to the glory of God.\n(4.) The law of nature farther suggests, that as the whole of our\nbusiness, in this world, is not included in that of society, which is\nrather to be occasional than stated; and there are other secular\nemployments, which we are to be engaged in, in which we do not converse\nwith others; so we are not to spend our whole time in public or social\nworship. Therefore,\n(5.) It follows from hence, that some stated times are to be appointed\nfor this end; and it is agreeable to the law of nature, that God, who is\nthe sovereign Lord of our time, as well as the object of social worship,\nshould appoint these times; that is, that he should ordain a Sabbath, or\nwhat proportion of time he pleases, for us to perform those religious\nduties which he enjoins, therein. These considerations, relating to our\nobservation of the Sabbath, are purely moral, and not positive.\n2. We shall shew in what respects the Sabbath is positive, and not moral\nin the highest and most propense sense of the word. Here let it be\nconsidered, that it is the result of a positive law, that one proportion\nof time should be observed for a Sabbath, rather than another; namely,\nthat it should be a seventh, rather than a third, fourth, fifth, or\nsixth part of our time; for this could not have been known by the light\nof nature, any more than the other branches of instituted worship that\nare to be performed therein. So that, whether it be the seventh day in\nthe week, or the first, which we are to observe, this being founded in\nthe divine will, we conclude it to be a positive law. This we are\nobliged to assert, that we may fence against two extremes, namely, that\nof those who, on the one hand, deny the Sabbath to have any thing of a\nmoral circumstance contained in it; and that of others, who suppose that\nthere is no idea of a positive law in it. That, in some respects, the\nfourth Commandment is a branch of the moral law, may be proved from the\nfollowing arguments:\n(1.) It is inserted, among other commandments that are moral, which were\nproclaimed by the voice of God from mount Sinai, whereas the ceremonial\nand judicial laws were not; though they were given by divine\ninspiration. _These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the\nmount, out of the midst of the fire of the cloud, and the thick\ndarkness, with a great voice; and he added no more_, Deut. v. 22. _viz._\nat that time.\nMoreover, they were written on two tables, with the finger of God, which\nnone of the other laws were; and were laid up in the ark before the\nLord, Exod. xxxi. 18. all which denotes the dignity and perpetuity of\nthese laws, above all others that were ceremonial, judicial, or merely\npositive.\n(2.) The Sabbath was enjoined to be observed not only by the Israelites,\nwho were in covenant with God, together with their servants, who were\nmade proselytes to their religion, and were obliged to observe the\nceremonial and other positive laws; but it was also to be observed by\nthe stranger within their gates, namely, the Heathen, who dwelt among\nthem, who were not in covenant with God, and did not observe the\nceremonial law; these were obliged to obey the Sabbath, it being, in\nmany respects, a branch of the moral law.\n(3.) If the observation of the Sabbath had been a duty of the\nceremonial, and, in no respects, of the moral law, it would have been\nwholly abolished at the death of Christ; but, though then the day was\naltered, yet there was still a Sabbath observed, after his resurrection,\neven when the ceremonial law was no longer in force.\n(4.) The weekly Sabbath is distinguished from all the ceremonial\nfestivals; which are also called _sabbaths_, in that God lays a special\nclaim to it, as his own day; and therefore it is called, in this\nCommandment, _The sabbath of the Lord thy God_; and it is styled, _his\nholy day_; Isa. lviii. 13. by way of eminence, to distinguish it from\nother days, which he has appointed to be, in other respects, devoted to\nhis service; and when changed, it is called The _Lord\u2019s day_, Rev. i.\n10. which is a peculiar honour put upon it. For these reasons we\nconclude, that the Sabbath has in it something moral, and is not a part\nof the ceremonial law.\n_Obj._ 1. It is objected, that the Sabbath is included, by the apostle,\namong the ceremonial laws, which were designed to be abrogated, under\nthe gospel-dispensation; and therefore he says, in Col. ii. 16, 17. _Let\nno man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy\nday, or of the new moon; or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of\nthings to come; but the body is of Christ._\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that by the Sabbath days, which are\n_a shadow of things to come_, we are to understand the Jewish festivals;\nsuch as the new moons, the passover, pentecost, the feast of\ntabernacles, &c. which are often called sabbaths: wherein holy\nconvocations were held. So that when the apostle says, _Let no man judge\nyou_, in respect of this matter, he means, let none have occasion to\nreprove you for your observing of those days, which were merely\nceremonial, the design whereof was to typify the gospel-rest. Now, that\nthe apostle does not mean the weekly Sabbath, is plain; for hereby he\nwould contradict his own practice, and that of the churches in his day,\nwho observed it; whereas, the other sabbaths were abolished, together\nwith the ceremonial law.\nMoreover, it is evident, that he intends no more than the ceremonial\nsabbaths, or Jewish festivals; because he adds, _Let no man therefore\njudge you in meat or in drink_, as well as _in respect of an holy day_,\n&c. by which he does not mean, let no man have reason to judge or\ncondemn you for gluttony or drunkenness, but for your abstaining from\nseveral sorts of meat, forbid by the ceremonial law; by which he means\nthat the distinction of meats is removed under the gospel-dispensation.\nAnd consequently the ceremonial sabbaths, or holy days, are taken away;\nwhich are intended by the _sabbath day_ in that place, and not the\nweekly Sabbath; and therefore our translation rightly renders it, the\n_sabbath days_, not the Sabbath day. Or if it ought to be rendered _the\nsabbath day_, or the weekly Sabbath, because it is distinguished from\nthe holy days before mentioned; then it may be farther replied to it,\nthat he means the seventh-day Sabbath, which was abolished, together\nwith the ceremonial law, in opposition to the Lord\u2019s day; and how far\nthis was a sign or shadow of good things to come, will be considered in\nwhat will be replied to the next objection.\n_Obj._ 2. It is farther objected, by those who pretend that the Sabbath\nis a branch of the ceremonial law, that it is said, in Exod. xxxi. 16,\n17. _The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their\ngenerations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the\nchildren of Israel for ever, &c._\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that whenever the weekly Sabbath has\nan idea annexed to it, agreeably to that of the ceremonial law; as when\nit is said to be _a sign_ between God and Israel, as in this scripture,\nwe are to understand nothing hereby, but that there was a ceremonial\naccommodation annexed to it, as an ordinance for their faith, in\nparticular, signifying the gospel-rest; which signification was not\nannexed to it from the beginning; but when it was given to Israel. From\nthe beginning, it was not a type; but when God gave the ceremonial law,\nit was made a type. Even as the rainbow, which proceeds from natural\ncauses, and was, doubtless, set in the heavens before Noah\u2019s time; yet\nit was not ordained to be a sign of the covenant between God and him,\ntill God ordered it to be so, in his time. Thus God ordained the Sabbath\nto be a type or sign to Israel, when he gave them the ceremonial law,\nthough it was not so before. And at Christ\u2019s resurrection it ceased to\nbe an ordinance, for their faith in the gospel-rest, or to be observed,\nwhen another day was substituted in the room of it, to wit, the first\nday of the week.\n_Obj._ 3. It is farther objected, that when the observation of the\nSabbath was enjoined, God bade the Israelites, in Deut. v. 15. to\n_remember that_ they were _servants in the land of Egypt, and that the\nLord_ their _God brought_ them _out thence through a mighty hand, and by\na stretched out arm_; and _therefore commanded them to keep the\nSabbath-day_.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied,\n1. That God\u2019s bringing his people out of Egypt, is no argument that this\nis a part of the ceremonial law, which was given soon after that time.\nFor we read in the preface to the ten Commandments, of his bringing his\npeople out of the land of Egypt; which is assigned as a reason why they\nshould observe all the Commandments. Therefore it might as well be\ninferred, that they are all a part of the ceremonial law, as that the\nfourth Commandment is so; because enforced by the same motive.\n2. Though this particular reason is given to induce the Israelites to\nobserve this Commandment, and it is in a more especial manner, applied\nto that dispensation of providence which they were lately under; yet\nthis could not be said to take place in the first institution of the\nSabbath, if we suppose that it was instituted before Moses\u2019s time, which\nwe shall endeavour to prove under a following head.\n3. This particular reason, taken from their having been _servants in\nEgypt_, is added to enforce the obligation laid on masters, to let their\nservants rest on the Sabbath-day; namely, because they themselves were\nonce servants in Egypt, without any regard had herein to the matter of\nthe Commandments, or any intimation that it is a branch of the\nceremonial law.\nII. We shall now consider when this law, relating to the observation of\nthe Sabbath, was first given. There are various opinions about this\nmatter.\n1. Some think the Sabbath was first instituted when God spake to Israel\nfrom mount Sinai; inasmuch as it is one of the ten Commandments, which\nGod gave them from thence[214].\nBut to this it may be replied, that the Sabbath was observed some days\nbefore Israel came into the wilderness of Sinai, viz. when they were in\nthe wilderness of Sin. Thus Moses, when speaking concerning their\ngathering twice as much _manna_ as was usual, the day before the\nSabbath, assigns this is as a reason for it, _To morrow is the rest of\nthe holy Sabbath unto the Lord_, Exod. xvi. 13. And that this was before\nthey encamped at mount Sinai, appears from hence, namely, that it is\nsaid, that _they came into the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of\nthe second month_, ver. 2. Whereas they did not come into the wilderness\nof Sinai, till the _third month_, chap. xix. 1. Therefore,\n2. Others fix the Epocha of the giving this law, from their coming into\nthe wilderness of Sin; this being the first time, in which the Sabbath\nis expressly said to be observed, in scripture.\nBut to this it may be replied; that nothing can be justly inferred from\nthe mode of expression, used by Moses in this scripture, as though it\nargued the giving a new law, that had not been before observed; but only\nthe putting them in mind of the observation of that day, which had, for\nsome time been disregarded; and accordingly it is assigned as a reason\nof their gathering twice the quantity of manna on the sixth day, which\nsupposes that they knew before hand, that they were to rest on the\nseventh; though it is highly probable, that the observation of this\nCommandment had been neglected, for some years past while they were in\nEgypt; and it may be, that they were not suffered, by those who held\nthem there in bondage, to observe this, and many other of the divine\nlaws. Nevertheless, the memory of the Sabbath was not wholly lost among\nthem, which Moses puts them now in mind of.\nThe most probable opinion therefore relating to the institution of the\nSabbath, is, that it was given to man from the beginning; which may be\nargued,\n(1.) From the reason annexed to the Commandment, to wit, God\u2019s resting\nfrom his work of creation; and it immediately follows, that when he\nrested from his work, he blessed and sanctified the seventh day; that so\nman might celebrate and commemorate his power and glory displayed\ntherein, Gen. ii. 1, 2, 3.\n_Obj._ To this it is objected; that God\u2019s blessing and sanctifying the\nseventh day, may be understood _proleptically_, as denoting, that at\nfirst he sanctified, or ordained that it should be a Sabbath, to his\npeople in the following ages; and that this did not take place till\nMoses\u2019s time; and accordingly they suppose, that he having been speaking\nof the creation of the world, and God\u2019s resting from his work, gives\nthem to understand, that this was the reason of the law, which was now\ngiven them, concerning the observation of the Sabbath, which they never\nheard of before.\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, That this sense of the text will\nappear very absurd to any unprejudiced person; since if God\u2019s resting\nfrom his work, which is mentioned immediately before, as the reason of\nhis sanctifying the seventh day, is to be taken literally, why must his\nsanctifying the Sabbath be taken figuratively? if the one be an account\nof what was just done, why should the other be an account of what was\nnot to take place till two thousand and five hundred years after?\n(2.) If God had a church in the world, and public worship was performed\nby them from Adam to Moses\u2019s time, then, there were set times, in which\nthey were to meet together for that end, and consequently a Sabbath,\nwhich was equally necessary for the good of the church, in foregoing as\nwell as following ages; and therefore we cannot suppose that it should\nbe denied that privilege then, which had been granted it ever since; or,\nthat from Moses\u2019s time they should be obliged to celebrate the glory of\nGod, as their Creator, sovereign Ruler, and bountiful Benefactor; and\nthat a seventh part of time should be allotted them for this service, by\nhis express command, and yet he should lose the glory, and his people\nthe advantage arising from it, before that time.\n_Obj._ It is objected to this, that the scripture is wholly silent as to\nthis matter, and therefore nothing can be concluded in favour of the\nargument we are maintaining.\n_Answ._ Some think that the scripture is not wholly silent as to this\nmatter; but that it may be inferred from what we read in Gen. iv. 3, 4.\nin which it is said, that _in process of time it came to pass, that Cain\nbrought an offering unto the Lord_; which was, doubtless, an instance of\npublic worship. We render the words _in process of time_; but they may,\nwith equal justice, be rendered, as it is observed in the margin, _at\nthe end of days_; that is, at the end of that cycle of days which we\ngenerally call _a week_, or on the seventh day; then the offering was\nbrought, and the solemn worship performed, and hereby the Sabbath\nsanctified according to God\u2019s institution. But if this argument be not\nallowed of, it does not follow that the scripture\u2019s not mentioning their\nobserving a Sabbath, gives us just ground to suppose that they did not\nobserve any. It might as well be argued, that because the scripture\nspeaks very little of any public worship performed before the flood,\nthat therefore there was none in the world; or, that because we do not\nread of the church\u2019s observing a Sabbath, and many other parts of\ninstituted worship all the time of the judges, which is said to be\n_about the space of four hundred and fifty years_, Acts xiii. 20.\ntherefore it follows that a Sabbath, was not observed by them, during\nthe whole of that interval, and all instituted worship was wholly\nneglected.\nThe next thing to be inquired into is, whether the Sabbath was\ninstituted before or after the fall of our first parents? And it may be\nobserved; that it appears to have been instituted before their fall;\nbecause the reason of its institution was God\u2019s resting from his work of\ncreation, of which we read before the account of their fall, as appears\nfrom the scripture before mentioned.\n_Obj._ It is objected that Adam in innocency had no manservant nor\nmaid-servants, nor stranger within his gate; and therefore was not in a\ncapacity of observing this Commandment.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That before the world was increased,\nour first parents might observe the principal thing contained in this\nCommandment, by setting apart a day for religious worship: and when the\nworld increased, the other part of the Commandment, which was only\ncircumstantial, might take place. And, indeed, this objection might be\nas much alleged against Adam\u2019s being obliged to yield obedience to the\nfifth, seventh, and eighth Commandments, as against his obeying the\nfourth.\nIII. It is farther observed, in this answer, that the day which we call\na seventh part of time, was the seventh day of the week, from the\nbeginning of the world, till the resurrection of Christ; and the first\nday of the week, ever since, to continue to the end of the world; which\nis the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord\u2019s day. That the seventh day of the\nweek was observed as a Sabbath, at first, is taken for granted; and we\ndo not find that it was abolished by a positive law, so that there\nshould be no Sabbath; but the day was changed, by substituting another\nin the room of it. If, according to the fourth Commandment, there is to\nbe but one Sabbath in the week, and the other six days thereof are\nallowed for our own lawful employments; and if the first day of the week\ncan be proved, as we shall attempt to do, to be the Christian Sabbath,\nthen it follows, that the seventh day ceases to be a Sabbath.\nIt may be, indeed, observed, from several ecclesiastical writers, that\nsome in the three first centuries, observed, both the seventh and the\nfirst day of the week. As for the apostles, they often assembled with\nthe Jews, in their synagogues, on the seventh day, Acts xiii. 14. and\nxvii. 2. but this was done with a design to propagate the Christian\nreligion among them, which could not, with equal conveniency, be done on\nother days. And the church afterwards met together on that day, as well\nas the Lord\u2019s day, apprehending that though it was not now to be\nreckoned God\u2019s holy day, or the Christian Sabbath; yet it was expedient,\nthat hereby they should keep up the memory of his having, on that day,\nfinished the work of creation; and others kept it as a day of fasting,\naccompanied with other religious exercises, in memory of Christ\u2019s lying\nthat day in the grave. But this can hardly be justified in them.\nHowever, it is evident that they did not pay the same regard to it as\nthe Lord\u2019s day, nor style it God\u2019s holy day, nor the Christian Sabbath,\nby way of eminency. And some have expressly intimated, that whatever\nregard they paid to the seventh day, or what assemblies soever they held\nfor worship therein, they did not observe it in the same way as the Jews\ndid[215]; neither were they obliged to hold meetings on that day, as\nthey were on the Lord\u2019s day, it being, in part, left to their\ndiscretion; and it was supposed, that they had sufficient leisure from\ntheir secular callings; and therefore might attend to the worship of God\non that day, as an opportunity offered itself; though they did not count\nit equally holy with the Lord\u2019s day; nor were they obliged, when the\nworship was over, to abstain from their secular employment[216]. But\nthis I only mention occasionally, to obviate an objection taken from the\npractice of some of the ancient church, in observing the seventh day of\nthe week, which does not much affect the cause we are maintaining, our\ndesign being to prove that the first day of the week is ordained to be\nthe Christian Sabbath.\nBut before we enter on that subject, it may be necessary, to prepare our\nway for it, to premise,\n1. That it does not, in the least, derogate from the honour and glory of\nGod, to change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the\nweek. It would, indeed, derogate from the glory of God, if he should\ntake away one Sabbath, and not institute another in the room of it; for\nthen he would lose the honour of that public worship, which he has\nappointed to be performed on that day.\nMoreover, if there be a greater work than that of creation, to be\nremembered and celebrated, it tends much more to the advancing the glory\nof God, to appoint a day for the solemn remembrance thereof, than if it\nshould be wholly neglected. And to this we may add, that if all men must\nhonour the Son, even as they honour the Father, then it is expedient,\nthat a day should be set apart for his honour, namely, the day on which\nhe rested from the work of redemption, or, as the apostle says, _ceased\nfrom it, as God did from his_, Heb. iv. 10.\n2. It was expedient, that God should alter the Sabbath, from the seventh\nto the first day of the week; for,\n(1.) Hereby Christ took occasion to give a display of his glory, and in\nparticular of his sovereign authority, to enjoin what time he would have\nus set apart for his worship under the gospel-dispensation, as well as\nwhat worship he will have performed therein; and to discover himself to\nbe, as he styles himself; _The Lord of the Sabbath day_, Matt. xii. 8.\n(2.) We, in the observation thereof, signify our faith, in a public\nmanner, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that the work of our\nredemption is brought to perfection; and consequently, that there is a\nway prepared for our justification and access to God, as our God, in\nhope of finding acceptance in his sight.\n3. All the ordinances of gospel-worship have a peculiar relation to\nChrist; therefore it is expedient that the time in which they are to be\nperformed, under this present gospel-dispensation, should likewise have\nrelation to him; therefore that day must be set apart in commemoration\nof his work of redemption, in which he finished it, and that was the\nfirst day of the week.\nThis leads us to consider, what ground we have to conclude that the\nSabbath was changed, from the seventh to the first day of the week after\nthe resurrection of Christ. And this will appear,\n(1.) From the example of Christ and his apostles, who celebrated the\nfirst day of the week as a Sabbath, after his resurrection. Thus we read\nin John xx. 19. that _the same day at evening, being the first day of\nthe week, when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled\nfor fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them, and\nsaid, Peace be unto you_. And ver. 26. _After eight days_, or the eighth\nday after, inclusive, _again his disciples were within; then came Jesus,\nthe doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto\nyou_. Where we may observe,\n[1.] That it was not merely an occasional meeting, but a fixed one,\nwhich returned weekly. Therefore they met eight days after, or the\nfollowing first day of the week; which was the second Christian Sabbath.\n[2.] On both these days of their meeting together for public worship,\nChrist appeared in the midst of them, and spake peace unto them; which\nincludes his owning the day, and confirming their faith in the\nobservation of it as a Sabbath, for the future.\n_Obj._ It is objected, that the reasons of the apostles\u2019 meeting\ntogether on the first day of the week, was for fear of the Jews; and not\nbecause it was substituted in the room of the seventh day, as a Sabbath\nperpetually to be observed.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that they did not meet together for\nfear of the Jews; but when they were assembled, the doors were shut for\nfear of them. Besides, it may be farther replied, that the fear of\npersecution would have been no warrant for them, not to keep the\nseventh-day-Sabbath, or to substitute another day in the room of it. To\nall which we might add, that they might more securely meet together on\nthe seventh day of the week, than on any other day, if they were afraid\nof disturbance from the Jews; for then they were engaged in worship\nthemselves; and, it is probable, would be rather inclined to let them\nalone, for want of leisure, to give them disturbance in their worship.\n(2.) It farther appears, that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh\nto the first day of the week, in that this was a day, in which the\nchurch met, together with the apostles, for solemn public worship. Thus\nwe read in Acts xx. 7. that _upon the first day of the week, when the\ndisciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them_. Where\nwe may observe,\n[1.] That it was not a private, but a public meeting of the church; for\nit is said, that the disciples, that is, the church, met together.\n[2.] It was not a day occasionally appointed by the apostle, but the\nstated usual time of their meeting; for it is not said Paul designed to\npreach to them on that day, and therefore they met together; but when\nthey came together, _on the first day of the week_, that is, on the day\nof their usual meeting, _Paul preached unto them_.\n[3.] The apostle had been with them some days before; for it is said in\nthe foregoing verse, that _he abode there seven days_. Why did they not\nmeet together, and he preach to them the day before, to wit, the seventh\nday of the week, on which day he was with them; but because that was no\nlonger a Sabbath, but changed to the first day?\n[4.] The end of their meeting was to break bread. Now, though the word\nis to be preached in season and out of season; yet no day is so proper\nto break bread on, or celebrate the Lord\u2019s supper, as that on which he\nrose from the dead. Besides, when a day is particularly described as\nthat which is set apart for solemn worship, such as preaching and\nbreaking of bread is supposed to be, that must be understood to be the\nSabbath.\n[5.] They could not be said now to meet together for fear of the Jews,\nas was before objected to their observing the first Sabbath; for it was\nat Troas, where the Jews had nothing to do, nor could they persecute\nthem; for it was a church of converted Gentiles.\n_Obj. 1._ It is objected, that the word which we render the _first day\nof the week_[217], might be rendered _one day_ of the week, or on a\ncertain day.\n_Answ._ Our translation of the Greek word, is by far the most proper, as\nall know, who understand that language. Besides, the same words are used\nin John xx. 1. and Luke xxiv. 1. in both which scriptures Christ\u2019s\nresurrection is said to be _on the first day of the week_; how\npreposterous would it be, to render them, on a certain day of the week?\nand if they are, in those scriptures, and others that might be referred\nto, to be rendered, the first day of the week, as all allow they must,\nwhy should they be rendered otherwise in the text under our present\nconsideration?\n_Obj. 2._ It is farther objected, that their meeting together, on the\nfirst day of the week, to break bread, does not argue it to be a\nSabbath; because formerly the Lord\u2019s supper used to be administered\nwhenever the word was preached, and that was on other days, besides the\nfirst day of the week; yea, we read, that in some ages of the church,\nthe word was preached, and the Lord\u2019s supper administered, every day.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, That though the Lord\u2019s supper may be\nadministered on another day, yet this is said to be the day more\nespecially appointed for this solemn ordinance, or for public worship,\nas has been already observed. Besides, though the Lord\u2019s supper was\nadministered on other days after this: yet it will be hard to prove that\nit was administered on any other day but the Lord\u2019s day, in the apostles\ntime.\n(3.) The change of the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day of the\nweek, may be farther argued from 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. in which the apostle\nsays, As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.\n_Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him; that there be no gatherings when I\ncome._ In which words we may observe,\n[1.] That there is a work of charity recommended; a duty most proper for\nthe Sabbath, as a testimony of our thankfulness to God for spiritual\nblessings, held forth to, or received by us, on that day; and it is a\nday in which our hearts are most like to be enlarged to others, when\nmost affected with the love of God to us. Those duties which the prophet\nrecommends as suitable to a fast, which God had chosen, are very\nsuitable to all public ordinances, and in particular to Sabbaths,\nnamely, to _loose the bands of wickedness_, and to _undo the heavy\nburdens, and to deal forth bread to the hungry_, Isa. lviii. 6, 7. If\nthe poor of the church were to be provided for, this was to be done, not\nby a private, but a public collection, whereby more might be raised, and\nno burden laid on particular persons. It is moreover said, that they\nwere to _lay by as God had prospered them_; that is, not only in\nproportion to the increase of their worldly substance, or the success\nthat attended their secular employments on other days; but their\ncompassion to the poor ought to be enlarged, in proportion to the\nspiritual advantage they received from Christ, under his ordinances.\n[2.] This was not to be done on one single first day of the week, but on\nthe return of every first day; as all who read this scripture\nimpartially must understand it[218]. Therefore it follows, that the\nfirst day of the week was a day in which the church met together for\nsolemn, public, and stated worship.\n[3.] It was not commanded only to this church at Corinth, but is\nagreeable to what had been commanded to _all the churches of Galatia_;\ntherefore it follows, that the churches of Galatia were obliged to\nobserve the first day of the week, as well as that at Corinth. And\ninasmuch as this epistle is directed to _all that in every place call\nupon the name of Jesus Christ_, 1 Cor. i. 2. it may by a parity of\nreason, be applied to them; and accordingly it may be argued, that it\nwas a universal practice of the church, at that time, to meet together\nfor religious worship, on the first day of the week, which argument\ncannot but have some weight in it, to prove the doctrine that we are\nmaintaining, relating to the change of the Sabbath, from the seventh to\nthe first day of the week.\n(4.) The change of the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day of the\nweek, farther appears, in that there is a day, mentioned in the New\nTestament, which is styled _the Lord\u2019s day_. Thus it is said, _I was in\nthe Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day_, Rev. i. 10. Where it may be observed,\n[1.] That there is a peculiar claim that Christ lays to this day as his\nown, distinct from all other days. As the seventh day of the week was,\nbefore this, called, as it is in this Commandment, _The Sabbath of the\nLord thy God_, and elsewhere, his _holy day_, Isa. lviii. 13. so there\nis a peculiar day which our Saviour, who is the Lord here spoken of,\nclaims as his holy day. And what can this be, but that day which he has\ninstituted in commemoration of his having finished the work of our\nredemption?\n[2.] It may be farther observed, that when God is said to lay claim to\nthings in scripture, it denotes, that they are of his appointment, and\nfor his glory. Thus the bread and the wine in that ordinance, which\nChrist has appointed in remembrance of his death, is called _the Lord\u2019s\nsupper_, or _the Lord\u2019s table_, denoting that it is an ordinance of his\nown appointment; in like manner _the Lord\u2019s day_ may be fitly so called\nfor this reason, as instituted by him.\nThe arguments that have hitherto been brought to prove that the Sabbath\nwas changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, are\nprincipally such as are founded on a scripture-consequence. We shall now\nproceed to prove that this consequence is just, _viz._ that because the\nfirst day of the week was observed by our Saviour, his apostles, and the\nchurch in general, as the Lord\u2019s day, that is, a day instituted by him,\nin commemoration of his having finished the work of our redemption;\ntherefore we ought to observe it for that end. Here it may be\nconsidered,\n_1st_, That it is not to be supposed, that it was universally observed\nby the church at random, or by accident, without some direction given\nthem herein. For since the apostles were appointed to erect the\ngospel-church, and, as God\u2019s ministers, to give laws to it, relating to\nthe instituted worship that was to be performed therein, it is as\nreasonable to suppose, that they gave direction concerning the time, in\nwhich public solemn worship should be performed.\n_2dly_, Whatever the apostles ordered the church to observe, in matters\nbelonging to religious worship, they did it by divine direction;\notherwise the rules they laid down for instituted worship, could not be\nmuch depended on; and they, would doubtless, have been blamed, as not\nhaving fulfilled the commission, which they received from Christ, to\n_teach_ the church _to observe all things whatever he had commanded\nthem_. Nor could the apostle have made this appeal to the church as he\ndoes; _I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God_,\nActs xx. 27. and elsewhere, _I have received of the Lord that which also\nI delivered unto you_, 1 Cor. xi. 23. and _I delivered unto you first of\nall that which I also received_, chap. xv. 3. Nor would he have acted\nagreeably to the character he gave of himself and the rest of the\napostles; concerning whom he says, _Let a man so account of us, as of\nthe ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover,\nit is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful_, chap. iv. 1.\nAnd he says concerning himself, _I have obtained mercy of the Lord to be\nfaithful_, chap. vii. 25. And elsewhere, _If any man think himself to be\na prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I\nwrite unto you, are the commandments of the Lord_, chap. xiv. 37. and\nconsequently, that whatever directions he gave about the time, as well\nas mode of worship, were instamped with his authority; therefore, an\napostolic intimation contained a divine command relating hereunto.\nThose things that were delivered to the church, by persons under divine\ninspiration, are not to be reckoned among the traditions which the\nPapists plead for, which took their rise in those ages when inspiration\nwas ceased. The apostle uses the word _tradition_ in the same sense in\nwhich we are to understand a divine oracle, or a command given by those\nwho were divinely inspired; and accordingly he says, _I praise you,\nbrethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances_,\nor, as it is in the margin, _traditions, as I have delivered them to\nyou_, chap. xi. 2. and elsewhere, he exhorts them, to _hold the\ntraditions which they had been taught, whether by word, or his epistle_,\n2 Thess. ii. 15. that is, all those things which had been communicated\nto them by divine inspiration, in whatever form they were transmitted to\nthem, whether by word or writing; which different circumstances of\nimparting them, do not in the least detract from their divine authority.\nThe laws which God gave to his church, were either immediately from\nhimself, as the ten Commandments, or else they were given by those who\nwere inspired for that purpose; and, indeed, the greatest part of\ngospel-worship was of this latter sort; and what was transmitted by the\napostles relating hereunto, was either verbal or real; the former\ncontaining an intimation of what they had received of the Lord, the\nlatter was enforced by their example and practice; which, supposing them\nto be under divine inspiration, was a sufficient warrant for the faith\nand practice of the church, whether relating to the mode or time of\nworship; and consequently the practice and example of the apostles and\nchurch, in their day, in observing the first day of the week, is a\nsufficient argument to convince us concerning the change of the Sabbath,\nfrom the seventh to the Lord\u2019s day, which was to be observed, by the\nchurch, in all succeeding ages.\nAs to that question which is proposed by some, namely, when it was that\nChrist gave instructions to the apostles, concerning the change of the\nSabbath? It is an over-curious enquiry, since it is enough for us to\nconclude, that this, together with other laws given by them, relating to\nthe gospel-dispensation, were given by him, during that interval of\ntime, in which _he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many\ninfallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, speaking of the things\npertaining to the kingdom of God_, Acts i. 3. of which, we may\nreasonably suppose this to have been one. But if this be not reckoned\nsufficient for the confirming our faith therein, we have the highest\nreason to conclude, that it was given by the inspiration of the Spirit,\nwhom Christ had before promised unto the apostles to guide _them into\nall truth_; and that he should _shew them things to come_, John xvi. 13.\nby which we are to understand, that he was to lead them, not only into\nthose truths, which were necessary for them to know as Christians, but\nto impart to the churches as ministers, as a rule of faith and practice.\nThis is what, I think, may give us sufficient satisfaction, as to the\ndivine original of the Lord\u2019s day, without our being obliged to have\nrecourse to an ecclesiastical establishment, without a divine\ninstitution; which would very much detract from the dignity and glory of\nit, and the regard that we ought to pay to it, as the Lord\u2019s holy day.\nWe have considered it as instituted by the apostles; and that they had\ninstructions in all things relating to the edification of the church;\nand that they were so faithful in what they imparted, that they cannot\nbe, in the least, suspected of intruding any invention of their own into\nthe worship of God, in this, any more than any other branch thereof, to\nsuppose which, would leave us in the greatest uncertainty, as to what\nconcerns matters of the highest importance.\nThus concerning the observation of the Lord\u2019s day, as founded on a\ndivine warrant, given to the church by the ministry of the apostles, who\nwere appointed, by God, to make known those laws to them, which respect\nthe manner and time in which he will be worshipped, under the\ngospel-dispensation.\nThe next thing to be considered, is, that the church in, and after the\napostles time, universally attended to the religious observation of the\nLord\u2019s day; which was celebrated as a Sabbath in all succeeding ages.\nThis is so evident, from the history of what relates thereunto, that it\nneeds no proof. That the apostles and the church, in their day, observed\nit, has been already considered; and that the observation thereof was\ncontinued in the church, after their death, appears from the writings of\nmost of the Fathers, who speak of it as a day in which the church met\ntogether for public worship, and paid a much greater deference to it\nthan any of the other days of the week, wherein they occasionally\nattended on the exercise of religious duties. Thus Ignatius, who lived\nin the beginning of the second Century, advises every one who loved\nChrist, to celebrate the Lord\u2019s day, which was consecrated to his\nresurrection; and he calls it the queen, and chief of all days[219].\nAlso Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the same Century, in\none of his apologies for the Christians, says, That on that day, which\nthey, viz. the Heathen, call Sunday, all who live in cities or villages,\nmeet together in the same place, where the writings of the apostles and\nprophets are read, and we all assemble; it being the day in which God\nfinished the creation, and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the\ndead. For the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after\nit, that is, Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples, and\ninstructed them in those things which we propose to your\nconsideration[220].\nIn the third Century, when persecution so much raged against the church,\nit is well known, that Christians distinguished themselves, by the\ncharacter of observers of the Lord\u2019s day, which they reckoned a badge of\nChristianity[221].\nI need not descend any lower, to prove that the Lord\u2019s day was\nuniversally observed by the church, in commemoration of Christ\u2019s\nresurrection, in all succeeding ages; for that is generally allowed.\nTherefore, all that I shall add to illustrate this argument, taken from\nthe practice of the Christian church, from our Saviour\u2019s resurrection,\nto this day, is,\n_1st_, That it cannot reasonably be supposed, that God would suffer his\nchurch universally to run into so great a mistake, as to keep a wrong\nday as a weekly Sabbath; and that not only in one or two, but in all\nages, since our Saviour\u2019s time. Now, whatever error particular churches\nhave been suffered to imbibe, God has not left them all in general; and\nthat before the corruption and apostasy of the church of Rome, as well\nas since the Reformation, to be deceived, which they must be said to\nhave been, had they esteemed that God\u2019s holy day, which he has neither\ninstituted, nor owned as such.\n_2d_, God has not only suffered all his churches to go on in this error,\nif it be an error, and not undeceived them, but he has, at the same\ntime, granted them many signal marks of his favour; and has, to this\nday, in many instances, owned the strict and religious observation\nthereof; which we can hardly suppose he would have done, if it were not\nof his own institution; nor that he would have given a sanction to it,\nby being present with his people, when attending on him therein, in the\nordinances of his own appointment. This leads us to consider,\nIV. The proportion of time that is to be observed as a weekly Sabbath.\nThus it is said in this answer, we are to keep holy to God, one whole\nday in seven. A day is either artificial or natural. The former is the\nspace of time from the sun\u2019s rising, to its setting; the latter contains\nin it the space of twenty four hours. Now the Lord\u2019s day must be\nsupposed to continue longer than the measure of an artificial day;\notherwise it would fall short of a seventh part of time. But this has\nnot so many difficulties attending it, as that has which relates to the\ntime of the day when it begins. Nevertheless, we have some direction, as\nto this matter, from the intimation given us, that Christ rose from the\ndead _on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, while it\nwas yet dark_, John xx. 1. Luke xxiv. 1. Therefore the Lord\u2019s day begins\nin the morning, before sun rising; or, according to our usual way of\nreckoning, we may conclude, that it begins immediately after midnight,\nand continues till mid-night following; which is our common method of\ncomputing time, beginning the day with the morning, and ending it with\nthe evening; and it is agreeable to the Psalmist\u2019s observation; _Man\ngoeth forth to his work, and to his labour_ in the morning, _until the\nevening_, Psal. civ. 23. Rest, in order of nature, follows after labour;\ntherefore the night follows the day; and consequently the Lord\u2019s day\nevening follows the day, on which account it must be supposed to begin\nin the morning.\nAgain, if the Sabbath begins in the evening, religious worship ought to\nbe performed sometime, at least, in the evening; and then, soon after it\nis begun, it will be interrupted by the succeeding night, and then it\nmust be revived again the following day. And, as to the end of the\nSabbath, it seems not so agreeable, that, when we have been engaged in\nthe worship of God in the day, we should spend the evening in secular\nemployments; which cannot be judged unlawful, if the Sabbath be then at\nan end. Therefore, it is much more expedient, that the whole work of the\nday should be continued as long as our worldly employments are on other\ndays; and our beginning and ending the performance of religious duties,\nshould in some measure, be agreeable thereunto. Again, this may be\nproved from what is said in Exod. xvi. 23. _To-morrow is the rest of the\nholy Sabbath unto the Lord._ Whereas, if the Sabbath had begun in the\nevening, it would rather have been said, this evening begins the rest of\nthe holy Sabbath.\nAnother scripture generally brought to prove this argument, is in John\nxx. 19. _The same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when\nthe doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the\nJews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and said unto them, Peace be\nunto you_; it is called _the evening of the same day_; so that the\nworship which was performed that day, was continued in the evening\nthereof. This is not called the evening of the next day, but of the same\nday in which Christ rose from the dead; which was the first Christian\nSabbath.\n_Object._ To this it is objected, that the ceremonial Sabbaths under the\nlaw, began at evening. Thus it is said, in Lev. xxiii. 5. _In the\nfourteenth day of the first month, at even, is the Lord\u2019s passover_; and\nver. 32. speaking concerning the feast of expiation, which was on the\ntenth day of the seventh month, it is said, _It shall be unto you a\nSabbath of rest; and ye shall afflict your souls in the ninth day of the\nmonth, at even: From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath._\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered; that the beginning of sacred days is\nto be at the same time with that of civil; and this was governed by the\ncustom of nations. The Jews\u2019 civil day began at evening; and therefore\nit was ordained that from evening to evening, should be the measure of\ntheir sacred days. Our days have another beginning and ending; which\ndifference is only circumstantial. Whereas, the principal thing\nenjoined, is, that one whole day in seven, be observed as a Sabbath to\nthe Lord.\nFootnote 214:\n  \u201cThe devoting of a _seventh Part of Time_ in a holy manner to the\n  Lord, belongs unchangeably to the _moral_ nature and obligation of the\n  _fourth Commandment_, which is transferred in the New Testament, from\n  the _seventh_ to the _first_ day of the week. (See _John_ xx. 26. and\n  _Acts_ xx. 7.) To this it may not be amiss to add the judicious note\n  of Mr. _Kennicott_ in his dissertation on the oblations of _Cain_ and\n  _Abel_, p. 184, 185, where he says, \u2018The sabbath, or weekly day of\n  holiness, might well be called a _sign to the_ Jews;\u2019 for the _Jewish_\n  sabbath was a _sign_, as being founded on a double reason, the second\n  of which (the _Egyptian_ deliverance) evidently distinguished that\n  people from all others, and was therefore as a sign constantly to\n  remind them of the particular care of heaven, and what uncommon\n  returns of goodness they were to make for so signal a deliverance. But\n  there is great reason to believe, that the sabbath of the _Israelites_\n  was altered with their year, at their coming forth from _Egypt_; and a\n  short attention to this point may not be here improper, the case then\n  seems to be this. At the finishing of the creation, God sanctified the\n  seventh day; this seventh day, being the first day of _Adam\u2019s_ life,\n  was consecrated by way of first-fruits to God; and therefore _Adam_\n  may reasonably be supposed to have _began_ his computation of the\n  _days of the week_ with the _first whole day_ of his own existence;\n  thus the sabbath became the first day of the week; but when mankind\n  fell from the worship of the true God, they first substituted the\n  worship of the sun, in his place, and preserving the same weekly day\n  of worship, but devoting it to the sun, the sabbath was called\n  _Sunday_; for that _Sunday_ was the first day of the week, and is so\n  still in the east, is proved by Mr. _Selden_ (Jus. Nat. and Gent. Lib.\n  3. Cap. 22.) Thus the _sabbath of the Patriarchs_ continued to be the\n  _Sunday of the idolaters_, till the coming up of the _Israelites_ out\n  of _Egypt_; and then, as God altered the beginning of their year, so\n  he also changed the day of their worship from _Sunday_ to _Saturday_;\n  the first reason of which might be, that as _Sunday_ was the day of\n  worship among the Idolaters, the _Israelites_ would be more likely to\n  join with them, if they rested on the same day, than if they were to\n  work on that day, and serve their God upon another. But a second\n  reason certainly was, in order to perpetuate the memory of _their\n  deliverance on that day from_ Egyptian _slavery_; for _Moses_, when he\n  applies the fourth Commandment to the particular cases of his own\n  people, _Deut._ v. 15, does not enforce it, as in _Ex._ xx. 11. by the\n  consideration of _God\u2019s resting on that day_ which was the sabbath of\n  the Patriarchs; but binds it upon them by saying, _Remember that thou\n  wast a servant in Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out\n  thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm; therefore\n  the Lord thy God hath commanded_ THEE _to keep this_ SABBATH-DAY.\n  Allowing then the preceding observations, we immediately see, how the\n  sabbath naturally reverted to _Sunday_, after the abolition of\n  _Judaism_ without any express command for the alteration. To which he\n  adds a quotation from Bp. _Cumberland_, (Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 400.)\n  which speaks of the _Gentiles_, as called, after Christ\u2019s time into\n  the same universal church with the Patriarchs; and another from\n  _Justin Martyr_, \u03a4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b5\u03bd\u1f21 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b7 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\n  \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7. Apol c. s. 89. The purport of which is, that\n  all Christians generally assembled for religious worship on the\n  _Sunday_; because it is the first day in which God finished the\n  creation of the world; and on the same day of the week, Jesus Christ,\n  our Saviour, rose from the dead.\u201d\n  GUYSE.\nFootnote 215:\n  _Vid. Athanas. Hom. de Semente._\nFootnote 216:\n  _Vid. Ignat. Epist. ad Magn._ _And much more to the same purpose may\n  be seen in a learned book, intitled_ Dies Dominica, _in cap._ iii. _&\n  alibi passim_.\nFootnote 217:\n  \u1fc9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6 \u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u1f71\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. _On the first from the Sabbath_; so the Jews\n  named the days of the week.\nFootnote 218:\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f77\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u1f71\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\nFootnote 219:\n  _Vid. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes._\nFootnote 220:\n  _Vid. Just. Mart. edit. a Grab. Apol. 1. \u00a7 87, & 89. It may be\n  observed, that that Father is not alone in his calling it Sunday; for\n  Tertullian [Adv. Gent. Cap._ xvi.] _calls it so. And Jerom says it may\n  be so called, because the Sun of Righteousness arose with healing in\n  his wings; but it is generally called_ the Lord\u2019s day; _and that not\n  only by others, but by the same Fathers; except in their apologies for\n  the Christian religion against the Heathen, they used the word in\n  compliance with their mode of speaking. But that which is more\n  strange, and savours a little of affectation, is, that Justin, and\n  some other of the Fathers, should chuse to use a circumlocution,\n  instead of Friday, as he calls it, the day before Saturday. And\n  Ignatius, [in Epist. ad Trall.] calls it_ parasceva, _or, the\n  preparation for the Sabbath, as the Jews did; and Iren\u00e6us calls it the\n  day before the Sabbath, [in Lib._ v. _adv. Her. Cap._ xxiii.] _which\n  the learned Grabe supposes to be for this reason; that they might shew\n  how much they detested the name of Venus, to whom Friday was dedicated\n  by the Heathen. And they ought to have been as cautious of using the\n  word Sunday, since that was not only dedicated to the Sun. But some\n  took occasion from thence, to asperse the Christians, as though they\n  had worshipped the Sun; which Tertullian, in [Apol. adv. Gen. Cap._\n  xvi.] _is obliged to exculpate them from._\nFootnote 221:\n  Dominicum agere, _or_ celebrare, _was a phrase well known in that age,\n  in which many Christians were put to death, upon their being examined,\n  and boldly professing that they observed the Lord\u2019s day; and the\n  assemblies, in which all the parts of public worship were performed on\n  that day, were generally called Synaxes_.\n    QUEST. CXVII. _How is the Sabbath, or Lord\u2019s day to be sanctified?_\n    ANSW. The Sabbath, or Lord\u2019s day, is to be sanctified, by an holy\n    resting all the day, not only from such works as are, at all times,\n    sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as\n    are on other days lawful, and making it our delight to spend the\n    whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of\n    necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God\u2019s\n    worship; and to that end we are to prepare our hearts, and with such\n    fore-sight, diligence and moderation to dispose, and seasonably to\n    dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit\n    for the duties of that day.\n    QUEST. CXVIII. _Why is the charge of keeping the Sabbath more\n    specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?_\n    ANSW. The charge of keeping the Sabbath is more especially directed\n    to governors of families and other superiors, because they are bound\n    not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by\n    all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone\n    oft-times to hinder them by employments of their own.\nIn explaining the former of these answers, which more especially\nrespects the manner how the Sabbath is to be sanctified, let it be\nconsidered,\nI. That we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight,\ndiligence, and moderation, to dispose, and seasonably to dispatch, our\nworldly business, that we may be more free and fit for the business of\nthat day. We do not read, indeed, that there is any time sanctified, or\nset apart by God, in order to our preparing for the Sabbath; but this\nmatter is left to our Christian prudence. Yet we read in the New\nTestament, of the day of preparation for the Sabbath; that is, the day\nbefore the Jewish Sabbath; which persons who had any sense of the\nimportance of the work to be performed on the following day, thought it\ntheir duty to prepare for before-hand, at least, to give dispatch to\ntheir worldly business; that their thoughts might be fixed on the work\non which they were to engage on the day ensuing. Thus we read, that\n_that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on: And they\nreturned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day,\naccording to the commandment_, Luke xxiii. 54, 56. The mixing of\nointments and spices, which were compounded according to the custom of\nthose times, for the embalming of the dead, was a work of labour, and\nnot fit to be done on the Sabbath. Therefore they did this the day\nbefore, that they might not be brought under any necessity of performing\nthat servile work therein, which might be done on another day. And this\npractice of dispatching worldly business, in order to their being\nprepared for the sacred employment of the Sabbath, seems to have been\ninculcated, when the observation of that day was revived by Moses in the\nwilderness of Sin; on which occasion he says, _To-morrow is the rest of\nthe holy Sabbath unto the Lord. Bake that which ye will bake, and seethe\nthat ye will seethe: and that which remaineth over, lay it up for you to\nbe kept until the morning_, Exod. xvi. 23. The meaning of which is, they\nwere to gather the manna, which would take up a considerable time, and\ngrind or prepare it for baking or seething; which was a servile, or\nlaborious work, that might as well be done the day before. Accordingly\nthey were commanded then to dispatch or finish it, that they might rest\nin, and sanctity the Sabbath immediately following.\nAs for the time which the more religious Jews took, in preparing for the\nSabbath before it came, something of this may be learned from the\npractice of holy Nehemiah; whereby it appears, that they laid aside\ntheir worldly business, in order to their preparing for the Sabbath the\nday before, at sun-set, or when it begun to be dark. Thus it is said,\n_That when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath,\nhe commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should\nnot be opened till after the Sabbath_, Neh. xiii. 19. However, this is\ndiscretionary, and therefore some Jewish writers observe, that many of\nthem began to prepare for the Sabbath the evening before, at six\no\u2019clock, and some of them at three; and others spent the whole day\nbefore in the dispatch of their secular business, that they might be\nbetter prepared for the Sabbath; and this, as to what is equitable or\nmoral therein, is, doubtless, an example to us: so that we may say as\nHezekiah did in his prayer; _The good Lord pardon every one that\nprepareth his heart to seek God; the Lord God of his fathers, though he\nbe not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary_, 2\nChron. xxx. 18, 19.\nThis leads us to consider the duties to be performed preparatory to the\nright observing the Lord\u2019s day; and, in order hereunto, we ought, the\nevening before, to lay aside our care and worldly business, that our\nthoughts may not be incumbred, diverted, or taken up with unseasonable\nor unlawful concerns about it. This is a duty very much neglected; and\nthe omission thereof is one reason of our unprofitable attendance on the\nordinances of God on the Lord\u2019s day. Thus many keep their shops open\ntill midnight; and by this means make encroachments on part of the\nmorning of the Lord\u2019s day, by indulging too much sleep; which occasions\ndrowsiness under the ordinances, as well as their thoughts being filled\nwith worldly concerns and business therein. And to this we may add, that\nall envyings, contentions, evil surmising against our neighbour, are to\nbe laid aside, since these will tend to defile our souls and to deprave\nour minds, when they ought wholly to be taken up about divine things.\nThus the apostle advises those to whom he writes, to _lay aside all\nmalice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil\nspeaking_, and _as new born babes_ to _desire the sincere milk of the\nword, that_ they might _grow thereby_, 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2.\nMoreover, we are to endeavour to bring our souls into a prepared frame\nfor the duties of the Lord\u2019s day, the evening before, by having our\nthoughts engaged in those meditations that are suitable thereunto;\nparticularly, we are to consider the many lost Sabbaths we have to\naccount for, or repent of, as also the wonderful patience of God, who\nhas, notwithstanding spared us to the approach of another Sabbath; and\nwhat precautions are necessary to be used, that we may not profane or\ntrifle it away. It would also be expedient for us to meditate on the\nvanity of worldly things, which we have laid aside all our care about,\nand think how contemptible the gain thereof is, if compared with\ncommunion with God, which is our great concern; and therefore we are to\nconsider ourselves as having a greater work to transact with God on his\nown day, and desire to have no disturbance from the world therein. And\nto these meditations we ought to join our fervent prayers to God; that\nthe sins committed by us in former Sabbaths may be forgiven, that he may\nnot be provoked to withdraw the influences of his Spirit on the\napproaching day; and that the world with the cares thereof, may not then\nbe a snare to us, through the temptations of Satan, together with the\ncorruption of our own hearts, whereby our converse with God would be\ninterrupted, that by this means we may wait on the Lord without\ndistraction. We ought also to pray, that he would also assist his\nministers in preparing a seasonable word, that may be blest to ourselves\nand others. Thus the apostle exhorts the church, to _pray always with\nall prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and to watch thereunto with\nall perseverance, and supplication for all saints; and for him, that\nutterance might be given unto him, that he might open his mouth boldly\nto make known the mystery of the gospel_, Eph. vi. 18, 19. We ought to\nbe very importunate with God, that he would sanctify, and fill our\nthoughts from the beginning to the end of the Lord\u2019s day, which he has\nconsecrated for his immediate service and glory.\nII. We are now to consider what we are to rest and abstain from, on the\nLord\u2019s day; and this is included in two general heads, namely, not only\nfrom things sinful, but what is in itself lawful, on other days.\n1. As for those things which are sinful on other days, they are much\nmore so on the Sabbath; for hereby we contract double guilt, not only in\ncommitting the sin, but in breaking the Sabbath; and such sins are, for\nthe most part, presumptuously committed, and greatly tend to harden the\nheart; and not only hinder the efficacy of the ordinances, but if\nallowed of, and persisted in, are a sad step to apostacy.\n2. We break the Sabbath by engaging in things that would be lawful on\nother days; and that in two particular instances here mentioned;\n(1.) When we engage in worldly employments. These, we are wholly to lay\naside, or abstain from; particularly buying or selling, or encouraging\nthose who do so. We have a noble instance of zeal in Nehemiah, relating\nto this matter; wherein he says, _In those days saw I in Judah, some\ntreading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and\nleading asses; as also wine, grapes and figs, and all manner of burdens,\nwhich they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I testified\nagainst them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of\nTyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold\non the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I\ncontended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, what evil thing\nis this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day?_ Neh. xiii. 15, 16, 17.\nAnd the prophet Jeremiah speaks to the same purpose, when he prohibits\ntheir _carrying burdens on the Sabbath day_, or _doing any work_\ntherein; and exhorts them to _hallow the Sabbath day, as God commanded\ntheir fathers_, Jer. xvii. 21, 22. This may tend to reprove those\ntradesmen who post their books, state their accounts, or prepare their\ngoods, which are to be exposed to sale on the following day. And if we\ndo not run these lengths, in profaning the Sabbath; yet we are highly\nguilty when our thoughts and discourse run after our covetousness, which\nis, in effect, a saying as they did who complained, _When will the new\nmoon be gone, that we may sell corn, and the Sabbath, that we may set\nforth wheat_, Amos viii. 5. This the prophet reproves, when he says,\n_They come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as\nmy people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with\ntheir mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their\ncovetousness_, Ezek. xxxiii. 31.\n(2.) The Sabbath is violated by recreations; which we are therefore to\nabstain from: otherwise we spurn at the Sabbath; accordingly the prophet\nIsaiah speaks of those who sanctify _the Sabbath_, as turning away their\n_foot from doing their pleasure on God\u2019s holy day, and calling the\nSabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, honouring him, not\ndoing their own ways, nor finding their own pleasure, nor speaking their\nown words_, Isa. lviii. 13.\n[1.] The recreations we are to abstain from, on the Lord\u2019s day, are\nunnecessary visits by which the worship of God in families, is\ninterrupted, the minds of men perverted, and filled with vanity, the\nmotions of the Spirit quenched, and the advantage of public worship\ngreatly hindered, if not wholly lost.\n[2.] Walking in the fields; whereby instead of meditating on the word,\nthe mind is diverted from it. To which we may add,\n[3.] The taking unnecessary journeys; which, according as they are\ncircumstanced, will appear to be no other than finding our own pleasure,\nand doing our own works on God\u2019s holy day.\nWe read, indeed, in Acts i. 12. of _a Sabbath-day\u2019s journey_; which\nseems to argue, that it was not unlawful to travel on the Lord\u2019s day.\nBut, that we may not mistake this matter, let it be considered, that _a\nSabbath-day\u2019s journey_, according to Jewish writers, contained the\nlength of two thousand cubits, or, about a mile; which was, ordinarily\nspeaking, the length of their cities, together with their respective\nsuburbs. Therefore, since this is the measure of a Sabbath-day\u2019s\njourney, it implies, that they were not to go out of their cities to\ndivert themselves, or to undertake journeys, under a pretence of\nbusiness. Thus they were commanded _to abide every man in his place on\nthe seventh day_, Exod. xvi. 29. that is, not to wander out of their\ntents, to take the air, though they were obliged to go out of their\ntents to the tabernacle, the place of public worship, which was pitched\nin the midst thereof, for the conveniency of coming to it. Hither,\nindeed, they went, from their respective tents; which was the only\njourney they took, unless in case of necessity, on the Sabbath-day.\nTo this we may add, that it is not lawful, on the Sabbath-day, for\npersons to divert themselves by talking of news, or common affairs;\nwhich unseasonable discourse oftentimes gives a check to those lively\nframes of spirit we have had under the word preached; and by indulging\nsuch discourse, we not only break the Sabbath ourselves, but by our\nexample, induce others to do the same. I do not say but that it may be\nseasonable to meditate on the providence of God towards the church and\nthe world, on the Lord\u2019s day, as well as at other times; but then we\nmust take heed that his glory, and not barely our own diversion, is a\ngreat inducement thereunto.\nIII. When it is said, in the fourth Commandment, that _thou shalt do no\nmanner of work on the Sabbath day_, there is an exception hereunto, or\nan intimation, that works of necessity and mercy, though they contain in\nthem something servile or laborious, may, notwithstanding, be done on\nthe Lord\u2019s day. Some things are necessary, as they tend to the support\nof nature; as eating and drinking; and therefore the providing food for\nthat end, is, doubtless, lawful; especially if too much time be not\nspent therein, too many servants, or others, detained from the worship\nof God thereby, or entertainments and splendid feasts made; in which,\nvariety of things are prepared, to please the appetite; and all this\nattended with vain and trifling conversation, unbecoming the holiness of\nthe day. There are also other works of necessity, which may be done on\nthe Sabbath-day, _viz._ such as are subservient to the worship of God;\nwithout which, it is impossible that the public exercises thereof should\nbe performed. Thus, under the ceremonial law, there were many laborious\nservices that attended public worship; particularly the killing those\nbeasts that were appointed for sacrifice, on the Sabbath-day; though we\nare exempted from this under the gospel-dispensation. To this, it is\nprobable, our Saviour refers, when he says, \u2018Have ye not read in the\nlaw, how that the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are\nblameless,\u2019 Matt. xii. 5. that is, perform those servile works,\nsubservient to public worship; which, according to your method of\nreasoning, would be a profaning the Sabbath.\nHere it is enquired, by some, whether it be lawful to kindle a fire on\nthe Sabbath-day, since this seems to be forbidden the Israelites; to\nwhom Moses says, \u2018Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations,\nupon the Sabbath-day,\u2019 Exod. xxv. 3. Some are of opinion, that if this\nbe lawful at present, agreeably to what we generally practice, it is a\npeculiar privilege attending the gospel-dispensation; which may give us\noccasion to explain what is meant by this prohibition.\n1. It cannot be hereby forbidden, to kindle a fire, for their\nrefreshment, in cold weather; for that is as necessary as any of the\nother conveniences of life, such as eating, drinking, sitting down when\nwe are weary, _&c._ and it was done with very little pains or\ndifficulty; so that it would not much hinder the religious exercises of\nthat day. On the other hand, the not making a fire, provided the season\nof the year was extremely cold, would indispose men for the worship of\nGod. Therefore,\n2. It is most probable, that the meaning of that scripture is this; that\nsince, at that time, wherein this law was given, many of them were\nemployed in the work of building and adorning the tabernacle; which, as\nall artificers know, required the kindling of fires for the melting of\nmetals, heating of iron tools, _&c._ and, whereas the people might be\napt to think, that, because the building of the tabernacle required\nexpedition, they might kindle fires, and therewith employ themselves in\nthe work thereof, on the Sabbath-day. Therefore Moses tells them, that\nit was not a work so absolutely necessary, as that it required, that\nthey should attend to it herein; which seems to be the reason of that\nlaw, which prohibited the kindling a fire on the Sabbath-day.\nAs for the application of this law, to the dressing of food, which seems\nto be prohibited in that scripture, \u2018Bake that ye will bake to day, and\nseethe that which ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay it\nup to be kept for you until the morning,\u2019 Exod. xvi. 23. The meaning\nthereof seems to be this; Bake, or seethe that which is necessary for\nyour food, the day before the Sabbath, and lay up the rest, to be baked\nor seethed on the Sabbath. The command more especially prohibits their\ngathering manna on the Sabbath, and preparing it for baking or seething;\nwhich would have taken up too great a part of the day, and have been a\ndiversion from the religious worship thereof. But the baking or\nseething, which would have afforded but a small interruption to the work\nthereof, does not seem to have been forbidden.\nAnd this leads us to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the _stoning\nthe man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day_; which we read of in\nNumb. xv. 32, _&c._ The gathering of sticks for the making a fire on the\nSabbath-day, seems to be a work of necessity; and therefore some may be\nready to conclude that the punishment inflicted on him was too severe.\nBut, instead of excepting against the greatness of the punishment\ninflicted, I would rather infer from hence, that the crime was very\ngreat. For,\n(1.) He might have gathered sticks on other days, and thereby have\nprovided a sufficient quantity for his necessary use, on the\nSabbath-day; or else, he should have been content to have been without a\nfire on that day; rather than give so ill a precedent of the breach of\nthe Sabbath.\n(2.) It is probable he did this, not to supply his present necessities,\nbut to increase his store; and, that he did not gather a few sticks, but\na large quantity; which cannot be pretended to be a work of necessity.\n(3.) It is not unlikely, that the man made a practice of it, for several\nSabbaths together; and so lived in a total contempt and neglect of God\u2019s\npublic ordinances.\n(4.) It is also reasonable to suppose, that he did this presumptuously,\npublicly, and in defiance of the divine command, after having been\nreproved for it; and he might obstinately vindicate this wicked\npractice, and resolve, for the future, to persist in it; for that is the\nnature of a presumptuous sin. And it is plain, that he sinned\npresumptuously therein; inasmuch as God, in the verses immediately\nforegoing, had threatened, that _the soul that doth ought\npresumptuously_, or, as it is in the margin, _with an high hand_, who\n_reproached the Lord_ herein, _should be cut off_; and then this account\nof the man\u2019s being stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day, is\nbrought in as an instance of a just punishment of a presumptuous sinner.\nThese things being duly considered, we cannot take occasion from hence,\nto conclude, as many do, that there is this difference between the legal\nand the gospel-dispensation, in that the Sabbath was formerly to be\nobserved more strictly than now; and that this was a part of the yoke\nwhich neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, the relaxation\nwhereof is reckoned a branch of that liberty which we have under the\ngospel. But this sounds very ill in the ears of all serious Christians,\nwho think the duties of religion, and the strictness of our obligation\nthereunto, a privilege rather than a burden. Thus concerning the\nlawfulness of our performing works of necessity on the Sabbath-day.\nWe proceed farther to consider, that works of mercy ought to be done on\nthat day; such as visiting and preparing medicines for the sick,\nrelieving the poor, providing food and water for cattle, and other brute\ncreatures. This our Saviour vindicates by his practice, and illustrates\nby asserting the necessity of _lifting out a sheep_, that was _fallen\ninto a pit_, on the Sabbath-day, Matt. xii. 10-13. However, when we\nmaintain the lawfulness of performing works of necessity and mercy, on\nthe Sabbath-day, the following cautions ought to be attended to;\n[1.] Let the necessity be real, not pretended; of which, God and our own\nconsciences are the judges.\n[2.] If we think that we have a necessary call to omit, or lay aside our\nattendance on the ordinances of God, on the Sabbath-day, let us take\nheed that this necessity be not brought on us by some sin committed,\nwhich gives occasion to the judicial hand of God; and that province,\nwhich renders it necessary for us to absent from them, should be rather\nsubmitted to, than matter of choice or delight.\n[3.] If necessity obliges us to engage in secular employments on the\nLord\u2019s day, as in the instances of those whose business it is to provide\nphysic for the sick, let us, nevertheless, labour after a spiritual\nframe, becoming the holiness of that day, so far as may consist with\nwhat we are immediately called to do.\n[4.] As we ought to see that the work we are engaged in is necessary; so\nwe must not spend more time therein than what is needful.\n[5.] If we have a necessary call to engage in worldly matters, whereby\nwe are detained from public ordinances, we must endeavour to satisfy\nothers, that the providence of God obliges us hereunto; that so we may\nnot give offence to them, or they take occasion, without just reason to\nfollow their own employments; which would be a sin in them.\nIV. We are to sanctify the Sabbath, by spending the whole day in the\npublic and private exercises of God\u2019s worship, and herein to maintain a\nbecoming holy frame of spirit, from the beginning of the day to the end\nthereof. Therefore,\n1. In the beginning thereof; let not too much sleep make intrenchments\non more of the morning of the day than what is needful, particularly,\nmore than what we allow ourselves before we begin our employments on\nother days. And let us begin the day with spiritual meditations, and\ncarefully watch against worldly thoughts, as what will give us great\ninterruption and hinderance in the work thereof. And let us be earnest\nwith God in prayer, that he would prepare our hearts for the solemn\nduties we are to engage in; let us consider the Sabbath as a very great\ntalent that we are entrusted with; and that it is of the greatest\nimportance for us to improve it, to the glory of God and our spiritual\nadvantage.\n2. While we are engaged in holy duties, especially in the public\nordinances of God\u2019s worship, let us endeavour to maintain a becoming\nreverence, and filial fear of God, in whose presence we are, and a\nlove to his holy institutions, which are instamped with his authority.\nLet us moreover watch and strive against the first motions and\nsuggestions of Satan, and our corrupt hearts, endeavouring to divert\nus from, or disturb us in holy duties. And let us often lift up our\nhearts to God, by spiritual, short ejaculatory prayers, for help from\nhim, to enable us to improve the word, and, at the same time,\nendeavour to our utmost, to affect our hearts with a sense of the\ngreat worth of gospel-opportunities. Let us also cherish, improve, and\nbless God for all the influences of his Holy Spirit, which he is\npleased, at any time, to grant to us; or bewail and lament the want\nthereof, when they are withheld.\n3. In the intervals between our attendance on the ordinances of God\u2019s\npublic worship, we are to engage in private duties, and worship God in,\nand with our families; and in order hereunto, call to mind what we have\nheard, impress it on our own souls, recommend it to those whom we\nconverse with, and are concerned for; and take heed that we do nothing,\nbetween one public ordinance and another, which may unfit us for the\nremaining duties of the day; but, on the other hand, strive against, and\ngive a check to the least motions thereof in our own souls.\n4. The Sabbath is to be sanctified in the evening thereof, when the\npublic ordinances are over; at which time we are to call to mind what we\nhave received from God, with thankfulness, and how we have behaved\nourselves in all the parts of divine worship, in which we have been\nengaged. Let us enquire, whether the Sabbath was welcome to us, and we\nrejoiced in it as a blessing, as well as set about the observing of it\nas a duty? as the Psalmist says, \u2018I was glad when they said unto me, Let\nus go into the house of the Lord,\u2019 Psal. cxxii. 1. Moreover, let us\nenquire, whether our ends were right in all the duties we performed?\nwhether the glory of God, and the good of our own souls, has been our\ngreat concern? Or, whether we have been only influenced by custom, and\nrested in a form of godliness, without regarding the power thereof, and\nloved the opinion and praise of men more than of God? Let us enquire,\nwhether our minds, our affections and outward gestures have been grave,\nsedate, and composed, and we ready to receive whatever God has been\npleased to impart in his word? and whether we have had a due sense of\nthe divine perfections impressed on our spirits, and of the infinite\ndistance there is between the great God and us? whether we have seen our\nneed of the word, as Job says, that he _esteemed the words of God\u2019s\nmouth more than his necessary food_? Job xxiii. 12. and, whether we have\nnot only attended to, but applied every truth to our own souls, as\ndesiring to retain, improve, and make it the rule of our conversation?\nWe are also to consider, what we have received from God under his\nordinances; whether we have had any sensible communion with him, any\nexperiences of his love, or impressions of his power on our hearts?\nwhether we have had fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus\nChrist? whether, as we have gone from one ordinance to another, we have\ngone from strength to strength, our faith being more lively, our love to\nGod increased, and our spiritual joy enlarged by every duty? Let us\nenquire, whether, we have learned some doctrine from the word, which we\nunderstood not, or, at least, have been more confirmed therein, after\nsome degree of wavering, or have been affected with some truth which we\nnever saw such a beauty and glory in before? whether we have been melted\nunder the word; if it has been, as the prophet speaks, _like fire_; or,\nas _the hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces_, Jer. xxiii. 29. or, as\nthe disciples say one to another, _Did not our heart burn within us\nwhile he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the\nscriptures?_ Luke xxiv. 32.\nAnd we may comfortably conclude, that we have received good under the\nordinances, if we have been brought into an holy and lively frame of\nspirit; and the more we attend to them, the more our hearts are drawn\nforth to desire and delight in them; and especially when public duties\nfit us for private, and from the advantage that we receive from such\nopportunities, we are more disposed to walk with God in all the affairs\nand businesses of life, so that our whole conversation in this world,\nreceives a tincture from the benefit which we gain by that communion\nwhich we enjoy with God in his ordinances on his own day.\nThus we are to take a view of our behaviour when engaged in public\nworship; and if we have received any spiritual advantage, the glory\nthereof is to be given to God. But if, on the other hand, upon a strict\nand impartial enquiry into the frame of our spirits under the\nordinances, we have, as it too often happens, reason to complain of our\ndeadness and stupidity under them; if we have not experienced that\nsensible communion with God, which we have at other times enjoyed, or\nhave reason to say, that we wax worse, rather than better, under them;\nlet us dread the consequence hereof, lest this should issue in a\njudicial hardness of heart, and habitual unprofitableness, under the\nmeans of grace. We ought, in this case, to search out, and be humbled\nbefore God, for that secret sin, which is as a root of bitterness which\nsprings up within us, and troubles us; and be still pressing after that\nspecial presence of God in his ordinances, that will have a tendency to\npromote the life and power of religion in our souls.\nAnd to this we may add; that besides our dealing thus with ourselves in\nour private retirements, after having attended on public worship, we are\nto endeavour to sanctify the Sabbath in our families, in the evening\nthereof. Family-worship is to be neglected no day; but on the Sabbath,\nit is to be engaged in with a particular relation to the duties which we\nhave been performing in public; accordingly it is mentioned in one of\nthe answers we are explaining, that the charge of keeping the Sabbath is\ndirected to the governors of families, and other superiors; inasmuch as\nthey are bound, not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be\nobserved by all those who are under their charge, and not to hinder\nthem, as many are prone to do, by employing them in those works which\nare foreign to the duties of the day. Masters of families are not only\nto restrain immoralities in those who are under their care, on the\nSabbath-day, but to lay their commands on them, to engage with them in\nthe worship of God therein, as they expect a blessing from him on their\nundertakings. Thus Joshua resolves, that _he and his house would serve\nthe Lord_, Josh. xxiv. 15. and God speaks to the honour of Abraham, when\nhe says, _I know him that he will command his children and his household\nafter him; and they shall keep the way of the Lord_, Gen. xviii. 19.\nSuperiors have no power to dispense with any of God\u2019s commandments, to\ndisengage those who are under them, from yielding obedience thereunto.\nBut, on the other hand, they are obliged to see that all, under their\ncare, perform their duty to God, as well as to them, and, particularly,\nthat of sanctifying the Sabbath. Therefore they are to restrain them\nfrom taking their own diversions, or finding their own pleasure in\nsinful recreations on the Lord\u2019s day; and impress on them those suitable\nexhortations, that may have a tendency to promote religion in their\nfamilies; by which means they may hope for a peculiar blessing from God,\nin every relation and condition of life.\n    QUEST. CXIX. _What are the sins forbidden in the fourth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the fourth Commandment, are, all\n    omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and\n    unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them, all\n    profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself\n    sinful, and by all needless works, words, and thoughts about worldly\n    employments and recreations.\n    QUEST. CXX. _What are the reasons annexed to the fourth Commandment\n    the more to enforce it?_\n    ANSW. The reasons annexed to the fourth Commandment, the more to\n    enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six\n    days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for\n    himself, in these words, [_Six days shalt thou labour, and do all\n    thy work_,] from God\u2019s challenging a special propriety in that day,\n    [_The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God_] from the\n    example of God, who, _in six days made heaven and earth, the sea,\n    and all that in them is and rested the seventh day_; and from that\n    blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to\n    be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of\n    blessing to us in our sanctifying it; [_wherefore the Lord blessed\n    the Sabbath-day and hallowed it_.]\n    QUEST. CXXI. _Why is the word_ Remember _set in the beginning of the\n    fourth Commandment_?\n    ANSW. The word _Remember_ is set in the beginning of the fourth\n    Commandment, partly because of the great benefit of remembering it;\n    we being thereby helped, in our preparation, to keep it; and in\n    keeping it better, to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to\n    continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of\n    creation, and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of\n    religion; and partly because we are very ready to forget it; for\n    that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restraineth\n    our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it cometh\n    but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between,\n    and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to\n    prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan, with his\n    instruments much labour to blot out the glory, and even the memory\n    of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.\nThe method in which we shall proceed, in speaking to these answers,\nshall be,\nI. To consider the sins forbidden in this Commandment; and these are,\n1. The omission of the duties required. Sins of omission are exceeding\nprejudicial; because, though they have a tendency to harden the heart,\nand stupify the conscience; yet they are, of all others, least regarded.\nAs for the omission of holy duties, on the Sabbath-day; this is a\nslighting and casting away a great prize, put into our hands; and\ntherefore, in such a case, it will be said, _Wherefore is there a price_\nput into _the hands of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to\nit_, Prov. xvi. 16. It may be also observed, that this is generally\nattended with the neglect of secret duties, and is an in-let to all\nmanner of sins, and to a total apostasy from God.\n2. The next thing forbidden in this Commandment is, the careless\nperformance of holy duties; that is, when our hearts are not engaged in\nthem, or we content ourselves with a form of godliness, denying the\npower thereof, have no sense of God\u2019s all-seeing eye, or dread of\nspiritual judgments, or being given up to barrenness and\nunprofitableness, under the means of grace. Such a frame of spirit as\nthis, is always attended with a declining state of religion; especially\nif we do not lament and strive against it.\nAnd to this we may add, that we greatly sin, when we profane the day by\nidleness; and that either by sleeping away a great part of the morning\nof the day, as though it were a day of sloth, and not of spiritual rest,\ndesigned for religious exercises; or drowsiness under the ordinances, as\nthough we had no concern in them; whereby we give all about us to\nunderstand, that we do, as it were, withdraw our thoughts from the work,\nwhich we pretend to be engaged in. In some, indeed, this proceeds very\nmuch from the weakness of their natural constitution. Such may be heavy\nand weary in duty, though they, are not weary of it; and this is what\nthey lament, and are far from giving way to; though they are, sometimes,\nunavoidably overtaken with it. In this case, though it cannot be excused\nfrom being a sin; yet it is such, as, it is to be hoped, our Saviour\nwill cover, with the mantle of his love, or, at least, not charge upon\nthem for their condemnation; though he may reprove them for it, to bring\nthem under conviction. Thus he dealt with his disciples, when he _came\nto them, and found them asleep_, Matt. xxvi. 40, 41. and though he\ntacitly reproves them, yet he does not infer from hence, that they were\nwholly destitute of faith; but charges their unbecoming carriage\ntherein, on the weakness of faith, being impowered by the infirmities of\nnature, when he says, _The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is\nweak_.\nThere are other sins forbidden in the fourth Commandment, that are\nparticularly mentioned in this answer, which have been occasionally\ninsisted on, in considering how the Sabbath is to be sanctified; in\nwhich we have shewn, that, as we are not to do that which is in itself\nsinful, so we are to abstain from our worldly employments and\nrecreations, and endeavour to fence against that vanity of thoughts,\nwhich will have a tendency to alienate our affections from God, or\nhinder the success of ordinances; and therefore we pass them over at\npresent, and proceed to consider,\nII. The reasons annexed to this Commandment. And,\n1. It is highly reasonable that we should sanctify the Lord\u2019s day, since\nhe is pleased to allow us six days out of seven, for the attending to\nour worldly affairs, and reserves but one to himself. This supposes that\nwe are allowed to engage in our secular callings on other days: and\ntherefore, though it be brought in occasionally, in this commandment, it\nis a duty belonging to the second table rather than the first;\nparticularly, it seems to be a branch of the eighth Commandment;\nhowever, it is alleged as a reason of our observing this Commandment. It\nis a very large allowance that God has made, of six days in seven, for\nour own employments. If, on the other hand, he had allowed us but one\nday in seven for them, and laid claim to six days, to be set apart for\nreligious worship, none would have had reason to complain, since he,\nbeing the absolute Lord of our time, may demand what proportion of it he\npleases; and they who are truly sensible of the real advantage that\nthere is in the attendance on all God\u2019s holy institutions, and consider\nthe Sabbath as a privilege and blessing, would not only think it\nreasonable, but a great instance of the kindness of God to man, had this\nearth so much resembled heaven, that there should be a perpetual Sabbath\ncelebrated here, as there is there, where the saints count it their\nhappiness to be engaged without interruption, in the immediate service\nof God.\n_Obj._ It is objected, by some, that they cannot spare a seventh part of\ntime for religious duties, out of their worldly business; and that it is\nvery hard for them to get bread for their families, by all their\ndiligence and industry. Others allege, that the Sabbath is their\nmarket-day, wherein, by selling things, they get more than they do on\nother days.\n_Answ._ 1. As to the former part of the objection, taken from the\ndifficulty of persons subsisting their families, it may be replied; that\nGod is able to made up the loss of the seventh part of time, so that\ntheir not working therein, shall not be a real detriment, to those who\nare in the fewest circumstances in the world, God has ordered it so,\nthat our observing his holy institutions, shall not, in the end, prove\ndetrimental to us. Thus when Israel was commanded to rest, and not to\ncultivate their land for an whole year together, every seventh year,\nprovidence so ordered it, that they were not sufferers thereby, inasmuch\nas the year before brought forth enough for three years, Lev. xxv.\n20-22. and when they were not to gather manna on the seventh day of the\nweek, there was a double quantity rained upon them, which they gathered\nthe day before, Exod. xvi. 22-24. Therefore, why may we not conclude,\nthat, by the blessing of God, what is lost by our not attending to our\nsecular callings on the Lord\u2019s day, may be abundantly made up, by his\nblessing succeeding our endeavours on other days.\nAs to that part of the objection, in which it is pretended that the\nLord\u2019s day is their market-day, in which they expect more advantage than\non other days; it may be replied, that if this is true, it arises from\nthe iniquity of the times; and it should be a caution to us, not to\nencourage those who expose their wares to sale on the Sabbath-day; since\nif there were no buyers, there would be no sellers; and this public and\nnotorious sin would be hereby prevented. We have a noble instance of\nthis in Nehemiah, whose wisdom, zeal, and holy resolution, put an\neffectual stop to this practice, in his dealing with those who _sold\nfish on the Sabbath-day_, Neh. xiii. 16-21. First, he _shut the gates of\nthe city against them_; and when he saw that they continued without the\nwalls, hoping, by some means or other, to get into the city, or to\nentice some to come out to buy their merchandize; then he _testified\nagainst them_, and commanded them not to continue without the walls, and\nby this means, gave a check to that scandalous practice. Moreover, this\ngain of iniquity is not to be pretended as a just excuse for the breach\nof a positive commandment; since, what is gotten in a way of\npresumptuous rebellion against God, it is not like to prosper, whatever\npretence of poverty may be alleged, to give countenance thereunto.\n2. Another reason annexed to enforce our observation of the Sabbath-day,\nis taken from God\u2019s challenging a special propriety in it. Thus it is\ncalled the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; a day which he has consecrated,\nor separated to himself, and so lays claim to it. Therefore it is no\nless than sacrilege, or a robbing of him, to employ it in any thing but\nwhat he requires to be done therein.\n3. God sets his own example before us for our imitation therein. Thus it\nis said, _In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the\nseventh day, and hallowed it_. It is observed, that God was six days in\nmaking the world; whereas, had he pleased, he could have created all\nthings with the same beauty and perfection in which they are at present,\nin an instant; but he performed this work by degrees, that he might\nteach us, that whatever our hand finds to do, we should do it in the\nproper season allotted for it; and as he ceased from his work on the\nseventh day, he requires that we should rest from ours, in conformity to\nhis own example.\n4. The last reason assigned for our sanctifying the Sabbath, is taking\nfrom God\u2019s blessing and sanctifying it, or setting it apart for an holy\nuse. To bless a day, is to give it to us as a particular blessing and\nprivilege. Accordingly we ought to reckon the Sabbath as a great\ninstance of God\u2019s care and compassion to men, and a very great\nprivilege, which ought to be highly esteemed by them. Again, for God to\nsanctify a day, is to set it apart from a common, to an holy use; and\nthus we ought to reckon the Sabbath as a day signalized above all\nothers, with the character of God\u2019s holy day; and as such, it is to be\nemployed by us in holy exercises, answerable to the end for which it was\ninstituted.\nIII. It is observed in the last answer we are explaining, that the word\n_Remember_ is set in the beginning of the fourth Commandment; from\nwhence we may observe, our great proneness, through worldly business,\nand Satan\u2019s temptations, to forget the Sabbath. We may also learn from\nhence, the importance of our observing it; without which, irreligion and\nprofaneness would never universally abound in the world; and, on the\nother hand, in our observing this day as we ought to do, we may hope for\ngrace from God, whereby we may be enabled to keep his other\ncommandments. Again, the word _Remember_, prefixed to this Commandment,\nnot only imports that we are to call to mind, that this particular day\nwhich God has sanctified, is a Sabbath, or to know what day it is, in\nthe order of the days of the week; but we ought to endeavour to have a\nframe of spirit becoming the holiness of the day, or, to remember it, so\nas to keep it holy. It is certain, that it is an hard matter, through\nthe corruption of nature, to get our hearts disengaged from the vain\namusements and entanglements of this present world; by which means we\nlose the advantage that would redound to us, by our conversing with God\nin holy duties. Therefore we are to desire of him, that he would impress\non our souls a sense of our obligation to duty, and of the advantage\nwhich we may hope to gain from it. And to induce us hereunto, let it be\nconsidered,\n1. That the profanation of the Sabbath is generally the first step to\nall manner of wickedness, and a making great advances to a total\napostasy from God.\n2. The observing of it is reckoned as a sign between God and his people.\nIt is, with respect to him, a sign of his favour; and with respect to\nman, it is a sign of their subjection to God, as their King and\nLawgiver, in all his holy appointments.\n3. We cannot reasonably expect, that God should bless us in what we\nundertake, on other days, if we neglect to own him, on his day, or to\ndevote ourselves to him, and thereby discover our preferring him, and\nthe affairs of his worship, before all things in the world.\nFrom what has been said in explaining this Commandment, we may infer,\n(1.) That, this may serve to confute those who think that the\nobservation of days, in general, or, that the keeping the first day of\nthe week as a Sabbath, is a setting up the ceremonial law, without\ndistinguishing a right between a ceremonial and a moral precept. For,\nhow much soever the observation of the seventh day, might have a\nceremonial signification annexed to it, as it was given to Israel, from\nmount Sinai, it is possible for the typical reference thereof, to cease;\nand yet the moral reason of the Commandment remain in force to us, as it\nis a day appointed by God, in which he is to be worshipped, so that we\nmay have ground to expect his presence, and blessing, while attending on\nhim in his holy institutions.\n(2.) Others are to blame, who think that every day is to be kept as a\nSabbath, pretending that this is most agreeable to a state of\nperfection. But this is contrary to God\u2019s allowing us six days for our\nown employment; and, indeed, none, who make use of this argument, do, in\nreality, keep any day as a Sabbath, at least, in such a way as they\nought.\n(3.) Others are guilty of a great error, who think that the Sabbath is,\nindeed, to be observed; but there is no need of that strictness which\nhas been inculcated; or, that it should be kept holy, from the beginning\nto the end thereof. Some suppose, that the only design of God in\ninstituting it was, that public worship should be maintained in the\nworld; and therefore, that it is sufficient if they attend on it,\nwithout endeavouring to converse with him in secret.\n(4.) What has been said, is directly contrary to their opinion, who\nthink that the Lord\u2019s day was a mere human institution; without\nconsidering, as has been hinted, that what the apostles prescribed,\nrelating thereunto, was by divine direction; which opinion, if it should\nprevail, would open a door to great carelessness and formality in holy\nduties, and would be an inducement to us to profane the day in various\ninstances.\n    QUEST. CXXII. _What is the sum of the six Commandments, which\n    contain our duty to man?_\n    ANSW. The sum of the six Commandments, which contain our duty to\n    man, is to love our neighbour as ourselves, and to do to others what\n    we would have them do to us.\nAs the first table of the ten Commandments respects our duty to God, the\nother contains our duty to our neighbor; which is comprized in the\ngeneral idea of _love_. This is therefore styled the sum of the\nfollowing six Commandments; and it is included in our Saviour\u2019s words;\n_Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself_, Matt. xxii. 39. and\nelsewhere, _Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so\nto them_, chap. vii. 12. Here it may be observed,\nI. That we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves. This\nimplies in it,\n1. A caution against a selfish temper; as though we were born only for,\nor were obliged to do good to none but ourselves. This is what the\napostle reproves, when he says, _Men shall be lovers of their\nownselves_, 2 Tim. iii. 2. that is, they shall study and consult the\nhappiness, ease, and comfort of none but themselves.\n2. It farther implies in it, our using endeavours to promote the good of\nall, whom we converse with; and thereby rendering ourselves a blessing\nto mankind. It does not, indeed, exclude self-love, which it supposes to\nbe a duty; but obliges us to love others as well as ourselves, in things\nthat relate to their spiritual and temporal good. This leads us to\nenquire,\n(1.) Whether we ought to love others better than ourselves; or what the\napostle intends, when he says, _Let each esteem other better than\nthemselves_? Phil. ii. 3.\n_Answ._ [1.] It cannot be hereby intended, that they, who have attained\na great measure of the knowledge of the truths of God, should reckon\nthemselves as ignorant of, or unstable in, the doctrines of the gospel,\nas those who never made them the subject of their study and enquiry;\nnor, that they, who have had large experience of the grace of God,\nshould conclude that they have no more experience thereof than those who\nare unregenerate, and have not taken one step heavenward. But,\n[2.] The meaning is, that the greatest saint should not think himself\nbetter than the least, any otherwise than as he has received more from\nthe discriminating grace of God; as the apostle says, _Who maketh thee\nto differ from another; and what hast thou, that thou didst not\nreceive?_ 1 Cor. iv. 7. And, indeed, such an one may see more sin in\nhimself than he can see in any other; and therefore, may have reason to\nreckon himself, as the apostle speaks, _the chief of sinners_, 1 Tim. i.\n[3.] The best saints would have been as bad as the vilest of men, had\nthey been left to themselves; and it may be, some of them who have had\nless grace, have had fewer talents, and opportunities of grace, than\nthey have had; which they have improved better, in proportion to what\nthey have received, than they have, the many advantages which God has\nbeen pleased to bestow on them.\n(1.) Our next enquiry may be, whether our love to our neighbour should\nextend so far, as that we should be willing, were it needful, to lay\ndown our lives for them; as it is said, in 1 John iii. 16. _We ought to\nlay down our lives for the brethren_; and in Rom. v. 7. _Peradventure,\nfor a good man some would even dare to die._\n_Answ._ [1.] By _laying down_ our _lives_ in these scriptures, is\nprincipally intended hazarding our lives, or exposing ourselves to the\nutmost danger, even of death itself, for others. But,\n[2.] We are not to do this rashly, and at all times; but when God, who\nis the sovereign Lord of our lives, calls us to it. And,\n[3.] This ought not to be for every one, but for the _brethren_,\nespecially for those who are more eminently useful in the church of God\nthan ourselves or others. Accordingly the apostle says, _for a good\nman_; that is, one who is a common good, or a blessing to many others,\n_one would even dare to die_.\n[4.] This must be, at such times, when in exposing ourselves for the\nsake of others, we give our testimony to the gospel; and, in defending\nthem, plead the injured cause of Christ and religion.\nII. This loving our neighbour as ourselves is farther illustrated in\nthis answer, by doing to others what we would have them to do us. This\nis one of the most undeniable, and self-evident truths contained in the\nlaw of nature. So that whatever disputable matters there may be, as to\nwhat respects other duties, this is allowed of by all mankind. Many,\nindeed, do not conform their practice to this rule; which gives occasion\nto the injuries done between man and man. However the vilest of men,\nwhen they deliberate on their own actions, cannot but blame themselves\nfor acting contrary thereunto. Thus Saul did, when he said unto David,\n_Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rewarded me good; whereas\nI have rewarded thee evil_, 1 Sam. xxiv. 17. Therefore we conclude, that\nit is one of the first principles of the law of nature; and may well be\ncalled, as it is in this answer, the sum of the Commandments of the\nsecond table, or that, to which they are all reduced. There are two\nthings, which we shall lay down, relating to this golden rule, of doing\nto others as we would that they should do to us.\n1. It is miserably neglected by a great part of the world; as,\n(1.) By them who turn away their hearts from the afflicted; so as not to\npity, help, or endeavour to comfort them in their distress. The Psalmist\nwas of another mind, when he says, _As for me, when they were sick, my\nclothing was sackcloth. I humbled my soul with fasting, and my prayer\nreturned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my\nfriend or brother. I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his\nmother_, Psal. xxxv. 13,-15.\n(2.) They who deny to others those natural, civil, or religious\nliberties, which, by God\u2019s appointment, they have a right to, or envy\nthem the possession thereof, may be said to neglect this golden rule.\n2. We are farther to enquire, how this rule, of doing to others what we\nwould have them do to us, may be of use, in order to our right observing\nthe Commandments of the second table?\n_Answ._ The fifth Commandment, which requires the performance of all\nrelative duties, would be better observed, did superiors put themselves\nin the place of inferiors, and consider what they would then expect from\nthem; and the same they ought to do to them. Again, the sixth, seventh,\nand eight Commandments, that respect the life, honour, or wealth of\nothers; if these are dear to us, ought we not to consider, that they are\nso to others; and if we would not be deprived of them ourselves, how\nunreasonable is it for us to do any thing that may tend to deprive\nothers of them? Again, if, according to the ninth Commandment, our good\nname be so valuable, that we ought to maintain it, should not this rule\nbe observed by defamers, slanderers, and backbiters, who do that to\nothers which they would not have done to themselves? And the tenth\nCommandment, which forbids our uneasiness at, or being discontented\nwith, the good of others, or endeavouring to supplant, or divest them of\nthe possession of what God has given them in this world. This cannot be\ndone by any one who duly considers, how unwilling they would be to have\nwhat they possess taken away, to satisfy the covetousness, or lust, of\nothers.\n        Quest. CXXIII., CXXIV., CXXV., CXXVI., CXXVII., CXXVIII.\n    QUEST. CXXIII. _Which is the fifth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The fifth Commandment is, _Honour thy father and thy mother,\n    that thy days may be long upon the land, which the Lord thy God\n    giveth thee_.\n    QUEST. CXXIV. _Who are meant by father, and mother, in the fifth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. By father and mother, in the fifth Commandment, are meant not\n    only natural parents; but all the superiors in age, and gifts, and\n    especially such as by GOD\u2019s ordinance, are over us in place of\n    authority, whether in family, church, or common-wealth.\n    QUEST. CXXV. _Why are superiors styled, father and mother?_\n    ANSW. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in\n    all duties towards their inferiors, like natural parents, to express\n    love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations,\n    and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in\n    performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.\n    QUEST. CXXVI. _What is the general scope of the fifth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The general scope of the fifth Commandment, is, the\n    performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several\n    relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.\n    QUEST. CXXVII. _What is the honour that inferiors owe to their\n    superiors?_\n    ANSW. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors, is, all due\n    reverence, in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer, and thanksgiving\n    for them, imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience\n    to their lawful commands, and counsels, due submission to their\n    corrections, fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons\n    and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of\n    their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in\n    love, that so they may be an honour to them and their government.\n    QUEST. CXXVIII. _What are the sins of inferiors against their\n    superiors?_\n    ANSW. The sins of inferiors against their superiors, are, all\n    neglect of the duties required towards them, envying at, contempt\n    of, and rebellion against their persons, and places, in their lawful\n    counsels, commands, and corrections, cursing, mocking, and all such\n    refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour\n    to them and their government.\nIn the fifth Commandment, no other relations are mentioned, but father\nand mother; yet it may be observed,\nI. That, hereby, all superiors in general are intended; as many others\nare called _fathers_ in scripture, besides our natural parents, _viz._\n1. Superiors in age. Thus it is said, _Rebuke not an elder, but intreat\nhim as a father, and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as\nmothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity_, 1 Tim. v. 1, 2.\n2. They, are also called _fathers_, who are superior in gifts; and\naccordingly have been the first inventors of arts, which have been\nuseful to the world. Thus Jabal is said to be _the father of such as\ndwell in tents, and have cattle_, Gen. iv. 20. that is, the first that\nmade considerable improvements in the art of husbandry; and Jubal is\nsaid to be _the father_, that is, the instructor _of all such as handle\nthe harp and organ_, ver. 21. or the first that made improvements in the\nart of music.\n3. Persons to whom we owe, under God, our outward prosperity and\nhappiness. In this sense Joseph, though a subject, a young man, and a\nlittle before, a prisoner, is called _a father to Pharaoh_, chap. xlv.\n8. as he was an instrument to support his greatness, and preserve him\nfrom the inconveniences of a seven years famine.\n4. Princes, great men, and heads of families, are called _fathers_. Thus\nNaaman was by his servants, 2 Kings v. 13.\n5. Men of honour and usefulness in the church are so called. Thus when\nElisha saw Elijah ascend into heaven, he cries out, _My father, my\nfather, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof_, chap. ii. 12.\nAnd Joash, the king of Israel, used the same expression to Elisha, _when\nfallen sick_, chap. xiii. 14. And this is implied in the apostle\u2019s\nstyling those whom he had been of use to, for their conviction, and\nenlightening in the doctrines of the gospel, _My little children_, Gal.\n6. Good kings and governors are called _fathers_. Thus it is said,\n_Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers_,\nIsa. xlix. 23.\nII. We have an account, in one of the answers we are explaining, of the\nreason why superiors are styled father and mother; namely, to denote,\nthat they should behave towards their inferiors, with that love and\ntenderness, as though they were natural parents. Authority is not only\nconsistent herewith, but it ought to be exercised, by superiors towards\ninferiors, in such a way. Thus Job, when in his prosperity, was, as it\nwere, a common father to all that were under him; accordingly he says,\n_I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had\nnone to help him_, Job xxix. 12. upon which occasion he says, _I was a\nfather to the poor_, ver. 16. And ministers, who, in some respects, are\nsuperior in office to others; when their reproofs are mixed with\ntenderness and compassion towards the souls of men under their care, are\ncompared to the nurse that _cherished her children_; as _being\naffectionately desirous_, and _willing to impart to them, not the gospel\nof God only, but also their own souls, as being dear to them_, 1 Thess.\nIII. We have, in another of the answers under our consideration, an\naccount of the general scope of the fifth Commandment; and, as it\nrequires the duties to be performed by every one in their several\nrelations; these are considered either as superiors, inferiors, or\nequals. There are several sorts of relations wherein persons are styled\nsuperior or inferior to one another.\n1. Such as are founded in nature; as that of parents and children.\n2. There are such relations as are political, designed for the good of\nmankind, living together as members of the same common-wealth, in which\nevery one has a right to his civil liberties, which are to be enjoyed by\none, and defended by the other; of this sort is the relation of\nmagistrates and subjects.\n3. There is a relation founded in mutual compact and agreement,\nrespecting things to be done, on the one side, and gratifications to be\nallowed, on the other; of this kind is the relation between master and\nservant. The only difficulty that arises from the account we have of the\nobligation of persons to give honour to others, respects superiors\nhonouring inferiors. For the understanding of which, let it be\nconsidered,\n(1.) That superiors are not obliged to shew the same marks of honour to\ntheir inferiors, as inferiors are bound, by the laws of God and nature,\nto express to them. Nevertheless,\n(2.) There is a duty which the greatest owe to the least; and there is\nalso a degree of honour, which the lowest of men, as reasonable\ncreatures, or Christians, have put upon them by God; and this is to be\nregarded by those who are, as to their condition in the world, superior\nto them.\n(3.) The meanest and lowest part of mankind, are, in many respects,\nnecessary and useful to those who are much their superiors; and are to\nbe regarded by them in proportion thereto. And the performing the duties\nwhich such owe to them, is called an honouring them.\nIV. We have, in another of the answers we are explaining, an account of\nthe honour which inferiors owe to their superiors. Here it will be\nnecessary for us to premise some things concerning the measure of\nsubmission and obedience which inferiors owe to superiors, of what kind\nsoever the relation be. As,\n1. When the authority God has invested superiors with, is abused, and\nthe highest end of all sort of government, to wit, the glory of God, and\nthe good of mankind, can never be attained, nor is, indeed, designed; or\nwhen the commands of superiors contradict the commands of God, we are to\nobey him rather than men, Acts iv. 19.\n2. If we cannot obey the commands of superiors, as being unjust, we must\npray that God would interpose, direct, and over-rule their authority,\nthat it may not be abused by them; or become a snare, or an occasion of\nsin, to us.\n3. Though we cannot yield obedience to them, in those things that are\ncontrary to the laws of God, this does not discharge us from our\nobligation to obey their commands, in other things, agreeable thereunto;\nsince we are not to suppose that the abuse of their authority in some\ninstances, divests them of it in all respects.\nV. We shall now proceed to consider the duties which inferiors owe to\ntheir superiors. And,\n1. That of children to parents. This is founded on the law of nature, as\nunder God, they derive their being from them; and they are obliged\nthereunto, from a sense of gratitude for that love, tenderness, and\ncompassion which they have shewn to them. Therefore the apostle says,\nthat _this is right_, Eph. vi. 1. that is, equitable, and highly\nreasonable; and elsewhere, that it is _well-pleasing unto the Lord_,\nCol. iii. 20. This duty includes in it several things.\n(1.) They are sometimes to shew the regard they have to them by outward\ntokens of respect. Thus Solomon, though his character, as a king,\nrendered him superior to all his subjects; yet he expressed a great deal\nof honour by outward gestures to his mother; when she went to him to\nspeak in the behalf of Adonijah: it is said, that \u2018the king rose up to\nmeet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and\ncaused a seat to be set for the king\u2019s mother; and she sat on his right\nhand,\u2019 1 Kings ii. 19.\n(2.) They ought to be ready to do them any acts of service, which are\nnot unlawful or impossible, when commanded by them. Thus Joseph obeyed\nJacob, when he sent him to see where his brethren were, and what they\nwere engaged in, Gen. xxxvii. 13. and David obeyed Jesse, when he sent\nhim to his brethren to the camp of Israel, 1 Sam. xvii. 17, 20. This\nservice is required more especially of them, while they live with their\nparents, are maintained by them, and not, by mutual compact, become\nservants to others.\n(3.) Another duty which they owe, is, patient submission to their just\nreproofs, design for their good. Thus the apostle says, \u2018We have had\nfathers of our flesh, which corrected us; and we gave them reverence,\u2019\nHeb. xii. 9.\n(4.) They are to attend to, and comply with, their wholesome advice and\ninstruction. Thus it is said, _A wise son heareth his father\u2019s\ninstruction_, Prov. xiii. 1. and, on the other hand, he is branded with\nthe character of a _fool_ who _despiseth it_, chap. xv. 5. and it is\nfarther added, _He that regardeth reproof is prudent_.\n(5.) Children are to express their duty to their parents, by a thankful\nacknowledgment of past favours; and accordingly ought to relieve them,\nif they are able, when their indigent circumstances call for it; and\nendeavour to be a staff, comfort, and support to them, in their old age.\nThis is contained in the message which Joseph sent to Jacob, when he\ninvited him to come down to him into Egypt, Gen. xlv. 9,-11. So when\nRuth bare a son to Boaz, her mother Naomi\u2019s companions blessed her, and\nsaid, _He shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of\nthine old age_, Ruth iv. 15.\n(6.) Children are to pay deference to, and, so far as it concerns the\nglory of God, and their own future good, be advised, by their parents,\nin disposing of themselves in marriage, or any other important change of\ntheir condition and circumstances in the world. Herein they acknowledge\ntheir authority as superiors, and the care and concern which it is\nsupposed they naturally have for their welfare, as a part of themselves.\nMoreover, by this they pay a deference to their wisdom and judgment, as\nbeing superior in age, and probably, in wisdom, as well as relation. And\nthis ought to be done out of a sense of gratitude for past favours\nreceived; and prudence will, for the most part, dictate as much,\nespecially when they depend on them for present, or expect future\nadvantages from them. This is also an expedient to maintain love and\npeace in families, which is oftentimes broken by the contrary practice.\nAnd it may be farther recommended, from the laudable examples hereof in\ngood men; as Isaac, who submitted to the direction of his father Abraham\nherein; and Jacob, Gen. xxiv. who was determined by the consent of\nLaban, chap. xxix. Many more instances might be given to the same\npurpose. And, on the other hand, Esau\u2019s contrary practice hereunto is\nrecorded in scripture, as a vile instance of disobedience; _which was a\ngrief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah_, chap. xxvi. 35. And it was,\ndoubtless, an argument that he had no regard to God or religion.\nNevertheless, this obligation is not without some exceptions; for,\n[1.] We do not speak of parents that are so far deprived of judgment,\nthat they are not fit to determine this matter; nor,\n[2.] Such as have divested themselves of the natural affection of\nparents, and entertaining an ungrounded prejudice against some of their\nchildren, are endeavouring to expose them to ruin, that they may shew\nmore kindness to others. These forfeit that right, which is otherwise\nfounded in nature.\n[3.] If parents, by refusing to comply with the desire of their\nchildren, plainly, in the judgment of the wisest of men, obstruct their\nhappiness, and the glory of God herein. Or, if they have no reason for\ntheir not complying, or the reason given is contrary to the laws of God,\nor the common sense of all impartial judges; especially if the affair\ntook its first rise from them, and afterwards they changed their mind,\nwithout sufficient ground. This, without doubt, lessens, or it may be so\ncircumstanced, that it wholly takes away the charge of sin in the child,\nin acting contrary to the will of his parents, and fastens the guilt on\nthem.\n[4.] The case is vastly different, when applied to children who are so\nfar from being dependent on their parents, that they depend on them.\nNevertheless, in this case, some deference and respect ought to be paid\nto them; and as it is the children\u2019s duty, it may be their interest so\nto do; since we can hardly suppose, that parents, who depend on their\nchildren, would oppose their happiness, in an affair that is apparently\ncontrary to their own interest, if they did not think that they had\nsufficient reason for it; which ought to be duly weighed, that it may be\nknown, whether their advice is expedient to be complied with, or no. And\nif in this, or any other instance, children are obliged to act contrary\nto the will of their parents; they ought to satisfy them, that it is not\nout of contempt to their authority, but a conscientious regard to the\nglory of God; and that it is conducive to their happiness, in the\nopinion of the wisest and best of men.\n2. We shall now consider the duty of servants to their masters. This\ndepends upon, and is limited by the contract, which first brought them\ninto that relation, the not fulfilling whereof, renders them guilty of\nunfaithfulness. And it is no less an instance of immorality, for them to\nrob them of that time, which they have engaged to serve, than it is to\ntake away any part of their estate. But more particularly,\n(1.) Servants ought to behave themselves, in their calling, with\nindustry, being as much concerned for their masters interest as their\nown. Thus Joseph, though a foreigner, and one who does not appear to\nhave expected any reward for his service, but a maintenance, served\nPotiphar. In the like manner Jacob served Laban, though an unjust,\nsevere and unrighteous master. This may lead us to enquire concerning\nthe duty of servants, when their masters are froward, passionate, and\nunreasonable in their demands, which renders their service very irksome\nand unpleasant; but let it be considered in this case,\n[1.] That, the master\u2019s passion, which is his sin, ought not to draw\nforth the corruption of his servant; for, sin indulged by one, is no\nexcuse for its being committed by another. The apostle Peter supposes\nthe case under our present consideration, and gives this advice;\n_Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good\nand gentle, but also to the froward_, 1 Pet. ii. 18.\n[2.] If the master\u2019s demands are unreasonable, the servant must know the\nextent of his contract and obligation, which he must, in justice, fulfil\n_as unto Christ_, Eph. vi. 5,-8. And, as for those services that are\nreckoned unreasonable, and not agreeable to the contract. These, if\ndemanded, are rather to be referred to the determination of others,\nsince persons are apt to be partial in judging in their own cause.\nThere seems, indeed, to be an exception to this, in some instances,\nwhich we find in scripture, of the unlimited obedience of servants under\nthe ceremonial law, which was not founded in, nor the result of any\ncontract between their masters and them; accordingly we read, that\npersons became servants,\n_1st_, Through poverty; by reason of which, they sold themselves for the\npayment of debts. In this case there was a kind of contract, indeed; and\nthe service to be performed ought, (pursuant to the law of God and\nnature,) to have been agreeable to, and adjusted by the value of the\ndebt contracted.\n_2d_, Prisoners taken in war, were treated as servants, and, as such,\nsold to others. In this case, all the children that were born to them,\nduring their servitude, were the property of the master; and these are\ncalled home-born servants, who had not so much liberty allowed them as\nwhen they were servants by mutual compact, as is most common among us;\nin which case both parties are bound by this agreement.\n3. We proceed to consider the duty of the members of a common-wealth, or\nbody-politic, to their lawful magistrates, as the apostle says, _Let\nevery soul be subject unto the higher powers_, Rom. xiii. 1. Here we may\nobserve,\n(1.) The necessity and the end of civil government. This will appear, if\nwe consider mankind in general, as prone to be influenced by those\npassions, which are not entirely under the conduct of reason, and, if no\ncheck were given to them, would prove injurious to societies. We may\nalso observe, that God has, in his law, ordained certain punishments to\nbe inflicted, with a design to restrain those corruptions, and to keep\nthe world in order. And that this end may more effectually be answered,\nit is necessary, that some should be set over others, to administer\njustice, in chastising the guilty, and defending the innocent; otherwise\nthe world would be filled with confusion, and men would commit sin with\nimpunity; and more resemble brute creatures than those that are endowed\nwith reason, and as such, capable of moral government; as it is said\nwhen _there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in\nhis own eyes_, Judges xxi. 25.\nWe proceed now to consider the advantage of civil government. It is in\nitself a blessing to mankind, when it does not degenerate into tyranny.\nSo that good magistrates are a great instance of divine favour to a\nnation; as the queen of Sheba said to Solomon, _Happy are thy men, and\nhappy are these thy servants which stand continually before thee, and\nhear thy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God, which delighted in thee,\nto set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God. Because thy\nGod loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee\nking over them, to do judgment and justice_, 2 Chron. ix. 7, 8. And it\nis included among the blessings of the gospel-state, that _kings should\nbe their nursing fathers, and their queens their nursing mothers_, Isa.\nxlix. 23. Such are said, as David was, to be _raised up, to fulfil the\nwill of God_, Acts xiii. 22.\nNevertheless, civil government may be so administered, that it may cease\nto be a blessing to the subjects. Thus Samuel describes the miserable\nestate of a people, whose kings endeavour to establish their own\ngreatness by enslaving and plundering their subjects _taking their sons_\nand _daughters_ by force, to be their servants; seizing their _fields_,\ntheir _vineyards and olive-yards, and the tenth of their increase_;\nwhich would oblige them to _cry unto the Lord, because of their\noppression_, 1 Sam. viii. 11,-18. And we have an instance of this in\nRehoboam, who was herein as remarkable for his want of conduct, as his\nfather was for his excelling wisdom. His rough and ill-timed answer to\nhis subjects, in which gave them to expect nothing else but oppression\nand slavery, issued in the revolt of the ten tribes from his government,\n1 Kings xii. 13, 14.\nFrom this different method of the administration of civil government,\nwhereby it rendered either a blessing or an affliction to the subjects;\nwe may infer,\n[1.] That when that which is in itself a blessing, is turned into a\ncurse, this may be looked upon as a punishment inflicted by God, for the\niniquity of a people. Thus he says, _I gave thee a king in mine anger,\nand took him away in wrath_, Hosea xiii. 11.\n[2.] We have great reason to be well-pleased with, and to bless God for\nthe government we are under, as not being exposed to the slavery that\nsome other nations are; who have no laws, but what result from the\narbitrary will of their prince; and who can call nothing they have their\nown. This should make us prize the liberties we enjoy; and be a strong\nmotive to us to give due and cheerful obedience to our rightful and\nlawful sovereign, and all magistrates under him, who rule in\nrighteousness, and are a terror to evil doers, but a praise to them that\ndo well.\n[3.] This affords matter of reproof to the restless tempers of those,\nwho are under the mildest government; which is administered beyond all\nreasonable exception, our enemies themselves being judges, who would\nconfess the same, were they not blinded with prejudice; which puts them\nupon betaking themselves to railery, instead of better arguments. These\nare reproved by the apostle, who speaks of some _that walk after the\nflesh, in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous\nare they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil, even of\ndignities_, 2 Pet. ii. 10. This leads us\nTo consider the honour that subjects owe to their lawful magistrates.\nAccordingly,\n_1st_, They are highly to resent, and endeavour, in their several\nstations and capacities, to check the insolence of those who make bold\nwith the character, and take the liberty to reproach their magistrates\nin common conversation; which is directly contrary to the law of God;\nthat says, _Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought, and curse not\nthe rich in thy bed-chamber. For a bird of the air shall carry the\nvoice; and that which hath wings shall tell the matter_, Eccles. x. 20.\n_2dly_, We are to support the honour of government, by paying those\ntributes which are lawfully exacted. Thus the apostle says, _Render to\nall their due; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,\nfear to whom fear, honour to whom honour_, Rom. xiii. 7.\n_3dly_, We are to pray for a blessing from God, on the administration of\nour civil governors, that it may be under the divine direction, and tend\nto answer the great ends of government, viz. the glory of God, and the\nwelfare of the subject. And here I cannot but observe, that no one on\nearth has a power of discharging subjects from their obedience to their\nlawful governors, who endeavour to rule them according to the laws of\nGod and nature, and those fundamental constitutions that are agreeable\nthereto. Therefore it is a most detestable position advanced by the\nPapists, that the pope has a power to excommunicate and depose sovereign\nprinces; though it does not appear that he has received any such\nauthority from Christ, but herein intermeddles with a province that does\nnot belong to him. For princes do not receive their crowns from him; and\ntherefore are not to be deposed by him. In opposition hereunto, it may\nbe alleged,\n_1st_, That this is directly contrary to the temper of the blessed\nJesus, and of the apostles, and primitive Christians; who did not\nencourage their followers to depose Heathen kings and emperors; but on\nthe other hand, exhorted them to _submit to them in all things_,\nconsistent with the glory of God, and the good of mankind; _not only for\nwrath, but for conscience sake_, ver. 5.\n_2dly_, The church has no temporal sword committed to her, all its\ncensures being spiritual. Temporal punishments are left in the hands of\nthe civil magistrate; concerning whom, the apostle says, that _he is the\nminister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be\nafraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of\nGod, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil_, ver. 4. On\nthe other hand, when speaking concerning those, who have the government\nof ecclesiastical matters committed to them, he says, _The weapons of\nour warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down\nof strong holds_, 2 Cor. x. 24.\nThe arguments generally used by the Papists, to support the cause of\nrebellion, and their usurped power to depose magistrates, who are not of\ntheir communion, are very weak, and most of them, such as may easily be\nanswered; as,\n1. When they allege the commission given by Christ, to Peter, _Feed my\nsheep_, John xxi. 17. They pretend, that to feed, is the same as to\ngovern; and that this implies a power of punishing; which they suppose\nto be so far extended, as that the bishop of Rome may depose sovereign\nprinces, as occasion offers; and that this power was given to Peter and\nhis successors, which the popes of Rome pretend to be.\nBut to this it may be replied; that this commission given by Christ to\nPeter, to _feed his sheep_, imports his feeding them with knowledge and\nunderstanding, and not lording it over God\u2019s heritage. Thus our Saviour\nsays, _The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they\nthat exercise authority over them, are called benefactors. But ye shall\nnot be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger;\nand he that is chief as he that doth serve_, Luke xxii. 25, 26.\nMoreover, their pretence that the bishops of Rome are Peter\u2019s\nsuccessors, contains a claim of what they have not the least shadow of\nright to; and is, indeed, to place them in Peter\u2019s chair, who are the\ngreatest opposers of his doctrine.\n2. Another argument they bring, tending to overthrow the power of the\ncivil magistrate, is, that, as the soul is more excellent than the body,\nand its welfare to be preferred in proportion thereunto; so the church\nis to take care of the spiritual concerns of mankind, to which all\ntemporal concerns are to give place; therefore its power is greater than\nthat of the civil magistrate.\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that this similitude does not prove\nthe thing for which it is brought; and though it be allowed, that the\nsoul is more excellent than the body; yet its welfare is not to be\nsecured by inflicting corporal punishments, such as persecutions and\nmassacres; which, to abate and encourage, is to cast a reproach on\nreligion; and it will tend very much to weaken the interest of Christ in\nthe world.\nMoreover, the magistrate is ordained by God, to defend the religious as\nwell as civil liberties of his subjects; which is included in the\napostle\u2019s exhortation; let prayers be made _for kings and for all in\nauthority; that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness\nand honesty_, 1 Tim. ii. 2. and elsewhere we are exhorted, to _submit to\ngovernors, as unto them who are sent by the Lord, for the punishment of\nevil doers, and for the praise of them that do well_, 1 Pet. ii. 14.\n3. There is another argument which they make use of, taken from Azariah\nthe priest\u2019s opposing king Uzziah, for intruding himself into the\npriest\u2019s office, in burning incense in the temple. Thus it is said, in 1\nChron. xxvi. 16-18. that \u2018when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to\nhis destruction. For he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went\ninto the temple of the Lord, to burn incense upon the altar of incense.\nAnd Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him four-score\npriests of the Lord, that were valiant men. And they withstood Uzziah\nthe king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to\nburn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that\nare consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast\ntrespassed, neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God.\u2019 To\nsupport their argument, taken from this scripture, they observe, that\nthe priests, who went in with Azariah, are said to be _valiant men_, and\nso ready to commit any hostilities against the king. Azariah also\nthreatens him, when he tells him, _It should not be for his honour_; and\nperemptorily commands him, to be gone out of the temple. This they\nsuppose, is a flagrant instance of the power of the church over the\ncivil magistrate, in all those things that interfere with what is\nsacred.\nBut to this it may be replied;\n(_1st_,) That Uzziah\u2019s sin, according to the law of that dispensation,\nwas very great, and against an express command of God, who had ordered,\nthat none should officiate in the priest\u2019s office, but those who were of\nthe family of Aaron.\n(_2dly_,) Azariah, and the rest of the priests, did not attempt to\ndepose him, but to prevent his going on in his sin; which would not be\nfor his honour, as the high-priest tells him. And this he says, not in a\nmenacing way, as signifying that he would inflict some punishment on\nhim; but as declaring what God would do against him, that would tend to\nhis dishonour for this sin.\n(_3dly_,) Though the high-priest, in God\u2019s name, commanded him to go out\nof the sanctuary; yet he did not lay violent hands on him, at least,\ntill the leprosy was seen upon him. Ver. 27. \u2018And Azariah the chief\npriest, and all the priests looked upon him, and behold, he was leprous\nin his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself\nhasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him.\u2019 This they did,\nbecause a leper was not, according to the law of God, to enter into the\ncongregation, inasmuch as he would defile it.\n(_4thly_,) He was not properly deposed; but, by this plague of leprosy,\nrendered incapable of reigning; and therefore \u2018he lived alone,\u2019 ver. 21.\n\u2018in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of\nthe Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king\u2019s house, judging the\npeople of the land.\u2019 This was agreeable to the law of God, touching the\nleper, in which it is said, that \u2018all the days wherein the plague shall\nbe in him, he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone,\nwithout the camp shall his habitation be,\u2019 Lev. xiii. 46. It may farther\nbe observed, that his son managed the affairs of the kingdom for him; so\nthat the use which is made by the Papists of this scripture, to give\ncountenance to their doctrine of deposing princes, is foreign to the\ntrue sense thereof.\n4. There is one more scripture-example which the Papists bring, whereby\nthey defend their practice, not only of deposing, but murdering princes;\nand that is in 2 Kings xi. 15. _But Jehoiada the priest commanded the\ncaptains of the hundreds, the officers of the host, and said unto them,\nhave her forth without the ranges; and him that followeth her, kill with\nthe sword. For the priest had said, let her not be slain in the house of\nthe Lord._ But to this it may be replied,\n[_1st_,] That Athaliah was plainly an usurper, not only by reason of her\nsex, since a woman was not to reign over Israel, or Judah: But she\nkilled all the seed royal, to establish herself in the throne, except\nJoash, who escaped, being hid from her fury, in an apartment belonging\nto the temple, 2 Chron. xxii. 11.\n[_2dly_,] What Jehoiada did in deposing her, was not only with a good\ndesign to set up the lawful heir; but it was done by an express command\nof the Lord, chap. xxiii. 3.\n[_3dly_,] Joash was proclaimed, and anointed, and universally owned as\nking by the people, before Athaliah was slain, 2 Kings xi. 12,-14.\nVI. We are now to consider the sins of inferiors against their\nsuperiors. These are expressed in general terms, in one of the answers\nwe are explaining; namely, neglecting the duties we owe to them, envying\nat, and contempt of their persons, places, and lawful counsels and\ncommands, and all refractory carriage, that may prove a shame and\ndishonour to their government; but, more particularly, inferiors sin\nagainst their superiors.\n1. In divulging their secrets; and that either as to what respects the\naffairs of their families, or their secular callings in the world.\n2. In mocking, reproaching, or exposing their infirmities. Thus it is\nsaid, _The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his\nmother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles\nshall eat it_, Prov. xxx. 17.\n3. In endeavouring to make disturbance or disorders in families, or the\ncommon-wealth, through discontent with their station as inferiors, or a\ndesire to rule over those to whom they ought to be in subjection.\n4. Servants sin, in neglecting to fulfil their contract, or do the\nservice which they engaged to perform, when they first entered into that\nrelation. Or when they are only disposed to perform the duties incumbent\non them, when they are under their master\u2019s eye, having no sense of\ncommon justice, or their obligation to approve themselves to God, in\nperforming the duties they owe to man. Thus the apostle exhorts\nservants, to _be obedient to them which are their masters, with fear and\ntrembling, in singleness of heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service,\nas men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God\nfrom the heart_, Eph. vi. 5, 6.\n5. Children sin, by being unnatural to their parents, who refuse or\nneglect to maintain them if they need it, especially when they are aged;\nwhereby they will appear to have no sense of gratitude, for past\nfavours, nor regard to that duty which nature obliges them to perform.\n            Quest. CXXIX., CXXX., CXXXI., CXXXII., CXXXIII.\n    QUEST. CXXIX. _What is required of superiors towards their\n    inferiors?_\n    ANSW. It is required of superiors, according to that power they\n    receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love,\n    pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and\n    admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do\n    well; discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill;\n    protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul,\n    and body; and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to\n    procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve the\n    authority which God hath put upon them.\n    QUEST. CXXX. _What are the sins of superiors?_\n    ANSW. The sins of superiors are, beside the neglect of the duties\n    required of them, and inordinate seeking of themselves, their own\n    glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not\n    in the power of inferiors to perform; counselling, encouraging, or\n    favouring them in that which is evil, dissuading, discouraging, or\n    discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly,\n    careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger;\n    provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or\n    lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or\n    remiss behaviour.\n    QUEST. CXXXI. _What are the duties of equals?_\n    ANSW. The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of\n    each other, in giving honour to go one before another, and to\n    rejoice in each others gifts and advancement, as in their own.\n    QUEST. CXXXII. _What are the sins of equals?_\n    ANSW. The sins of equals are, beside the neglect of the duties\n    required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving\n    at the advancement or prosperity one of another, and usurping\n    pre-eminence one over another.\n    QUEST. CXXXIII. _What is the reason annexed to the fifth Commandment\n    the more to enforce it?_\n    ANSW. The reason annexed to the fifth Commandment, in these words,\n    [_That thy days may be long upon the land, which the Lord thy God\n    giveth thee_] is an express promise of long life and prosperity, as\n    far as it shall serve for God\u2019s glory, and their own good, to all\n    such as keep this Commandment.\n1. We are to consider the duties which superiors owe to their inferiors.\nWhatever circumstance of advancement one has above another in the world,\nthis is a peculiar gift of God, and should not give occasion to that\npride of heart which is natural to fallen man, which puts him upon\ncasting contempt on those who are below him; much less should they\noppress others, who are in a lower station of life than themselves; but\nshould endeavour to do good to them, and thereby glorify God. And,\nindeed, as every relation is mutual, and calls for its respective\nduties, so that superiors expect the duty which belongs to them, from\ninferiors; it is equally just and reasonable that they should not\nneglect those duties which they are obliged to perform to them; though\nthey be of another nature, different from those which they demand from\nthem. Here we shall consider,\n2. The duty of parents to children. This not only includes in it the\nusing their utmost endeavours to promote their worldly advantage, as to\nwhat respects their present or future condition in life; but they ought\nto have a just concern for their spiritual welfare, which is a duty very\nmuch neglected, though it be incumbent on all parents, and will be\nperformed by those who have a sense of God and religion upon their\nspirits; this the apostle calls _bringing them up in the nurture and\nadmonition of the Lord_, Eph. vi. 4. When children are first capable of\nbeing instructed; or when they first take in the knowledge of common\nthings; then it is the parent\u2019s duty to instil into them those things\nthat are spiritual. It is, indeed, a difficult matter to speak to them\nabout divine things, so as to lead them into the knowledge thereof; and\nit requires a great measure of wisdom and faithfulness in them. One of\nthe first duties that they owe to them, is acknowledging God\u2019s right to\nthem, putting them under his care, giving them up to him, hoping and\ntrusting in Christ, that he will bestow on them the saving blessings of\nthe covenant of grace, and that in their early age of life. Moreover,\nsince children soon discover themselves to have a corrupt nature: This\nought to be checked and fenced against, as much as it is in our power:\nSince all habits of sin are of an increasing nature, and though it be\ndifficult to prevent them; yet we shall find it much more so to root\nthem out.\nNow that we may instil into the minds of children, the principles of\nreligion, as soon as they are capable of receiving instruction, let it\nbe observed,\n(1.) That parents must take great care that they neither speak nor act\nany thing before their children, which may tend to corrupt their minds,\nor afford a bad example, which it would be of pernicious consequence to\nthem to follow; nor ought they to suffer those passions to break forth,\nwhich may render them mean and contemptible in the eyes of their\nchildren; or give them occasion, by their example, to indulge the same\npassions.\n(2.) They must take heed that they do not exercise severity for trifles,\nor those inadvertencies which children are chargeable with, on the one\nhand; nor too much indulge them in that incorrigibleness and profaneness\nwhich they sometimes see in them, on the other.\n(3.) They must separate from them all companions, or servants, from whom\nthey may imbibe the principles of sin, and oblige those who have the\nimmediate care of their education, to instil into them the principles of\nreligion, and, at the same time, to recommend to them, the pleasure,\nbeauty, and advantage of holiness in all, but especially in young ones.\n(4.) The examples which we have, either in scripture, or our own\nobservation in the world, of those who have devoted themselves to God,\nand been religious betimes, is to be frequently inculcated, for their\nimitation, with all the affecting and moving expressions that it is\npossible for them to use, and with a particular application thereof to\ntheir case; and, on the other hand, the miserable consequences which\nhave attended persons neglecting to embrace the ways of God in the days\nof their youth, and the sore judgments which often ensue hereupon; as it\nis said, _His bones are full of the sin of youth_, Job xx. 11.\n(5.) Reproofs for sin are to be given, with a zeal and concern for the\nglory of God; and yet with that affection as may convince children, that\nin those things, in which they are ready to think their parents their\nenemies, they appear to be their greatest friends.\n(6.) They, who have the care of children, ought to take heed, that they\ndo not lead them into, or give them occasion, to rest in, a formal, or\nexternal appearance of religion, on the one hand; nor, on the other\nhand, are they to use any methods which may induce them to think, that,\na burden, or a reproach, which they ought to esteem their delight and\nhonour.\n(7.) Those opportunities are more especially to be embraced, when\ninstructions are most likely to be regarded by them; as when they are\ninquisitive about divine things. This should give the parent occasion to\nbe particular in explaining them to them. Thus God commands Israel,\n_when thy son asketh thee in time to come, what mean the testimonies and\nthe statutes, and the judgments; which the Lord thy God commanded you?_\nto _say unto him, we were Pharaoh\u2019s bondsmen_, Deut. vi. 20, 21. and so\nthey were to relate to them those dispensations of providence towards\nthem, that gave occasion to these statutes which he had appointed.\n(8.) Parents should let their children know, that their obedience to\nGod\u2019s commands, will always entitle them to the greatest share in their\naffection, that this may be a motive and inducement thereunto.\n2. We are now to consider the duty which masters owe to their servants.\nAnd,\n(1.) They ought to recommend the good ways of God to them, endeavouring\nto persuade them to be religious; and, by their exemplary conversation\nin their families, whereby they adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour,\nin all things, afford them an additional motive hereunto.\n(2.) They should encourage religion in their servants, as well as\ndiligence and industry. For, as the one tends to their advantage, to\nwhom their service is due; the other tends to the glory of God, and the\ngood of their souls, who are found in the practice of it.\n(3.) Masters should endeavour to instruct their servants in the\nprinciples of religion, especially if ignorant. And,\n(4.) They should allow them sufficient time for religious duties; which,\nif needful, ought to be taken out of that time, wherein they would\notherwise be employed in their service: And this they ought to do, as\nconsidering, that the best Christians are like to make the most faithful\nservants.\n3. We are now to consider the duty of magistrates towards their\nsubjects. This consists,\n(1.) In their endeavouring to promote their liberty, safety, and\nhappiness, by the justice and clemency of their administration. Thus it\nis said, _He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of\nGod_, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. By this means they will lay their subjects under\nthe highest obligation to duty and obedience; and the respect which they\nhave from them, will render the station, in which they are, more\nagreeable.\n(2.) They ought to defend the rights of subjects, when injured, against\ntheir oppressors; that they may appear to be, as it were, their common\nfathers, to whom they have recourse in all difficulties, and find\nredress.\n(3.) They ought to encourage and support the common design of\nChristianity, by suppressing irreligion and profaneness, and every thing\nwhich is a scandal to the Christian name, or a reproach to a\nwell-ordered government. This leads us,\nII. To consider the sins of superiors. These sin in their behaviour\ntowards their inferiors,\n1. By pride and haughtiness; when they treat those who are below them,\nwith contempt and disdain; as though, because they are not, in many\nrespects, their equals, they are not their fellow-creatures. This\ndiscovers itself either in reproachful words or actions. Thus the\nPharisees treated those whom they apprehended inferior to them, in gifts\nor station, in the church, with contempt; so that they often made use of\nthat aphorism; _This people, who knoweth not the law, are cursed_, John\n2. Another sin of superiors is, when masters exact severe and unmerciful\nlabour, beyond what is reasonable, of their servants, which is little\nbetter than the oppression of the Egyptian task-masters; who commanded\nthem to make brick without straw, Exod. v. 15,16. and beat, and dealt\nseverely with them, because they could not fulfil their unreasonable\nexactions.\n3. Sin is committed by those who, being princes, or generals, exercise\ninhuman cruelty, contrary to the law of nature and nations, towards\ntheir conquered enemies, when they have them in their power. This David\nseems to have been charged with, as a blemish in his reign; when he\n_put_ the men of Rabbah, after he had conquered them, _under saws, and\nunder harrows of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kilns. Thus\ndid he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon_; which seems hardly\njustifiable by marshal law; and therefore it must be reckoned a failing\nin him; especially unless the Ammonites had done something\nextraordinary, to deserve such treatment, or had used Israel in the like\nmanner, so that this might be reckoned a just reprizal upon them, 2 Sam.\nAnd to this we may add, that magistrates do not behave to their\nsubjects, as they ought, and therefore commit sin, when they inflict\npunishment beyond what the law directs, or the crime deserves. Thus\nsmall offences are not to be punished with death, as capital crimes are,\nsince the punishment must be greater or less, in proportion to the\ncrime. Thus God enjoined a certain number of stripes for some crimes\ncommitted, which they were not to exceed; _whereby their brother would\nseem vile unto them_, Deut. xxv. 2, 3. that is, they would treat him\nwith a greater severity than the nature of the crime demanded.\n4. Superiors sin, when they take advantage on the necessities of the\npoor; in buying or selling, which is called, a _grinding the faces of\nthe poor_, Isa. iii. 14, 15.\n5. Masters, or parents sin, in giving undue correction to their servants\nor children, for small faults as when they neglect to perform some\npunctilio\u2019s, of respect, which are due to them, with greater severity\nthan they do, open sins against God, or when they are transported with\nunreasonable passion for trifles; whereby they render themselves hated\nby them, and provoke them to wrath, rather than answer the end of\nchastisement, which is the glory of God and their good. This the apostle\nforbids parents to do, Eph. vi. 4. And elsewhere, he speaks of the\n_fathers of our flesh chastizing us after their own pleasure_, Heb. xii.\n10. as being disagreeable to the divine dispensations, and consequently\nnot to be justified in them that practise it.\n6. Superiors sin, when they command those things, of their inferiors,\nwhich are in themselves sinful, which they cannot, in their consciences,\ncomply with. And to this we may add, their demanding those things which\nare impossible, and being enraged against them for not doing them.\n7. Superiors sin, when they surmise their inferiors have committed a\nfault, which they resent, and punish, without suffering them to\nvindicate themselves, though they request this favour in the most\nsubmissive way. This is to extend their authority beyond the bounds of\nreason. We shall now consider,\nIII. The duty of equals. And,\n1. They ought to encourage and strengthen the hands of one another in\nthe ways of God, which is the great end and design of Christian\nsocieties.\n2. They ought to sympathize with one another in their weakness, warning\nand helping each other, when exposed to temptations, or overcome by\nthem.\n3. They ought to defend one another when reproached by the enemies of\nGod and religion.\n4. To love one another, and rejoice in each others welfare And,\n5. To withdraw from the society of those who are a reproach to, or\nendeavour to turn them aside from the good ways of God.\nIV. We shall now consider the sins of equals; which they are guilty of,\n1. When they entertain unjust and unfriendly quarrels, contrary to that\nlove, which ought to be amongst brethren.\n2. When they affect, or usurp pre-eminence over one another; as\nDiotrephes did, whom the apostle speaks of, who _loved to have the\npre-eminence amongst them_, 3 John, ver. 9. Christ\u2019s disciples\nthemselves were sometimes liable to this charge; especially when _there\nwas a strife among them, which of them should be accounted greatest_,\nLuke xxii. 24. which our Saviour is so far from commending in them, that\nhe reproves them for it.\n3. It is a great sin, when equals endeavour to make breaches amongst\nthose, who are otherwise inclined to live peaceably with one another.\nThis is the wretched employment of tale-bearers, busy-bodies,\nmake-bates, and slanderers, who delight to raise and propagate false\nreports; as the Psalmist supposes some inclined to do, who are\ndistinguished from those who do not _backbite with their tongue_, nor\n_take up a reproach against their neighbour_, &c. Psal. xv. 3. and it is\nreckoned one of those things which the Lord hates, Prov. vi. 19.\n4. They are guilty of sin, when they insult, and take occasion, to\nexpose their brethren, for those weaknesses and infirmities which they\nsee in them, not considering that they are also liable to the same\nthemselves.\n5. When they endeavour to ensnare and entice others to sin. This vile\npractice Solomon takes notice of, chap. i. 10, 15. and cautions those\nwho are thus tempted against consenting to, or complying with them. We\nare now to consider,\nV. The reasons annexed to the fifth Commandment, which are included in\nthat promise of long life, to such as keep it. It is enquired by some,\nwhether this promise is to be applied to none but the Israelites; since\nthere is mention of the land which the Lord gave them, to wit, Canaan?\nTo which it may be replied; that though they might make a particular\napplication of it to themselves; yet it extends to men in all ages and\nplaces. Accordingly the apostle Paul mentioning this Commandment, and\nthe promise annexed to if, instead of those words, _That thy days may be\nlong in the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee_, alters the mode\nof expression, that it may be applicable to us as well as them, when he\nsays, _That thou mayest live long on the earth_, Eph. vi. 2, 3. This may\ngive us occasion to enquire,\n1. Whether this promise be made good as to the letter of it, to all that\nkeep this Commandment; especially since we find, that, according to the\ncommon methods of providence, some good men live but a short time in\nthis world, when the wicked oftentimes live to a great age. That the\nlives of some good men have been short, needs not be proved. Abijah, the\nbest of Jeroboam\u2019s family, in whom some good thing was found, towards\nthe Lord God of Israel, died when a child, 1 Kings xiv. 12, 13. And\nJosiah, who was one of the best of the kings that reigned over Judah,\nlived but thirty nine years; for it is said, that _he was eight years\nold when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years_, 2\nKings xxii. 1. And Enoch excelled all the patriarchs who lived before\nthe flood, and was more honoured in that he was translated to heaven,\nwithout dying; yet he continued but a little while in this world, if we\ncompare the time he lived here, with the time which men generally lived\nbefore the deluge; which was but _three hundred and sixty five years_;\nwhereas, several others are said to have lived above nine hundred years.\nAnd Joseph, who was the most remarkable, for shewing honour to parents,\nand performing the duties belonging to other relations, of any we read\nof in scripture; he lived but an _hundred and ten years_, Gen. l. 26.\nWhereas Levi, who had been a reproach to his father, and a dishonour to\nthe family in general, lived an _hundred thirty and seven years_, Exod.\n2. We shall now consider, how such dispensations of providence may be\naccounted for, consistently with the promise annexed to this\nCommandment. Accordingly it may be observed,\n(1.) That, when God takes his saints out of the world when young, it is\nsometimes a peculiar instance of compassion to them, in taking them from\nthe evil to come. Thus Josiah died, as was but now hinted, when young;\nbut this was in mercy to him, that he might not see the evil which God\nwould bring on Judah for their sins, 2 Kings xxii. 20.\n(2.) They are, at their death, possessed of a better world, which is the\nbest exchange: So that were the matter referred to their own choice,\nthey would choose heaven before the longest life, and the best\nadvantages they can enjoy in this world.\n(3.) Old age is not a blessing, unless it be adorned with grace. _The\nhoary head is_, indeed, _a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of\nrighteousness_, Prov. xvi. 13. but not otherwise. Good men are not\ndestroyed by the blast of God\u2019s wrath, but gathered, like a shock of\ncorn, when fully ripe; they are meet for, and then received into a\nbetter world. Therefore _the child_ dying in Christ, is said _to die an\nhundred years old_, Isa. lxv. 20.\n3. We shall now enquire, how far, or in what respects, we are to hope\nfor, and desire the accomplishment of the promises of temporal good\nthings.\n(1.) Temporal good things are not to be desired ultimately for\nthemselves, but as subservient to the glory of God. And long life in\nparticular is a blessing, so far as it affords more space to do service\nto the interest of Christ in the world.\n(2.) They are to be desired, with an entire submission to the will of\nGod, and a resolution to acknowledge, that he is righteous, and to\nmagnify his name, though he deny them to us, as considering that he\nknows what is best for us, and may do what he will with his own.\n(3.) We are to desire that God would give us temporal good things in\nmercy, as pledges of eternal happiness, and not in wrath. Thus the\nPsalmist says; _There be many that say, who will shew us any good? Lord,\nlift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us_, Psal. iv. 6.\n4. We shall now enquire with what frame of spirit we ought to bear the\nloss of temporal good things, which we have been encouraged by God\u2019s\npromise, to hope for. In answer to this, let it be considered, that if\nGod does not fulfil his promise in the way and manner which we expect,\nin granting us temporal good things; yet,\n(1.) We must justify him, and condemn ourselves; none can say, that he\ndoes not forfeit all blessings daily. Therefore we are to say; let God\nbe true, and every man a liar. He is a God of infinite faithfulness; but\nwe are unfaithful, and not stedfast in his covenant.\n(2.) We are not to conclude, that our being deprived of temporal good\nthings, which we expect, is a certain sign that we have no right to, or\ninterest in those better things that accompany salvation; as the wise\nman says, _No man knoweth either love or hatred, by all that is before\nhim_, Eccles. ix. 1.\n(3.) We are to reckon the loss of temporal good things as a trial of our\nfaith and patience; and endeavour, under such disappointments, to make\nit appear, that the world was not the main thing we had in view; but\nChrist and spiritual blessings in him, were the spring of all our\nreligion.\n5. It may farther be enquired; what are those things that tend to make a\nlong life happy, for which alone it is to be desired? It may be\nobserved, that life is sometimes attended with those miseries, which\ninduce a believer to desire to depart, and be with Christ, as the weary\ntraveller desires rest. And it may be observed, that though, in the\npromise annexed to the fifth Commandment, we have no mention of any\nthing but long life; yet the apostle, when explaining it, adds, that\nthey shall have a prosperous life; without which, long life would not be\nso great a blessing. Thus he says, _That it may be well with thee, and\nthou mayest live long upon the earth_, Eph. vi. 3. Now there are three\nthings which tend to make a long life happy.\n(1.) Experience of growth in grace, in proportion to our advances in\nage, according to that promise, _They shall bring forth fruit in old\nage; they shall be fat and flourishing_, Psal. xcii. 14.\n(2.) When we retain our natural abilities, and that strength and vigour\nof mind, which we have formerly had. This some are deprived of, through\nthe infirmities of old age; whereby they may be said to out-live\nthemselves. It was a peculiar blessing, which God granted to Moses;\nconcerning whom it is said, that _he was an hundred and twenty years old\nwhen he died_; and yet _his eye was not dim, nor his natural force\nabated_, Deut. xxxiv. 7.\n(3.) Old age is a blessing, when our usefulness to others, in our day\nand generation, is continued. Thus Joshua died an old man; but it was a\npeculiar blessing that he was useful to the end; for in the very close\nof his life he _made a covenant with the people in Shechem_, Josh. xxiv.\n25. compared with 29. and laid strict commands on them, to behave\nthemselves towards God, as they ought to do.\n                    Quest. CXXXIV., CXXXV., CXXXVI.\n    QUEST. CXXXIV. _What is the sixth Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sixth Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not kill_.]\n    QUEST. CXXXV. _What are the duties required in the sixth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The duties required in the sixth Commandment are, all careful\n    studies, and lawful endeavours to preserve the life of ourselves,\n    and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all\n    passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices,\n    which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just\n    defence thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of\n    God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat,\n    drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations, by charitable\n    thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness,\n    peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behaviour, forbearance,\n    readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of\n    injuries, and requiting good for evil, comforting and succouring the\n    distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.\n    QUEST. CXXXVI. _What are the sins forbidden in the sixth\n    Commandment?_\n    ANSW. The sins forbidden in the sixth Commandment are, all taking\n    away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public\n    justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or\n    withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life,\n    sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive\n    passions, distracting cares, immoderate use of meat, drink, labour,\n    and recreations; provoking words, oppressing, quarrelling, striking,\n    wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life\n    of any.\nIn explaining this Commandment, we are,\nI. To consider the positive part thereof, or the duties required in it,\nnamely, that we should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own\nlife, and the life of others; and consequently we should avoid all those\npassions, and other things, which may afford an occasion to take it\naway, and live in the constant exercise of the duties of temperance and\nsobriety, as to what respects ourselves; meekness, gentleness, and\nforgiving injuries, as to what concerns others.\nIn this Commandment it is supposed, that life is the most valuable\nblessing of nature; and therefore to take it away, is to do the utmost\ninjury that can be attempted against us. The valuableness of the life of\nman appears in four things.\n1. It is the result of the union of the soul with the body, which is the\nprinciple of those actions that are put forth by us as intelligent\ncreatures; and therefore life is to be esteemed in proportion to the\nexcellency thereof; which, is the noblest part of the creation, angels\nexcepted.\n2. Nothing can compensate or satisfy for the taking away the life of\nman, how much satisfaction soever may be given for the loss of other\nthings.\n3. We may observe, that man, in this respect, is the subject of the\ndivine image; which supposes us to have a more excellent life than any\nother creatures in this lower world; and it is assigned as a reason of\nour obligation to preserve it, Gen. ix. 6.\n4. Life is given and continued to us, that hereby the most valuable ends\nmay be attained, conducive to the glory of God, the advancement of\nreligion in the world, and promoting our everlasting happiness. From\nwhence we may take an estimate of its excellency; and it contains the\nhighest motive to us, to yield obedience, to this Commandment.\nThis leads us to consider the means which we are to use, to preserve our\nown lives, and the lives of others. As to what respects the preservation\nof our own life; we are not to rush presumptuously into danger of death,\nwithout a divine warrant, for that is to be prodigal of life. We are\nalso to exercise sobriety and temperance, avoiding gluttony,\ndrunkenness, lust, and all exorbitant passions, which tend to impair the\nhealth, as well as defile the conscience. Moreover, when occasion\nrequires it, we are to have recourse to the skill of physicians, and\nmake use of those proper medicines, that may conduce to repair the\nweakness and decays of nature.\nAs to what concerns our endeavours to preserve the lives of others; we\nare to caution them against those things, which would tend to destroy\ntheir health, and, by degrees, their lives. And we must also discover\nand detect all secret plots and contrivances which may be directed\nagainst them; and we are to support and relieve those who are ready to\nperish by extreme poverty; yea, though they were our enemies, Rom. xii.\n20. Job xxxi, 19, 20, 22. We are also to defend them who are in imminent\ndanger of death, Psal. lxxxii. 3, 4. Prov. xxiv. 11, 12.\nNevertheless, we must not use unwarrantable means, though it were to\nsave our own lives. As, in times of persecution, we are not to renounce\nthe truths of God, or give occasion to the common enemy, to revile, or\nspeak evil of them, to avoid suffering for the cause thereof. This was\nthat noble principle by which the martyrs, whom the apostle speaks of,\nwere acted; _They were tortured, not accepting deliverance_, Heb. xi.\n35. that is, when they were exposed to the most exquisite torments, and\ntheir lives offered them, in case they would deny Christ, they would not\naccept deliverance on so dishonourable terms. Neither are we, at any\ntime, to tell a lye, or act that which is contrary to truth, though it\nwere to save our lives. This leads us,\nII. To consider the sins forbidden in this Commandment; and these are\neither the taking away of life, or doing that which has a tendency\nthereunto.\n1. It is unlawful to take away the life of another. But this is to be\nconsidered with some exceptions, or limitations.\n(1.) This may be done in lawful wars. Thus we read of many wars begun\nand carried on, and much blood shed therein, by God\u2019s direction, and\nwith his approbation and blessing; upon which occasion it is said, that\n_the war was of God_, 1 Chron. v. 22. Nevertheless, when wars are\nproclaimed, merely to satisfy the pride and avarice of princes, as in\nBenhadad\u2019s war against Ahab, 1 Kings xx. 1. _& seq._ or the Romans, who\nmade war on the countries round about them, merely to enlarge their own\ndominions, by ruining others; or, like those which the Devil excites,\nand Antichrist carries on against the church, for their faithfulness to\nthe truth, Rev. xii. 17. chap. xiii. 7. these wars are unlawful; and all\nthe blood shed therein, is a breach of this Commandment.\n(2.) It is no violation of this Commandment, to take away the life of\noffenders, guilty of capital crimes, by the hand of the civil\nmagistrate; for this is elsewhere commanded, and magistrates are\nappointed for that end, Deut. xvii. 8,-10.\n(3.) It is no breach of this Commandment, when a person kills another\nwithout design, or the least degree of premeditated malice.\nNevertheless, the utmost caution ought to be used, that persons might\nnot lose their lives through the carelessness and inadvertency of\nothers.\n(4.) In some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence,\nwithout being guilty of the breach of this Commandment. But this is to\nbe considered with certain limitations; as,\n[1.] If there be only a design, or conspiracy against our lives, but no\nimmediate attempt made, to take them away; we are to defend ourselves,\nby endeavouring to put him that designed the execrable fact, out of a\ncapacity of hurting us, by having recourse to the protection of the law;\nwhereby he may be restrained from doing it, or we secured. This was the\nmethod which Paul took, when the Jews had bound themselves with an oath,\nto slay him; he informed the chief captain of this conspiracy, and had\nrecourse to the law for his safety, Acts xxiii. 21.\n[2.] If there be a present attempt made against our lives, we should\nrather chuse to disarm, or fly from the enemy, than take away his life;\nbut if this cannot be done, so that we must either lose our own lives,\nor take away his, we do not incur the least guilt, or break this\nCommandment, if we take away, his life, to preserve our own, especially\nif we were not first in the quarrel; nor give occasion to it by any\ninjurious or unlawful practices.\nHere it may be enquired, whether it be lawful for two persons to fight a\nduel, upon a set challenge, or provocation given? In answer to which,\nlet it be considered,\n_1st_, That, when a war, between two armies, may be issued, and the\nshedding of much blood prevented hereby, it is not unlawful, provided it\nbe by mutual consent, and with the approbation of those on both sides,\nwho have a right of making war and peace; and if the matter in\ncontroversy may be thus decided, without tempting providence. We have a\nremarkable instance of this, in the duel fought between David and\nGoliath, in 1 Sam. xvii. Nevertheless,\n_2dly_, It is unlawful for two persons, each seeming too prodigal of his\nlife, to challenge, accept of, and, pursuant thereunto, to endeavour to\nput an end to each others life, merely to gratify their own passion, or\npride. This, though falsely called honour, will, in reality, render them\nvile in the eyes of God, and notoriously guilty of the breach of this\nCommandment.\nHere we may consider the wicked practice of those who have obliged poor\nwretches, who were under their command, to murder one another for their\ndiversion. This Joab and Abner did, when they said, _Let the young men\narise and play before us; and every one thrust his sword in his fellows\nside_, 2 Sam. ii. 14,-16. There is also an unlawful diversion, which,\nthough not altogether so barbarous and cruel, is, in some respects, a\nbreach of this Commandment, _viz._ when persons fight with, and wound\none another, without design of killing, merely to get a little money,\nwhile entertaining a number of unthinking persons with their folly; in\nwhich case they that fight, and they that look on, are equally guilty,\nProv. xxvi. 18, 19. Thus concerning the sin of killing another; we shall\nnow account for two or three difficulties that occur in scripture,\nrelating to the actions of some good men, who seem to have been guilty\nof the breach of this Commandment; but were not really so.\n_1st_, It is enquired, whether Elijah was chargeable with the breach of\nit in destroying Baal\u2019s prophets, which we read of in 1 Kings xviii. 40.\nwherein it is said, that _he ordered that none of them should escape;\nand he brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there_.\nIn answer to which, it may be observed, that it was not a small\ninoffensive error that these prophets of Baal were punished for; but\napostasy from God. And that the persons who were thus punished, deserve\nit, will appear, if we consider,\n[1.] That, they were the advisers and ring-leaders of all Israel\u2019s\nidolatry, and the abettors and principal occasion of that violent\npersecution, which then raged against the Lord\u2019s prophets, and true\nworshippers.\n[2.] Had they only been false prophets, and not persecutors, they were\naccording to the law of God to be put to death, Deut. xiii. 6,-9.\n[3.] This was done after a solemn appeal to God, and an answer from\nheaven, by fire, which determined, not only who was the true God, but\nwho were his prophets, and consequently whether Elijah deserved death,\nas an impostor, or Baal\u2019s prophets.\n[4.] Ahab himself was present, and all his ministers of state, who had a\nright to execute justice on false prophets; and, it is highly probable,\nthat they consented to, and many of them had an immediate hand in their\ndeath, which might be occasioned by a sudden conviction in their\nconsciences, proceeding from the miracle which they had just before\nobserved, or from the universal cry of the people against them; so that\nthe thing was plainly of the Lord, to whom Elijah brought a great deal\nof honour, and was far from being chargeable with the breach of this\nCommandment.\n_2dly_, It is farther enquired, whether Abraham\u2019s offering Isaac was a\nbreach of this Commandment? This is proposed as a difficulty by those\nwho do not pay that deference to divine revelation, as they ought, nor\nconsider, that God cannot command any thing which is contrary to his\nperfections; nor do his people sin in obeying any command that is given\nby him. However, that this matter may be set in a just light, let it be\nconsidered,\n[1.] That God, who is the sovereign Lord of life, may take it away,\nwhen, and by whom he pleases. Therefore Isaac had no more reason to\ncomplain of any wrong or injury done him, by God, in ordering his father\nto sacrifice him, than any one else has, who dies by his immediate hand,\nin the common course of providence.\n[2.] Abraham could not be said to do this with the temper and\ndisposition of a murderer, which such have, who are guilty of the breach\nof this Commandment, who kill persons in a passion, or out of envy or\nmalice, being void of all natural affection or brotherly love; but he\nacted plainly in obedience to God\u2019s command. His hand was lifted up\nagainst one whom he loved equally to, or, it may be, more than his own\nlife, and, doubtless, he would rather have been, had God so ordered it,\nthe sacrifice, than the offerer.\n[3.] This was done, as is more than probable, with Isaac\u2019s full consent.\nHence some think, that his faith was no less remarkable herein than that\nof Abraham. His willingness to be offered, evidently appears, in that\nAbraham was in his feeble and declining age, and Isaac in his full\nstrength; for it was not a little strength which was sufficient to carry\nwood enough to answer this occasion, which we read he did, Gen. xxii. 6.\nBesides, if Isaac had resisted, none was at hand to assist Abraham\nagainst him, and, doubtless, he would have strove in this matter as one\nwho desired to be overcome. Therefore we must suppose, that it is so far\nfrom being a breach of this Commandment, that it was one of the most\nremarkable instances of faith in scripture; and God\u2019s design in ordering\nhim to do this, was, that it might be a type whereby he would lead him\ninto the glorious mystery of his not sparing his own Son, the Lord Jesus\nChrist, and of his willingness to lay down his life a ransom for his\npeople.\n_3dly_, Some charge Moses with being guilty of the breach of this\nCommandment, in killing the Egyptian, which we read of in Exod. ii. 11,\n12. But, to vindicate him from this charge, let it be considered,\n[1.] That the Egyptian, whom he slew, not only _smote an Hebrew_, as it\nis in this chapter, but he did it wrongfully, as it is observed in Acts\nvii. 24. there was no offence given, nor just reason for this injurious\ntreatment, and to oppress or abuse one that is in a miserable condition,\nas the Hebrews were at that time, is an heinous crime in God\u2019s account.\nMoreover, to _smite_, in scripture, is often taken, for to _slay_; so\nthat it is not improbable, that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; or if he\ndid not, it might be such an injury as deserved death; which would have\nbeen inflicted in another manner, had not Israel been denied, at that\ntime, the protection of the law.\n[2.] Moses was, at this time, raised up, and called by God, to be a\nruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in\nthis action he first began to fulfil his commission; though the people\nrefused to own him, and seemed to join with those that designed him evil\nfor it; for which reason their deliverance was put off forty years\nlonger, while he was an exile in the land of Midian, Acts vii. 24, 26.\ncompared with 30. Now to slay a public enemy and oppressor, and, as it\nis probable, one who had forfeited his life, and that with a commission\nfrom God, to act as a ruler and a judge over his people, cannot be\nreckoned a breach of this Commandment. Thus concerning the violation of\nthis Commandment, as including in it the murdering of our neighbour.\n2. This Commandment is notoriously broken by those who lay violent hands\non themselves, which we have no instance of any good man, in scripture,\nthat was ever suffered to do, but only such who were, like Saul,\nAhitophel, Judas, and others, of the most infamous character. This is a\nsin which is attended with many aggravations; For,\n(1.) It is to act as though our lives were at our own disposal; which\nare to be considered as a talent which we are entrusted with by God, to\nimprove for his glory; and he alone has a right to dispose thereof at\nhis pleasure.\n(2.) This argues, and arises from, the highest discontent and impatience\nunder the hand of God, which is contrary to that temper, which we ought\nto exercise as Christians, who profess subjection to him.\n(3.) It is contrary to nature, and that principle of self-preservation\nwhich God has implanted in us; and, indeed, he that does this, not only\nacts below the reason of a man, but does that which even brutes\nthemselves are not inclined to.\n(4.) It is a giving place to, and gratifying the Devil, who acts\nagreeably to his character, as a murderer from the beginning, when he\ntempts men to destroy both soul and body at once.\n(5.) It is presumptuous and bold to resolve, that whatever measure of\nduty God has prescribed for us to fill up in this world, we will serve\nhim no longer. If marshal law punishes deserters with death, is there\nnot a severe punishment due unto those who do, as it were, desert the\nservice of God by self-murder? Nothing is more certain than this, that\nif duty be enjoined by God, the time in which it is to be performed, is\nalso fixed by him, and not left to our determination.\n(6.) It is a rushing hastily into eternity, not considering the\nconsequence thereof, nor the awful tribunal of Christ, before which they\nmust immediately appear, and give an account of this, as well as other\nsinful actions of life.\n(7.) It is done with such a frame of spirit, that a person cannot, by\nfaith, commit his soul into the hands of Jesus Christ; for that requires\na better temper of mind than any one can be supposed to have, who\nmurders himself.\nHere it may be enquired, since, as was before observed, no good man was\never guilty of this crime, whether Samson did not break this Commandment\nin pulling down the house upon his own head, as well as the Philistines?\nTo this it may be answered,\n[1.] That Samson\u2019s life, at this time, was a burden to himself, useless\nto his brethren, a scorn to the open enemy, and an occasion of their\nascribing their deliverance to their idol; and probably, it would have\nbeen soon taken away by them; which circumstances, though they would\nnot, in themselves, have been sufficient to justify this action; yet\nthey might justify his desire, that God would put an end, to his life,\nand release him out of this miserable world; especially if this would\nredound more to his glory than any thing he could do for the future, or\nhad done in the former part of his life.\n[2.] It plainly appears, that God, in answer to his prayer, not only\ngave him leave to take away his own life, together with the lives of his\nenemies, but he wrought a miracle to enable him to do it; and therefore\nit was a justifiable action, and no breach of this Commandment, Judges\n3. We shall now consider the heinous aggravation of this sin, of taking\naway the life of another unjustly, and the terrible judgments that such\nhave ground to expect, who are guilty hereof.\n(1.) According to the divine law, this sin is to be punished with death,\nby the hand of the civil magistrate, Deut. xix. 11, 12. Thus Joab, who\nhad deserved to die for murders formerly committed, was slain, by\nDavid\u2019s order, by his son Solomon; though he sought protection by taking\nhold of the horns of the altar, 1 Kings ii. 28, 29. Many other crimes\nmight be expiated by sacrifices, which God ordained should be offered\nfor that end; whereas, no satisfaction was to be accepted for this sin\nbut the blood of the murderer, Numb. xxxv. 31. And it is a matter of\ndispute with some, whether kings, who may pardon many crimes, by virtue\nof their prerogative, can, according to the laws of God, pardon murder,\nwithout being supposed to extend their clemency beyond its due bounds?\n(2.) God often gives up those who are guilty of the sin of murder, to\nthe terrors of a guilty conscience, which is a kind of hell upon earth;\nas in the instances of Cain, Lamech, and others, Gen. iv, 13,-15. and\n(3.) Such are followed with many remarkable instances of divine\nvengeance; so that the blast of providence attends all their\nundertakings. Thus David, after he had killed Uriah, was followed with\nsuch rebukes of providence, that the latter part of his life was\nrendered very uneasy thereby; and what the prophet foretold was\nfulfilled, that _the sword should never depart from his house_; that is,\nas long as he lived, 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10.\n(4.) The judgments of God for his sin, are oftentimes transmitted to\nposterity. Thus Simeon and Levi\u2019s murder of the Shechemites, was\npunished in the tribes that descended from them; who, according to the\npatriarch\u2019s prediction, were _divided in Jacob, and scattered in\nIsrael_, Gen. xlix. 7. And Saul\u2019s slaying the Gibeonites, was punished\nin David\u2019s time, by a famine occasioned thereby, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And the\nmurders which the Jews had committed on the prophets in former ages,\nwere punished in the destruction of their state and nation; when _all\nthe righteous blood_ that had been _shed upon the earth, came upon\nthem_, Matt. xxiii. 35.\n(5.) Their lives are often shortened, and they brought to the grave with\nblood. Thus Absalom perished by the just judgment of God, for the murder\nof his brother, as well as his other crimes; and in this the Psalmist\u2019s\nobservation holds true, that _bloody and deceitful men shall not live\nout half their days_, Psal. lv. 23. We are now to consider,\n4. That this Commandment may be broken otherwise than by the taking away\nthe life of our neighbour. It may be committed by a person in his heart,\nwhen he has not an opportunity to execute his malicious designs; or is\nafraid to do it, because of the punishment from men, which will ensue.\nThus the apostle says, _Whosoever hateth his brother, is a murderer_, 1\nJohn iii. 15. Of this we have an instance in wicked Ahab; who _hated_\nMicajah, because he _prophesied not good concerning him, but evil_, 1\nKings xxii. 9. And, it is more than probable, that this hatred would\nhave broke forth into murder, could he have laid hold on the least\nshadow or pretence that might have put a colour on so vile an action.\nAnd Jezebel was guilty of this sin, who threatened to murder the prophet\nElijah, chap. xix. 2. and the Jews, who were filled with malice against\nour Saviour; for which reason they would have put him to death at that\ntime; but they feared the people, Mark xi. 18. And as this is a sin that\nreigns in wicked men, there are some instances hereof even in good men.\nThus David carried his resentment too far against Nabal, though a\nchurlish and ungrateful man, when he resolved, in his passion, not only\nto take away his life, which was an unjustifiable action, but to destroy\nthe whole family, the innocent with the guilty, 1 Sam. xxv. 21, 22. and\nhe was sensible of his sin in this passionate resolution, which\noccasioned his blessing God for his preventing it, by Abigail\u2019s prudent\nmanagement.\nThere is another instance of sinful and unaccountable passion, that\ncannot be excused from a degree of heart-murder in Jonah; who was very\nangry because God was gracious, and spared Nineveh, on their repentance;\nand in this fit of passion, he desires that God would take away his\nlife, justifies his anger, and, as it were, dares him to cut him off;\nwhich was as bad a frame as ever any good man was in. And all this took\nits rise from pride, lest some should think him a false prophet, who did\nnot rightly distinguish between what God might do, and would have done,\nhad they not repented, and what he determined to do, namely, to give\nthem repentance, and so to spare them. I say, rather than be counted a\nfalse prophet, which, it may be, was a groundless surmise, he was angry\nwith God for sparing it, Jonah iv. 1-4.\nHere it will be enquired, whether all anger is sinful, or a breach of\nthis Commandment? To which it may be answered, That since the apostle\nsays, _Be angry and sin not_, Eph. iv. 26. it implies, that there may be\nanger which is not sinful; but, on the other hand, may rather be styled,\na zeal for God. Of this kind was that anger which our Saviour expressed\nagainst the Scribes and Pharisees, when he calls them _serpents, a\ngeneration of vipers_, Matt. xxiii. 33. and when he whipped the buyers\nand sellers out of the temple; on which occasion it is said, _The zeal\nof thine house hath eaten me up_, John ii. 15, 17. And the apostle\nreproved Elymas the _sorcerer_, who endeavoured to _turn away the deputy\nfrom the faith_, with words that seemed full of anger; when he addressed\nhimself to him in this manner; _O full of all subtilty, and all mischief\nthou child of the Devil, thou enemy of all righteousness; Wilt thou not\ncease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?_ Acts xiii. 10. And Peter\ncould not reprove that vile hypocrite Simon Magus, when he offered to\npurchase the conferring the Holy Ghost, without expressing some anger\nand resentment, as the cause required, when he says, _Thy money perish\nwith thee_, &c. chap. viii. 20, 21, yet that he might let him know that\nit was only zeal to God that provoked his anger, he gives him friendly\nadvice to repent of this his wickedness, ver. 22. From whence we may\ntake occasion to enquire,\n(1.) What is the difference between sinful anger or passion, and an holy\nzeal for God?\n[1.] An holy zeal for God, leads us rightly to distinguish between the\nperson reproved, and his actions, that give us occasion for it; so that\nwe hate the sin, but not the person that commits it. Thus the Psalmist\nsays, _I hate the work of them that turn aside_, Psal. ci. 3. But sinful\nanger is principally directed against the person with whom we are\noffended.\n[2.] The honour of God is the only motive that excites holy zeal; but\npride or evil surmise, is generally the occasion of sinful anger. Thus\nJehu\u2019s executing the vengeance of God, in cutting off Ahab\u2019s wicked\nfamily, was right, as to the matter of it; yet it had a great mixture of\nambition, pride, and private hatred of them, as those whom he thought\nwould stand in competition with him for the crown; and for this action\nhe also desires the applause and esteem of the people; and therefore\nsays to Jonadab, _Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord_, 2 Kings\nx. 16. so that the one is attended with many Other graces, the other\nwith many sins.\n[3.] Holy zeal for God inclines us to express anger against his enemies,\nwith sorrow and reluctancy, as being grieved for their sin, and at the\nsame time desiring their reformation and salvation; but sinful anger\nmeditates revenge, is restless till it has accomplished it, Prov. iv.\n16. and pleased with having opportunities of executing it.\n[4.] Holy zeal sets aside, or is not much concerned about injuries as\ndirected against ourselves; but as they reflect dishonour on the name of\nGod, or are prejudicial to his interest in the world. With this view it\nwas that David says concerning Edom, _Happy shall he be that dasheth thy\nlittle ones against the stones_, Psal. cxxxvii. 9. when at the same\ntime, he professes, that it was for Jerusalem\u2019s sake that he desired the\nruin of his enemies, and not his own; for he says, that he _preferred\nJerusalem above his chief joy_, ver. 6. Whereas, on the other hand,\nsinful anger designs or wishes evil to others, to promote our own\ninterest and advantage.\n(2.) We shall now consider the aggravations of sinful passion.\n[1.] It unfits a soul for holy duties. Accordingly our Saviour advises\nhis people, first to _be reconciled to their brethren, and then come and\noffer their gift_, Matt. v. 23, 24.\n[2.] If attempt to reprove sin, or persuade to duty, in passion, it will\ntend to take away the force, and hinder the success of the arguments we\nuse.\n[3.] It will occasion sorrow and shame, when reflected on in our most\nserious thoughts.\n[4.] It will expose us to Satan\u2019s temptations, and occasion a multitude\nof sins; therefore the apostle calls it, a _giving place to the Devil_,\nEph. iv. 27.\n[5.] The smallest injuries are hereby magnified, and our resentments\nexceed their due bounds. We do not consider, as we ought to do, that the\ninjuries done against us, are very small when compared with the sins we\ncommit, whereby we dishonour God.\n[6.] It is opposite to a Christian temper, and very much unlike that\nframe of spirit, which our Saviour has recommended concerning loving our\nenemies, Matt. v. 44. and is also contrary to his example, _Who, when he\nwas reviled, reviled not again_, 1 Pet. ii. 23.\n[7.] As it is a stirring up our own corruptions, so it tends to stir up\nthe corruption of others, and provoke them to sin, as one flame kindleth\nanother, and hereby increaseth itself, Prov. xxvii. 17.\n(3.) We shall farther enquire, how we are to deal with those whom we\nconverse with, who are addicted to passion or anger?\n[1.] We are to exercise a calm, meek, and humble disposition, bearing\nreflections with patience, and replying to them with gentleness;\nespecially when it is more immediately our own cause, and not the cause\nof God which is concerned herein. _A soft answer turneth away wrath_,\nchap. xv. 1. _He that is slow to wrath, is of great understanding_,\nchap. xiv. 29,\n[2.] Let us take heed that we do nothing that tends to stir up the\npassions of any. If a superior is disposed hereunto, let us prudently\nwithdraw from him; if it be an inferior, let us reprove him with\nfaithfulness; if it be in an equal, let us take away the edge of it, by\nmeekness, love, and tenderness towards him, having compassion on his\nweakness; let us bear injuries without revenging them, and _overcome\nevil with good_, Rom. xi. 19,-12.\nEND OF THE THIRD VOLUME.\n                    ANSWER TO THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN.\n                    BY W. W. WOODWARD, PHILADELPHIA,\n                   _FOR PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION_,\n                  The Rev. Dr. Thomas Scott\u2019s Remarks\n                    \u201c_The Refutation of Calvinism_,\nThe writings of this eminent divine are held in the highest estimation\nby the pious of various denominations. He is acknowledged to be one of\nthe best advocates for evangelical truth, which the present age has\nproduced. His commentary on the scriptures has passed through three\nlarge editions in this country and a fourth, larger than either of the\nformer is now preparing for press by W. W. W. in 3 vols. quarto, 7\ndollars per volume, without any marginal references\u2014the notes following\nimmediately after the text.\nThe work now proposed for publication is a most able and elaborate\ndefence of those doctrines which are commonly called evangelical, and\nwhich are by no means peculiar to the Calvinists. The bishop of Lincoln,\npublished what he was pleased to call \u201ca Refutation of Calvinism,\u201d under\nwhich \u201cproscribed and odious name,\u201d says the Christian Observer, \u201che has\nattacked some of the fundamental points of that faith, which was once\ndelivered to the saints.\u201d\n\u201cIn this work of the Bishop,\u201d continues the Christian Observer, \u201che has\ngreatly mistaken and misrepresented the sentiments and the persons he\nundertook to refute, and in many important points has maintained\ndoctrines contrary to the declarations of scripture.\u201d\nDr. Scott, in his remarks upon this publication of the Bishop of\nLincoln, most ably defends that system of religion, which a great body\nof christians supposed to be contained in the scriptures, from the\nuncandid and illiberal attacks of its enemies, and obviates the\nunfounded objections which are so often brought up against it. The\nreviewers in the _Christian Observer_, after occupying about sixty pages\nof their miscellany in commenting on the excellencies of Dr. Scott\u2019s\n\u201cremarks,\u201d conclude their review with the following passage. \u201cWe cannot,\nhowever, conclude this long extended article, without recommending the\nstudy of Dr. Scott\u2019s laborious work to such of our readers as feel\ninterested in these discussions. It will amply repay those who are\nwilling to undertake and patiently to pursue its perusal. If it does not\nafford, what cannot be expected from any human performance, a\nsatisfactory solution of the difficulties which must ever attend _some_\nof the subjects of which it treats, it will be found to contain a large\nand valuable mass of observations on other most important theological\ntopics; and will, at least, leave on the mind of every unprejudiced\nreader a strong impression of the extensive scriptural knowledge, the\ncontroversial ability, and what is far more estimable than any other\nqualities and attainments, the christian moderation and charity, and the\nmature and vigorous piety of its author.\u201d\nCONDITIONS.\n_The work shall be comprised in two large octavo volumes\u2014answering as a\nsixth and seventh volume to his Miscellaneous works, published by W. W.\nWoodward; or will be sold separate in two volumes. It shall be printed\non good paper with a fair type, and shall be delivered to subscribers\nfor two dollars and fifty cents per volume, bound, and two dollars and\ntwenty-five cents in boards, payable on delivery of each volume._\n_Those who interest themselves in the work and procure five subscribers,\nthey becoming responsible for their subscriptions, shall receive every\nsixth copy for their trouble._\n_The work shall be put to press as soon as a number of subscribers shall\nhave been procured sufficient to warrant the undertaking, Persons\nholding subscription papers are requested to return them by the first\nJanuary next, to W. W. Woodward, Bookseller, Philadelphia._\nPhiladelphia, August 21, 1815.\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb The author\u2019s archaic punctuation, spellings, and capitalization\n      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.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  A Body of Divinity, Vol. 3 (of 4)\n"},
{"content": "Madam,\n\nThe following play seems fittingly entitled to the patronage of a Lady. For this reason, the first person who came to mind on this occasion was the Duchess of Marlborough. No true Englishman will be surprised that I should think of you in this regard. Our security and honorable peace cannot make us forget the gratitude we owe to your name. All the blessings we have obtained through our recent treaties are not greater than what might have been expected from the long series of victories of the Duke of Marlborough.\n\nIf we have leisure to cultivate the polite arts, if our trade flourishes, if our credit rises both at home and abroad, if we have secured a general peace for our allies, if the Catalans are obliged to us for our protection, and if the Germans and French are indebted to us for our generosity, who could have promised themselves fewer honors and advantages for their country from the many glorious campaigns and uninterrupted successes of our late great general.\nIt has been observed that when the French have been worsted in the field, they have saved themselves through treaties. But such are Marlborough's conquests. There are indeed many among us who are apt to be alarmed at anything that threatens our religion and liberties; but why should private men believe themselves in any danger from the Pretender, when the government is not apprehensive of it? France has broken its best concerted measures. Among the many eminent virtues which I might here celebrate in your grace, I shall only single out that which I believe your grace will be most delighted to hear mentioned, I mean that truly conjugal friendship that exists between us. May you have many years in reserve for your own mutual happiness.\nThis tragedy was originally written in French by the celebrated M. Racine. It was translated into English with additions by Mr. Boyer, and passed the correction and approval of the late famous Mr. Dryden, as well as several other persons distinguished for their wit and learning, and their taste and discernment. It was performed with general applause towards the end of 1699 and beginning of 1700. The reasons why this excellent play suddenly stopped in its full career are, to some extent, explained in Mr. Boyer's preface. He could have added that the Duchess of Marlborough, who held an irresistible sway at that time, requested the comedy then in vogue, during the run of Iphigenia in Aulis. This tragedy received no small prejudice from the person who acted Eriphile, who sank under the weight of such a great part.\nThis tragedy, dormant for many years, was recently revived in an irregular manner, unlike anything practiced on Parnassus by poets or on the stage by actors. The town has already done Mr. Boyer some justice by discovering the deception and revealing that the victim was none other than Achilles and Iphigenia at Aulis. The publishing of a second edition of this play (which was out of print) justifies the public's judgment and vindicates Mr. Boyer's right. However, the flagrant and injurious manner in which his performance and himself have been abused warrants a short dissertation, to be published in a few days, addressed to My Lord Chamberlain, in which he will set the true light on the current management of the stage.\nThe pernicious consequences of such unfair practices of some Writers and Players; and inquire into the reason, why Mr. Wilks declined to revive this very Tragedy for the entertainment of the Duke D'Aumont, who, by his Secretary Monsieur l'Abboyer, expressed his desire to see it represented; which Mr. Boyer signified to Mr. Wilks.\n\nVain is Racine's and Boyer's laboring wit!\nThe one improving what the other wrote;\nBoth fall a sacrifice to your third-day performance,\nAnd lovely Iphigenia is your prey.\n\nNor knows the nymph if she should more detest\nCalchas or thee; the pirate or the priest?\nHer ancient tears and griefs, from him proceed,\nWho brought her to Diana's shrine to bleed:\nBut that she mourns unpitied in her woes,\nThe wretched virgin to your dullness owes.\n\nHer life alone was wicked Calchas' aim;\nThou touchest a yet tenderer part, her fame.\nThy theft has all her grace and lustre soiled;\nThou stolest the beauty first, and after spoil'd.\n\nSo fares it with that desperate band, who live\nIn wretchedness and misery.\nOn Prey and Rapine, and by Injury thrive.\nThose whom they wrong, with hatred they pursue,\nAnd not content to rob, they murder too.\n\nAchilles: Or, Iphigenia in Aulis. A Tragedy\nAs Acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury-lane.\nWritten by Mr. Boyer.\n\nRectius Iliacum Carmen deducis in actus,\nQuam si proferres ignota indictaque prius.\n(Horat. Art. Poet.)\n\nAgamemnon, King of Argos, General of the Greeks,\nin their expedition against Troy.\n\nMr. Wilks.\n\nAchilles, in love with Iphigenia.\nMr. Powel.\n\nUlysses,\nMr. Cibber.\n\nArcas, Confident to Agamemnon,\nMr. Mills.\n\nEurybat, Captain of the King's Guards,\nMr. Toms.\n\nCalchas, The High Priest,\nMr. Cibber.\n\nClytemnestra, Wife to Agamemnon,\nMrs. Knight.\n\nIphigenia, Daughter to Agamemnon,\nMrs. Rogers.\n\nEriphile, Daughter to Theseus and Helena, Achilles's prisoner,\nMrs. Wilkins.\n\nAegina, Woman to Clytemnestra,\nMrs. Baker.\n\nDoris, Woman to Eriphile,\nMrs. Boden.\n\nWomen, Guards, Priests, and Attendants.\nThe scene: the Greek camp at Aulis\n\nDear madam,\n\nDedications have become so fashionable that a play looks ill without one, just as a beau in the side box does without a long wig. Yet I must freely admit that the greatest challenge this tragedy presented to me was finding a suitable patron. Those whose merit warrants such honors are usually reluctant to have their names revealed, while those who crave public recognition and encomiums are rarely willing to support a work of art. One of my friends suggested that I approach Achilles and Iphigenia for patronage, but my muse was too proud to ask. Having considered all potential patrons of every rank, I now turn to Diana's shrine.\n\nFirst and foremost, as ancient poets tell us, the Greek Iphigenia owes her preservation to Diana in Aulis. I therefore hope that the person who is willing to borrow the name of that goddess will also extend the same patronage to the English Iphigenia.\nCharming Diana,\nBesides prefixing my feigned name to this Play, I spare myself the trouble of a begging visit and you the sight of a dunning dedicator. But, Madam, the most prevalent motive with me is, that I may commend you freely to the World, without being suspected of adulation or making your modesty uneasy. I may proclaim that you make conquests by your beauty and secure them by your wit; that your sense surpasses any poet's patron. I might take greater latitude with you than any poet ever did with his patron, for I might tell you of your faults and reproach your cruel indifference, not to say ingratitude. I find all these advantages in dedicating to my charming Diana; and if she proves so kind as to bless me once more with her endearing company, I will esteem this an eternal prize.\n\nCharming Diana,\nYour most devoted, humble servant,\nA. Boyer\nFrom behind the Drury-lane.\nPoets, like most lovers, are apt to boast about the favors or complain about the English Nation. For this occasion, Horace accuses the Britons, reaching no higher than the mob. Some of my friends wondered that a play which was a giant-wit and a giant-critic, like Horace's mountain in labor, had miserably disappointed the world's expectation. And most people, having been tired of Lincoln's Inn Fields, did not go to Drury Lane, under a false supposition that the two Iphigenias were much alike. However, they differ no less than a young, airy Vestal Virgin Iphigenia and the English Themistocles.\n\nAnother trip to the Jubilee. A merry entertainment is certainly very improbable. Iphigenia has pleased the fairest part of the town, I mean the ladies.\n\nThis Monsieur Racine brought up Eriphile. Racine managed his subject with a great deal of art and elegance above the level of all French tragic writing.\n\nThe French Iphigenia and the English Themistocles resemble a genteel, well-cheeked woman, to whom I owe some of my inspiration.\n\nWritten by Thos. Cheek, Esq. Spoken by Mr. Powell.\nApollo sat in council the other day,\nWhere after many a toil, I, the author of this play,\nTook my post and entered into pay. I hope to keep it, too,\nWith reputation, and stem the tide of folly in the nation.\nThat's a hard task\u2014, and I'm afraid it tends\nTo make me lose abundance of my friends: Yet, though I have obtained a privilege,\nI would be very loath to disoblige. The race of fools,\nIf modestly they'll play the fool in private,\nBut if they still appear in public places,\nWith fashionable nonsense and grimaces,\nI must not let them escape without derision,\nThat were a crime that would forfeit my commission.\nYet in this play no satyr will appear. All that deserve it are in safety here.\nFrom great Euripides I drew this piece,\nEuripides, the boast of ancient Greece.\nAnd wondrous beauties of each coming age,\nWith pride I own I borrowed Racine.\nThen, since we labor at a scene like these,\nWhy maynot ours please you in an English dress?\nWith regard to the Dramatic Laws,\nHe wouldn't be considered of that vain-glorious Tribe,\nWho impose their own Rules imperiously.\nHe understands better what is due to your taste,\nAnd writes well only when he pleases you.\nHis Muse appears in Nature's Majesty,\nShe has no Tremendous Sounds for the Ears;\nAnd if he should attempt to write again,\nYour Palate shall be the one to inscribe.\n\nWritten by Mr. Motteux. Spoken by Mr. Norris.\n\nThe Devil take Poet, Epilogue, and Play,\nI don't know what I have to say,\nWho'll mind my Cant? An audience, like a lover,\nLongs to be gone as soon as the play is over,\nAs they long to be coached to more diverting places.\n\nNot one would stay, though they but now sneaked in,\nWhen our play ends, theirs always begins.\nKind Cull, and Miss, steal out from the Epilogue,\nAnd merrier scenes are acted at the Dog.\n\nYou rakish sparks in quest of game run out,\nAnd give or take the Covent-garden Gout.\nYour student who but came to see the play,\nWith some Pit-Muse, his talent would essay.\nSome long to encamp and leave, then sneak home like cowards.\nYou long to drink in ample glasses,\nConfusion to dull poets and pale faces.\nBut above all, those who came by there,\nThey thought ere this that they might have scuttled,\nTheir time spent, and all their apples gutted.\nThe poet (if he's not quite dead for fear)\nWould go to Will's\nScarcely one would see\nWho about this stale wenches, sharpers, caterwauling sparks,\nOld dirty beaux\nSince then your business lies another way,\nI hope you have not time to damn the play;\nBut if you must, do it on the poet's day.\nA camp near the sea shore. A fleet at a distance. The curtain rises and discovers Agamemnon with a letter in his hand.\n\nAgamemnon:\nArcas, what ho! Arcas, awake!\nHe is no king, he is no wretched father,\nWho to be a bloody tyrant,\nOh! Agamemnon,\nFor ever, ever banish'd peace of mind,\nTo grasp the shadow of a crown,\nArcas! I say, what ho! Arcas.\n\nEnter Arcas.\n\nArcas:\nGreat sir, I come \u2014\nHave you been roused from your bed before the morn?\nThere's scarcely a glimmering light to guide us, Aulis,\nAll eyes but yours,\nWhat! Has some welcome noise disturbed,\nAnd are the winds\nBut, no\u2014 All sleeps: The camp, the winds, and Nephele.\nOh Haem,\nS.\n\nIf you'd obtain the winds the heavens deny,\nIphigenia\u2014\nArcadia.\n\nYour daughter,\nAgamemnon.\n\nAmazed and speechless,\nMy heart seemed to languish,\nTo lie,\nBeneath,\nHe.\n\nThose gods began to lull my cares in gentle slumber,\nWith angry dreams reproached my impious pity,\nAnd then, with tears, I yielded and pronounced the doom\nOf my unhappy daughter.\n\nBut now, what barbarous cunning did I use,\nTo send her orders to repair to Aulis:\nPretending that Achilles pressed to go,\nWould wed my daughter, ere we put to sea.\nArcadia.\n\nBut fear you not Achilles' boiling rage?\nThink you that under false pretenses,\nHis name abused,\nAgamemnon.\n\nAchilles then had left the camp: To meet\nHis father's insulting foes;\nAnd all expected this new kindled war,\nWould soon,\nBut what can stop this hero's rapid course?\nAchilles,\nAnd swiftly,\nReturned last night to join our wonder.\nArcadia.\nAgamemnon:\nHe has not learned her age.\nBut (the kindest Father as she may suppose)\nMy Daughter,\nHer Love, her piety, her gentle nature,\nA thousand blooming virtues I regret.\nSparta tried to change her Fate.\nChrysippus will condemn\nGre jealous of my power,\nBut have a care not to reveal my secret;\nLet Spare me the soft upbraidings of a Daughter;\nAnd Thetis, his Lesbian captive,\nExit. Arcas.\nUlysses with him?\nA flourish.\nAchilles, Ulysses.\nThesaurus reduc'd,\nProachilles.\nTo animate my courage. But, My Lord,\nMust I believe the joyful news I hear?\nThat to anticipate my daughter's\nFair Iphigenia comes to the camp,\nTo crown my wishes?\nAgamemnon:\nMy Daughter!\nWho told you she's to come?\nAchilles:\nYou seem surprised, my Lord, at this report?\nAgamemnon:\nHeaven! How I fear my secret is revealed\nTo Ulysses.\nAnd Ul-\nMy Lord to Achilles,\nI\nTo think on nuptial joy\nStrikes terror\nAfghanistan, and wastes our lingering\nWhile to appease the unrelenting Gods,\nA victim, a dear victim must be sacrificed.\nAchilles minds his love.\nAgamemnon:\nMust we, in the midst of public woes,\nExacerbate our fate with festivals?\nMy lord, I hope I may pursue a marriage,\nYet not dissolve it in womanish pleasures.\nIf I love, 'tis like the God of War,\nOnly to fill the vacancies of action.\nMy courageous soul could never brook\nThat any one should touch the Phrygian shore.\nBeach-dweller.\n\nAgamemnon:\nOh, Heaven! Why must thy secret envy\nStop the way to Asia for such noble heroes?\nMust I be forced to withdraw home,\nWith grief and shame?\n\nUlysses:\nWhat do I hear?\n\nAchilles:\nMy lord, what did you say?\n\nAgamemnon:\nPrinces, we must retire. The winds have long\nTired our credulous hopes with expectation.\nAchilles, do not pry too far into the gods' decree.\nLet us not rashly retreat from Troy\nAnd Greece, for the camp is animated\nWhen Greece proclaims.\nAgamemnon:\nNay, when twenty kings make you an offer,\nYou, Sir, alone refuse the glorious purchase of Honor and Revenge; a little blood, you think, is too dear to gain immortal Fame.\nMust it be said, the General of Greece\nEmployed his skill in nothing but commanding,\nAgamemnon:\nAlas! my Lord, how easily, whilst secure\nFrom my impending woes, you seem undaunted!\nBut if my son Telemachus were the victim,\nWould not your proud insulting speech turn to tears?\nHow deeply you'd feel the torments I endure\nFrom struggling Nature! And how swiftly\nI would snatch him from the priest! Yet since my promises are past,\nIf my unhappy daughter meets us here,\nI'll not recall it, but if kinder Fate\nPrevents her coming, you'll not think it strange,\nIf I accept the welcome help of Heaven.\nToo long your counsels have prevailed upon me.\nI blush to think of it.\n\nEnter Eurybates.\n\nEurybates:\nMy Lord,\n\nAgamemnon:\nGods! The news?\n\nEurybates:\nThe queen comes, and she brings Penelope with her. They arrived earlier but lost their way.\nBy young Eriphile, Achilles's Lesbian captive,\nUnacquainted with the parents, she learns\nThrough camp reports and loud acclamations,\nThe joyful soldiers crowd around the queen,\nAnd I, Eurybates, dismiss you.\n\nAngry Heaven, to secure its vengeance,\nBreaks all my policy's measures! Yet,\nSome comfort would be in soothing tears.\nBut lying exposed and a gazing-stock,\nWe must least complain, though most unhappy.\n\nMy lord, I am a father, tender and feeling,\nResenting your cruel woe, I shudder at your sighs,\nWould weep to countenance your tears, but\nYour denial has no excuse. The gods have brought\nTheir victim to the camp, Calchas expects it,\nDemands it soon. Alone, let tears flow.\nAgamemnon:\nExpress your sorrow: Your concern allows it.\nBut no\u2014, let rather your undaunted soul\nConsider the vast glory you shall reap.\nBehold the Hellespont yields to our oars;\nBehold our flames devour Persian Troy;\nHer subjects made you slaves; King Priamus\nGrasping your knees, and Helena restores\nBehold our numerous fleet returns to Aulis\nCrowned with success: Behold that pompous triumph,\nThat will be the same tale of after-ages.\n\nAgamemnon:\nMy lord, I find how weak and impotent\nAll my efforts would be to oppose the gods.\nAnd since it is decreed that innocence\nMust be oppressed, I\u2014, no\u2014\nOh! Cruel Fate! Inexorable gods!\n\nUlysses:\nMy lord, remember\nYour solemn vows, and dread the Almighty powers.\nConsult your safety\u2014; Nay, consult your honor\nAgamemnon:\nOh! Hard necessity!\nOh! Wretch\nTo silence for a while: Let me, at least,\nBe guiltless for one moment: Let me hide,\nFrom Clytemnestra, my black, barbarous arts;\nAnd spare her tender heart the cruel sight,\nOf a dear daughter bleeding on an altar.\nExit. Agamemnon.\n\nUlysses:\n[No lines]\nThe Gods and Honor bear the Sovereign sway.\n\nEnd of the First Act.\n\nEriphile, weeping, D:\nEriph:\nDoris, let us retire. And whilst within\nBoth in a father's and a husband's arms,\nHere let me vent my unrelenting grief.\nDor:\nWhy, madam, will you thus provoke your sorrows?\nAnd waste those beauties with incessant tears?\n'Tis true, nothing seems charming to a prisoner,\nCaptivity turns all to bitterness;\nYet, shall I tell it? When we, with proud Achilles,\nA trembling captive, you viewed your conqueror,\nWe.\n\nNow Fortune seems to smile, since Iphigenia,\nLike a fond sister, soothes your cares with friendship,\nAnd gives those comforts you had found in Troy.\nYou longed to come to Aulis, and your wishes\n\nEriph:\nWhat! Do you think that sad Eriphile,\nCan be a calm spectator of their joys?\nCan you believe my griefs will disappear,\nWhen I behold a heaven I cannot reach?\n\nBlessed Iphigenia hugs the dearest father,\nShe is the pride of a fond, haughty mother,\nWhile from my infancy I was exposed to dangers.\nMy unknown parents never smiled on me. I am a stranger to my very self, and to complete my woes, the Oracle bade me continue in my ignorance. For when I ask to whom I owe my birth, 'tis answered, in this knowledge lies my loss. Dor.\n\nBut why should all oracles lie hid in dubious riddles? Who knows but by losing a false name, you'll find your own: This, sure, must be the loss the Oracle foretells, for in your cradle, your name was changed\u2014\n\nEriph.\n\nOf all the circumstances of my fate, this is the only one I ever could learn, from your unhappy father, who knew all. Indeed, he used to tell me that in Troy, I should retrieve my glory, my true name, and find my royal parentage\u2014but oh! I had within my view the wished-for moment when fierce Achilles led his conquering host against Lesbos, made all yield to his sword; thy father buried in a heap of the dead, left me a captive to myself unknown: And of all those great heroes, I only keep the pride of a high birth I cannot prove. Dor.\nHow great is the loss of such a faithful witness!\nHow much you ought to hate the barbarous hand\nThat gave the fatal blow! Yet renowned Calchas,\nWho holds a correspondence with the gods,\nAnd knows what's past, what's present, what's to come,\nCalchas may, surely, acquaint you with your fate.\nBesides, this camp affords you safe protection:\nKind Iphigenia will soon be joined,\nIn happy marriage to our conqueror,\nAnd make our chains the lighter; doubt it not,\nShe has engaged her promise\u2014\nEriph.\nWhat! If of all my woes\nThis fatal marriage were the cruelest?\nDor.\nHow! Madam?\nEriph.\nBe not surprised, my grief,\nBut rather wonder I have lived so long,\nWith such a load of cares and misery.\nI am unknown, a stranger, and a captive:\nAll these were little\u2014but, oh! I'm a lover.\nThat fierce destroyer of the Lesbian state;\nThat fatal author of our direst plight,\nWho with Hands drenched in blood made me his captive,\nAnd with your father robbed me of my birth,\nAchilles is the dearest man I view.\nDor.\nHeaven! What do I hear?\nEriph.\nI...\nEternal silence should conceal my weakness:\nBut I must speak to ease my soul oppressed,\nAnd in thy friendly bosom vent a secret,\nWhich ought for ever, ever be forgotten.\nYet, Doris, ask me not with what fond hopes\nI entertained this passion in my breast?\nI will not charge it on that kind concern,\nWith which Achilles seem'd to soothe my woes.\nNo, no; 'tis unrelenting heaven's decree\nAnd Doris,\nOh! cruel hope,\nShall I call back to my distracted mind,\nThe sad remembrance of\nWhen I, buried in gloomy night, at last\nMy feeble eyes began to seek the light,\nAnd as I saw\nAs I embark'd with him, I still endeavored,\nTo shun the dreadful and detested sight;\nNay, which is more, I saw him with concern.\nHis aspect was serene, and my reproaches\nCould find no tongue to curse the pleasing sight.\nMy heart rebelled against my miseries,\nAnd all my anger melted into tears.\nI followed with delight my charming guide,\nAnd as I loved him then, I love him still.\nKind Iphigenia offers me protection,\nBut in vain, as my tormenting Furies bid me seize my Protectress's hand,\nOnly to crush a Rival and disturb their unseen joys, which cause my sufferings. Dor.\n\nAlas! What could your feeble hate have achieved,\nHad it not been much better to have remained\nIn Mycenae; there to quench\nThe unregarded love\u2014\nEriph.\n\n'Twas my design; but though my rivals triumphed,\nThreatening my new-born love with endless torments,\nYet driven by Fate, I came: A secret voice\nBid me attend my guardian\u2014\nPresaging that I might leave this shore,\nAll my miseries I could pour upon them,\nThis is the reason I appear in Aulis,\nAnd not a fond desire to know my birth,\nOr rather I am come to let their nuptials\nPronounce my final doom; for if accomplished,\nA speedy death will end my miseries;\nAnd without wasting time in fruitless search,\nAfter my unknown parentage, the grave\nWill hide my love and shame\u2014\nDor.\n\nHow much I do lament your cruel fate,\nIphigenia, enter Agamemnon.\n\nIphigenia:\nMy lord, what makes you thus flee from me,\nAnd tremble so? My duty calls me to you.\nI. Queen: Before I express my joy in your Embphigenia, may I not retire without your blessing and a kiss? May I?\n\nII. Agamemnon: Yes, you may embrace your father. He loves you still.\n\nIII. Iphigenia: How dear I value such a father's love! What pleasing raptures do I feel, to see the excess of power and honor that surrounds you? Fame's busy Tongue had entertained my ears with wondrous tales of your supreme command; but all comes short of what I now behold. My joys and my surprise at once redouble: you have the general love of all the Greeks, and am I then beloved by such a father?\n\nIV. Agamemnon: Alas! A father to such a good daughter, I deserved to be more fortunate. Iphigenia: Is there a greater fortune that can attend a king? I thought you had reached the top of human bliss, and that the bounteous gods could give no more.\n\nV. Agamemnon: [Aside] I must prepare her for her fate.\n\nVI. Iphigenia: My lord, you sigh and seem to cast your looks unwillingly upon me. Pray, dear sir, is it against your orders that we have come?\nDaughter, I see you with my father's eyes, but at this time and place, perplexing care disturbs my joys. Iphigenia.\nHow sad are the effects of tedious absence! Alas. And le.\nHere is no witness that can make you blush. You are the one to whom I often told how blessed I was with the most tender and faithful wife, who would, at my request, end her misfortunes. What will she think? Must all her hopes be in vain? Pray, gentle father, dispel those clouds that hover on your brow.\nAgamemnon.\nAlas, my daughter, I cannot\u2014\nIphigenia.\nMy lord, go on.\nAgamemnon.\nOh, I cannot\u2014\nIphigenia.\nTrojan priest.\nAgamemnon.\nIphigenia, calchas says the gods are propitious.\nAgamemnon.\nMay heaven be appeased before it is offered!\nIphigenia.\nPray, when is that to be?\nAgamemnon.\nToo soon, alas!\nIphigenia.\nShall I be suffered to join my vows with yours before the altar?\nAgamemnon.\nOh, me!\nIphigenia.\nMy lord, you're silent\u2014\nAgamemnon.\nNo\u2014yes\u2014you will be there, my daughter\u2014\nExit Agamemnon.\nIphigenia.\nHis cold reception fills my mind with doubts. A secret horror seizes all my soul.\nThe impending woe,\nThe Gods.\nMadam, I wonder that amidst those cares,\nWhich now employ your father, a small coldness\nCan discompose my throat.\nMy thought is lost,\nMy unknown,\nMy uncle,\nA fleeting remembrance of Iphigenia.\nYes, dear Eriphile, I own my tears\nWill soon be Achilles' view:\nHis worth, my father, my heart bids me love him.\nWho sees\nTo meet me here? What keeps him from appearing?\nI have, for these two days, upon our journey,\nAt last I'm welcomed by an unknown crowd,\nAnd Chill'd both a father and a lover's heart.\nBut, no \u2014, I wrong him by unjust alarm,\nFor he alone did never engage his promise\nTo Hector's father: 'Tis on my account\nHe goes to Troy; I am the only prize\nHis genealogy enters, Clytemnestra with a letter in her hand.\nClytemnestra.\nDaughter, we must be gone, and by a speedy flight\nPrevent our shame; 'tis now no more a riddle,\nWhat made your father troubled and uneasy\nTo see us here: This letter clears all doubts;\nBy faithful Areas he had sent it to me,\nTo spare you.\nBut wandering from our way, that messenger\nCould not convey it sooner\u2014.\nHe having changed his mind, Achilles defers the nuptial rites until his return. Eriphiles.\nWhat do I hear?\nClytemnestra.\nYou blush and seem concerned at the abuse; but let your spirit arm you with disdain. To Iphigenia.\nUngrateful wretch! Deceived by his renown, I at Argos countenanced his love, and thought a goddess's son would make you happy. But since his vile inconstancy belies his noble offspring from the unchanging gods, let us now despise the basest of mankind, and fly this hated shore; lest he should think we stay to court his dull indifference. Your father is acquainted with my purpose; I only wait him here to take my leave. In the meantime, I'll see all things prepared for our departure\u2014. As for you, Madam, to E\u2014\nYou'd think it hard to follow; our retreat leaves you in better hands; too well we know, that 'tis not Chalchas that you came to see.\nExit, Clytemnestra, in a fury.\nIphigenia.\nIn what amaze of trouble has she left me, by her perplexing speech! Achilles having changed his mind.\nI must prevent my shame by hasty flight; you did not come to see Calchas. To Eriphus:\n\nEriphus:\nThe meaning of your speech is a dark riddle, I cannot understand.\n\nIphigenia:\nNo, Madam, you know its meaning all too well, yet, if barbarous fate\nIn an ironic tone,\n\nRoque:\nWould have me abandon you in my misfortunes.\nAt Mycenae without me\u2014, Shall the queen\nNow leave you,\n\nEriphus:\nMadam, I intended to consult Calchas.\n\nIphigenia:\nThen what is the reason you do not hasten to see him?\n\nEriphus:\nYou speak of being gone within a moment.\n\nIphigenia:\nSometimes one moment may clear many doubts. But, Madam, I am too pressing. And now, plainly see, what I could never have thought\u2014 Yes, it is Achilles\nWho makes you so uneasy until we are gone.\n\nEriphus:\nCan you suspect me of such treachery?\nI, Madam, love the fierce conqueror,\nWhose bloody image haunts my fearful mind,\nSince with fire and sword he spread destruction,\nThrough all the Lesbian state.\n\nIphigenia:\nYes, Traitoress, yes, you love the fierce destroyer.\nHis and flaming Lesbos are the characters,\nWhich left his pleasing image printed in your soul. This is what made you so still to repeat to me the doleful story Of your captivity\u2014 I might have seen your eager passion through your feigned complaints. But my fond friendship banished all distrust. I hugged and cherished a credulous fool The safe protection of her perjured lover. The robbing me of him, I could forgive, But to be brought to this detested shore, To meet the ungrateful man who now forsakes me, And grace the triumph of a treacherous friend, This, this is an abuse I cannot bear.\n\nEriph.\nMadam, you give me words I never was used To hear before \u2014; And though hard fate pursues me With cruel hate, yet such harsh sounds till now, Were strangers to my ears; But I excuse The unjust reproaches of an incensed lover.\n\nWhich way could I prevent your journey hither? Can you suspect Achilles will prefer A forlorn maid to Agamemnon's daughter? One, who all she can learn of her condition, Is that she is the offspring of that blood He longs to spill.\nIphigenia:\nThe barbarous wretch insults over my misfortunes!\nAnd still compares her vileness to my glory,\nOnly to heighten her perfidious triumph.\nWas this then lacking to my load of woe?\nBut have a care your raptures be not too rash:\nThat Agamemnon you have dared, commands\nAll Greece; He is my father; nay, he loves me,\nAnd feels my sufferings deeply as myself.\nMy tears did melt him: I perceived those sighs\nHe strove to hide from me; Fond fool! I blamed\nThat coldness which his tenderness had caused.\n\nEnter Achilles.\n\nAchilles:\nIs it possible then, Madam! Do I see you?\nOr is it fond delusion? No! For the whole camp,\nAssured me you were here \u2014 but, Madam, what concern\nBrings you to this shore, since Agamemnon\nGave out Mycenae would enjoy you still?\n\nIphigenia:\nMy lord,\nFor Iphigenia will soon be gone.\n\nExit Iphigenia with a disdainful air.\n\nAchilles:\nShe shuns me! Do I wake? Or is it a dream?\nGods! What stirs within me?\nTo meet your looks, and not provoke your ire,\nYet, if Achilles did ever pity you:\nIf you can now receive your Conqueror's Prayer, I, Eriph. My Lord, I wonder you should be unacquainted with their journey. Since you have been a month on this shore, still present, Achilles. I, Madam? I was absent this whole month, and only came last night\u2014\n\nAchilles:\nEriph.\nYe Gods! Who see my shame, where\nProud Rival, thou art loved, and yet thou murmurst.\nMust I at once behold thy haughty triumph,\nAnd bear with thy insults? No\u2014, Let me rather\u2014\nBut, Doris, I'm deceived, or some great storm,\nIs gathering thick to break upon their heads.\nI've eyes: \u2014 Their happiness is not yet settled.\nKing Agamemnon sighs, and is in trouble:\nHe shuns his daughter; both avoid Achilles.\nThere's something in it; I'll not yet despair:\nAnd if Fate listens to my hatred's call,\nExeunt Eriphiles\n\nThe end of the Second Act.\n\nEnter Agamemnon, Clytemnestra.\n\nClytemnestra:\nMy Lord,\nMy indignation made me leave the camp, and I saw Achilles. I was filled with scorn for Iphigenia and intended to mourn for Mycene's woe. But Achilles called upon all the gods to prove his constancy and stopped our journey. He even intended to marry the woman he had previously shunned and punish her audacious insolence. Therefore, let no suspicions mar our joys.\n\nAgamemnon,\nMadam, it is well. Achilles must be trusted. I admit we wronged him, and I share your joys as much as my concern allows. Now that you wish Calchas to perform the nuptial rites for your daughter at the altar, I will wait for her arrival.\n\nHowever, I advise you in private beforehand. You see the chaos of an army and a fleet around us. An altar, though sacred, is not calm enough for your sight. It would be unseemly for the Greeks to see their queen undistinguished in a crowd of soldiers. Believe me, let your maids attend to your daughter at the altar.\n\nClytemnestra,\nI resign my daughter to my wife.\nAnd I not complete what I have begun? Have I then brought her hither from Mycenae, And shall I now refuse to lend my Hand To lead her to the Priest? \u2014 Is not this a Duty Incumbent on a Mother? \u2014 Who shall order The Marriage Festival?\n\nAgamemnon:\nMadam, That might have been your Care In Atreus's Palace: Now you're in a camp.\n\nClytemnestra:\nYes, I am in a camp, Where the whole Troy depends on you; Where all the Greeks bow to your command; Where Thetis's Son will this day call me mother; Pray, in what palace could I ever appear With greater splendor and magnificence?\n\nAgamemnon:\nMadam, By all the immortal authors of our race, I do conjure you, grant me this request: I have my reasons.\n\nClytemnestra:\nBy all those powers you named, let me intreat you Not to deny my eyes that bliss Vouchsafe to see me there without a blush.\n\nAgamemnon:\nI thought much better of a wife\u2014\n\nClytemnestra:\nMadam\u2014 it is my pleasure\u2014 I command you\u2014\n\nAgamemnon:\nExit.\n\nClytemnestra:\nO gods above! What makes my husband use Such contempt, That he disdains to own me for his wife? O\nThat he dares not appear with Hellen's sister? I submit; my daughter's happiness makes amends for Achilles, and my joys.\n\nAchilles enters.\n\nAchilles:\nThe king desires no further satisfaction,\nBut true,\nWhen with a kind embrace he called me son. What happy news was spread at your arrival?\n\nClytemnestra:\nWhat's that, my lord?\n\nAchilles:\nThe gods will be appeased: The priest proclaims\nThat the next hour by solemn sacrifice,\nNeptune will be propitious to our vows,\nAnd wake the drowsy winds; sure of his promise,\nThe joyful mariners unmoor\nAnd turn their prows to Troy. As for me, madam,\nThough I were glad if to indulge my love\nThe winds should still be silent for a while,\nThough with regret I quit the happy shore,\nWhere Iphigenia will soon be mine,\nYet with delight I grasp the blessed occasion,\nTo seal this noble match with Trojan blood;\nAnd in the ruins of Troy,\nBury the shame to which mine will forever be allied.\n\nEnter Iphigenia, Electra, Aegisthus, and the chorus.\nFair princess, all my bliss,\nYour father waits our coming to the altar;\nTo Iphigenia,\n\nHaste, Madam, to receive the plighted boon: I, a young princess, whose noble aspect speaks of my high birth, and whose eyes continually dissolve in tears, you know her troubles, for 'tis you who have caused them. In my rash passion, I have insulted her affliction. I would atone for my thoughtlessness and soothe her into ease, but I do not know how, unless it be by interceding. My Lord, she is your captive, and the chains whose weight I pity will fall from her hands at your command. Let your generous deeds begin this happy and auspicious day. Let sad Eriphile be now discharged from our attendance. Let all the Greeks see that the great king to whom I pledge my faith is not contented to spread dire alarms and wild destruction, but that he can relent at a wife's tears, and, like the gods from whom he is descended, will be disarmed by the unfortunate.\n\nEriph.,\n\nYes, my Lord, you may alleviate.\nThe quickest Pain a Woman ever felt.\n'Tis true the Fate overrules, but still you strain too high its rigid Laws, thus to endure my Heart with all the Torments I suffer here.\nAchilles:\nYou, Madam?\nEriphiles:\nYes, my Lord, and waving all the rest, could you impose a more severe Command, than here to make my Eyes the sad Spectators, of the Prosperity of all my Foes: My Proud, my Haughty, Persecuting Foes. Wherever I go, I hear the insulting Threats of a vile enemy. My native Country: And to break my Heart, I see, I see that fatal Hymen's Brand, which will devour it and consume my Hopes.\nAnd wandered weeps.\nWhich nothing but my Tears can well express.\nAchilles:\nFair Princess, that's too much: Wipe off those Tears, you have yielded to all the Graces. And may they make me enter Arcadia.\nArcas:\nThe King sends me to beg your pardon, Achilles.\nAchilles:\nWhat?\nArcas:\nYou to Achilles.\nCan now receive me.\nBut if that fatal Pomp were designed to take my life for the discovery, yet I must speak. (Clytemnestra)\n\nHeaven! How I tremble! Quickly; Arcas, explain your meaning. (Achilles)\n\nWhomever it be, speak boldly, fear him not. (Arcas)\n\nMy lord, you are her tender mother; suffer not the princess to meet her father. (Clytemnestra)\n\nWhat should we fear from him? (Achilles)\n\nWhy should we distrust him? (Arcas)\n\nHe waits her at the altar, with intent to sacrifice her. (Achilles)\n\nHe! Agamemnon!\n\nHis Daughter! (Clytemnestra)\n\nIphigenia! (Iphigenia)\n\nMy Father! (Eriphyle)\n\nOh heavens! What news! (Achilles)\n\nGods! What blind fury\n\nCan arm his cruel hand against his daughter? 'Tis impious but to think on it. (Arcas)\n\nAlas! my lord, there is no room for doubt:\n\nThe oracle and Calchas have pronounced\n\nAll other sacrifices\n\nProtect the ravisher\n\nLie hushed till that be over\n\n(Clytemnestra)\n\nHow can the gods decree\n\n(Iphigenia)\n\nIt's too plain now\n\nWhy he intends\n\nTo keep me\n\n(Iphigenia)\n\nIs this the Mars' altar? (Clytemnestra)\n\nThe king himself\n\nAnd\n\n(Clytemnestra)\n\nMy lord,\n\nKneels.\n\nHere let me grasp your knees\u2014 (Achilles)\n\nPray rise\u2014 (Clytemnestra)\n\nMy lord, (Clytemnestra)\nThis is a passage from a play, likely written in Old English or Shakespearean English. I will make some assumptions about the language and clean the text accordingly. I will remove unnecessary line breaks, whitespaces, and other meaningless characters. I will also correct some obvious OCR errors.\n\nThis is a passage from a play:\n\nThis lowly Submitter (I) were too happy if my tears could touch yours, Weeps. You are the ones we sought on this detested shore. It is you, then, who must she go to implore the Angry Gods and grasp that altar dismally adorned, to sacrifice her? You alone are here: her father, husband, and protecting god. I read your grief in your distracted looks. Daughter, I leave you in a lover's arms. My lord, I beg you, stay till I return. I fly to meet my cruel, treacherous husband, and with just rage oppose his wild design. I'll force the priest to seek another victim; or should my best efforts prove vain to ward off the fatal blow, I'll die with my dear daughter. Exit Clytemnestra.\n\nAchilles (Achil.):\nMadam, all this while my wonder kept me dumb and motionless. Was it to me she spoke? Am I Achilles? And must your mother and a queen disgrace my noble passion, to descend thus low with unbecoming posture, prayers, and tears to move my pity? Who is more concerned than Thetis's son in your prosperity?\nYes, you may trust my love, the insult is directed at me alone. I answer B. 'Tis I must lead you to the sacred altar. My credulous hand must guide the fatal knife. Your eyes, Iphigene. My lord, I am Achilles. Just heaven! What had been, had not my coming forestalled your arrival. The harmless bride abandoned. A B. I would agree, my lord. And this, Achilles. My lord, if ever you did truly love me, Your father, madam? No\u2014leaves him no other than a murderer. Iphigene. My lord, a father whom I love not. A father who till now had held my heart in dutiful reverence. 'Tis not our nuptial tie can make me lose, my duty, and allow your furious passion. Yet, see, my lord, how very much I love you Since I could bear to hear the outragious injury you offered to his name. But how can you think him so barbarous, unconcerned?\nHe sees his Daughter bleed, if he can prevent the cruel sacrifice. Believe me, Sir, I saw him sigh and weep. Do not condemn him till you hear him speak. Must his Heart, filled with horror, be your raging hatred? - Achilles. Is it possible, Madam, amidst your danger, this is all you have to say? A wild Barbarian (for this name befits him) betrays you to the Priest like a tame victim. And when my tenderness would stop his fury, you seem concerned to trouble him. I'm silenced; he is excused, he is lamented. For him, you tremble, and 'tis me you fear. Has then Achilles sued and sighed in vain? Is this the progress of my constant love? - Iphigenia. Oh! Cruel Man! How can you doubt what I have given you such convincing proofs? You saw how with dry eyes and undisturbed composure I heard the bloody messenger of death. But, all ye powers of love! How deep was my despair, when at our first arrival the false news came, reproaching the gods. Then, your love be my genealogy? Perhaps the envious gods by the excusable mistake.\nEnter Eriphile and Doris, they sit on a chair.\n\nA Song Set by Mr. PURCELL, and Sung by Mrs. ERWIN.\n\nMorpheus, thou gentle God,\nCompose my unruly mind;\nAllay my anxious care,\nDrive away black thoughts, and soothe my pain,\nHere let indulgent fancy ease my heart,\nHere let me sleep, and never wake again,\nWhat is this I feel? What's this within my breast,\nStrikes such alarms, and will not let me rest?\n'Tis jealousy, tormenting jealousy!\nThe bane of love, tormenting jealousy,\nI rage, I rave, I burn, my soul's torment,\nMy Strephon's,\nD,\nI m,\nDOP. M,\nAn,\nYes, Doris, you did,\nDid Achilles weep in vain?\nThinkest thou, in shame, Uncon? No, he'll prevent\nAll her impending dangers: Thou shalt find\nThe angry God's pronounced this oracle.\nTo raise her glory, aggravate my woes, and make her still the dear Doris, what reasons, Madam, can breed this suspicion? Doris:\nCan't you see how all endeavor to prevent the blow? And though all things are ready at the altar, the camp is unacquired. Does not the king, I, alone command the gods' pardon? Doris:\nMadam, what do you mean? Why don't they publish the fatal sentence the oracle pronounced? By impious silence, they strive to make it void and save the victim. Doris:\nOh, what a wild design! Eriphile:\nOh, what excess of joy! What altars would the Trojans raise to me if, vindicating my captivity, I sowed dissension through the Grecian camp and armed Achilles against Agamemnon! If I could make them lay aside their quarrel against Troy and turn their arms against themselves! If my malicious whispers could destroy the Greek army and secure my country! Doris:\nMadam, I hear a noise\u2014'tis Clytemnestra. Compose yourself.\nLet's enter: I'll prevent this hated marriage by using all means - the Gods allow my passion. Exit Eriphile, Doris.\n\nEnter Clytemnestra, Aegina.\n\nClytemnestra:\nYou see, Aegina, I don't shed any tears or tremble for my life, so she excuses her cruel father and asks that my grief respects the hand that strikes the cruel blow. Oh! Constancy! Oh! Reverence! Oh! Love, yet to be rewarded, my savage husband complains of her delay. I'll wait here for him, for he'll surely come to explain the reason for her stay. But be quiet, my passion; let me try how far he can dissemble his base artifice.\n\nEnter Agamemnon.\n\nAgamemnon:\nMadam, what do you mean? Why isn't she with me?\nI sent Arcas to demand her from you - where is she? I\nMy lady,\nMy daughter is ready, but nothing stops you?\nAgamemnon:\nMe! Me!\nClytemnestra:\nBut have you taken her?\nAgamemnon:\nCalchas is ready; the altar is prepared. I have done all my duty as bid.\nClytemnestra:\nMy Lord, you tell me nothing about the victim?\nAgam.\nMadam, what does this jealous care mean?\n(Aside)\nEnter Iphigenia.\nClytemnestra.\nCome, Daughter, come; they only wait for you:\nBe thankful to a kind, a loving father,\nWho will himself conduct you to the altar.\nWeep, Agamemnon.\nWhat do I see! What does my wife's discourse mean?\nDaughter, you weep, and look with downcast eyes:\nWhat's this disaster? But b-\nOh! Arcas! I'm betrayed.\u2014\nIphigenia.\nFather, be not alarmed: You're not betrayed.\nCome,\nYou may, with that contented and submissive heart,\nWith which I did accept a promised husband,\nIf I must needs submit to Heaven's decree,\nI'll prove an innocent victim, and respect\nThe blow you order; with all due obedience\nI'll spill that blood, I have received from you.\nAgamemnon.\nOh! dutiful respect! Oh! wondrous love!\nIphigenia.\nYet, it seems I deserve a better recompense;\nIf you can pity a fond mother's grief,\nMy lord,\nWould not cut off my life so near its spring.\n'Tis I,\n\u2014With fond care,\nAlas! With how much love I loved\nTo hear the names of all those countries.\nYou went to conquer? My people began the anti-destruction of Troy, and to obtain your victory, my blood must flow. Oh! She'll understand it not. The horror of the threatening blow does not make me remind you of your form. Fear not: My heart still cares. Shall we not, and had my life alone been my concern, my grave would hold my duty. But, Sir, you know that on my wretched fate a tender mother and a king whose worth you own look on. To light the torch of our illustrious Hymen, you gave me leave to promise, to his undoubted love, he thought himself the happiest of mankind. But since he knows your threat, you see my mother's woe. Pardon, dear daughter, my weak endeavors to weep. Agam.\n\nDaughter, demand a victim, for what crime, I know not. But you are named. A cruel oracle commands that you shall bleed to save your precious life from mine. I wave to tell you how long I withstood. Believe that love which you just now knew. This very night I did recall the oaths they before had sworn.\nI sacrifice myself,\nMy ambition, my safety. Arcas was sent to protect you from the Cretans. But the Greeks,\nThey befouled,\nWho vainly strove to guard, what they had taken.\nBy holy zeal, and in death, I regret,\nAnd mind a counsel which I left you with. Since the sad blow that struck me; yet, let your constancy,\nApprove your birth, and make the gods ashamed. O Greeks,\nKnow by your courage, 'tis my blood they spill.\nNo: Do you not betray your fatal race?\n'Tis plain you spring from Atreus and Thyestes. Butcher to your own daughter, to complete\nYour natural cruelty, you only lack\nTo entertain me with the ghastly feast\nOf all her slaughtered limbs. Oh! Barbarian!\nIs this the auspicious sacrifice your care\nPrepared with so much art and secrecy?\nHow could your hand subscribe the black decree,\nAnd not be stayed by the horror of the deed?\nAgamemnon.\nOh! Wretched father!\nWeeps.\nClytemnestra.\nForce not before us a dissembling woe;\nNor think your tears can prove your tenderness.\nWhat fights were those you fought in her defense?\nWhat flows of blood were spilled to save her life?\nWhere is the wild havoc that speaks your resistance?\nWhat heaps of slain can silence my complaints?\nThese savage men, these are the witnesses,\nBy which your love should show your just concern,\nFor Iphigenia's life.\n\nAgamemnon:\nMadam, the gods must be obeyed:\nA fatal oracle pronounced her doom.\n\nClytemnestra:\nHave not all oracles a dubious meaning?\nAre the just gods so pleased with murderous deeds\nThat innocence must bleed? If Helen's crime\nMust be atoned for,\nMust a Hector be fetched from Sparta,\nShe being her own daughter? Let fond Menelaus\nWith his own blood redeem his guilty wife.\nBut what blind fury leads you to the altar,\nTo expiate her crime, and be his victim?\nWhy must\nAnd pay him?\nNay, is this author of so many jars,\nThis great disturber of East and West,\nA worthy prize to crown your warlike toils?\nHow often have we blush'd at her disgrace?\nBefore your brother, by a fatal tie,\nMade her his consort, had not Theseus dared\nTo restrain Calchas\nFrom sacrificing\nAgamemnon.\nOh! Cruel Honor! But a Brother's Love and injured Honor are the least of your concerns. Your thirst for empire cannot be quenched; your haughty pride in having twenty kings attend and fear you: the supreme command lodged in your person, these, wild barbarian, make you uncaring of the blow. Your competitors' boldness you gladly deter with your own blood. Is this to be a father? Oh, I grow mad\u2014this cruel treachery hurries my senses into wild distraction. A priest, surrounded by a barbarous crowd, shall tear her bosom and with cruel eyes consult her panting breast, while I, who brought her to the camp in triumph, must return home, disconsolate and attended by black despair. No, no: it shall not be said I brought her here.\nTo be thus butchered, if with the same blow you offer not a double sacrifice. No tears, no duty shall ever part me from her, unless you tear her from her mother. Daughter, go in: At least this time for all, I'll be obedient. Exeunt Clytemnestra. Alas! Why did the gods impose upon me this fate? A report has reached me; today expires the silence you commanded. That having silenced nature and all the dictates of shame, you took my daughter as your wife. What say you to this? My lord, I never give an account of what I do. My daughter is unacquainted with my will. But when I deem it proper to inform her, then you may learn her fate. I know too well what cruel fate awaits her. My lord, why do I ask? Why, gods! Is it possible that he dares to avow such a black deed?\nThink you you will approve your wild Design?\nThink you my plighted Faith, my Love, my Honor,\nWill ever consent to let your Daughter bleed?\nAgam.\nBut you, who dare to speak with threatening Voice,\nHave you forgot who 'tis you ask such Questions?\nAchilles.\nAnd have you, Sir,\nAgam.\nWho bids you be concerned about my Family?\nMayn't I dispose of Iphigenia\nUnless you be consenting? Am I not\nHer Father?\nAchilles.\nNo\u2014she's yours no more\u2014\nI'm not to be amused with frivolous Hopes:\nYou swore she should be mine; and there\nAs long as I have blood within my Veins,\nI will maintain those Rights your Promise gave.\nBut, Sir, was it not for me she came to Aulis?\nAgam.\nExpostulate with the Gods, 'tis they demand her.\nAulysis, M\nAccuse the Camp; nay, first accuse yourself.\nMe!\nAgam.\nYes, you: Who greedy of the Eastern Conquest,\nQuarrel each day with Neptune and the Winds.\nYou who offended at my just Alarms,\nHave spoil'd\nMy tender Heart had been\nBut Troy is all you wish, all you demand.\nI stopped the Race which you desired.\nHer death will reveal it; go - depart.\nAchilles.\nHell-Furies! Can I hear and see, is this how you aggravate your perjury with base affronts? Did I ever desire to obtain a wind with Iphigenia's blood? What great concern makes me come to Troy? For whom do I neglect my parent goddess and my father's despairing advice? Why do I seek that death the oracle foretold for their son? What wrongs did I ever commit as a Trojan or a Thessalian? Did a barbarian, such as you, come to Larissa to ravish me? What loss have I suffered? But what compelling motive brought us here? Was it not to restore the gods? Then who can think I will be wanting to my bride? It is true, I love your daughter: she is the one to whom I promised my ships, my soldiers, nothing to your brother. Let him pursue his wife and seek a triumph. What is Hellen, Paris, Priamus to me? And Troy.\nThen, thou -\nI -\nOthrys -\nTo what?\nAnd I will gladly meet you, of Troy. I am\nHow dear I bought your haughty, proud assistance, by you,\nThe Arbiter of Greece, and that I bear an empty tide. To your boasted valor all must submit: all follow your command. A kindness when reproached becomes a wrong; I ask less valor, but more obedience. Away\u2014I cancel all our former ties, regardless of your friendship, or your hatred.\nThank that one tie that holds my boiling passion. I still respect my Iphigenia's father. But were twenty kings to dare me once for all, one word and I have done: but mark me well. Your Daughter and my honor lie at stake: I will defend them both; and if you'd reach the heart you aim to strike, this is the way points to his breast. Through which your blow must pass.\nExit Achilles.\nAnd this shall make her sentence past recall:\nMy daughter was more dread to me\nThy haughty love, that thinks to make me tremble,\nAnticipates the blow, thou meanest to ward.\nNo more debates\u2014\nIt is resolved I'll dare his insolence:\nMy injured honor summons all my reason,\nAnd his proud threats between me and the gods; for now my pity\nWould look like fear -- Guards --\nEnter Eurybates, Guards.\n\nEurybates:\nMy Lord.\n\nAgamemnon:\nWhat am I doing!\nHow can I give the bloody, rash command?\nBarbarous man! What fight do you prepare? What hated foe,\nAre you exposing to their violence? A mother waits me: an undaunted mother,\nWho will defend her against a murdering father. I shall behold my men less cruel than myself,\nRespect my daughter guarded by their queen. 'Tis true Achilles threatens and contemns me:\nBut still my daughter's constant to her duty; she neither flies the altar, nor declines\nWith murmuring discontent the blow I give. What means my horrid, sacrilegious zeal?\nWhat vows can I address for such a victim? A glorious harvest waits me: but what laurels\nCan please, when stained by Iphigenia's blood? I will appease the angry gods: but, oh!\nWhat gods, can be more cruel to me, than I am to myself? No: 'twill not be. I yield to love, to nature:\nI'll not blush at my pity, she shall live. But what! Am I regardless of my fame? Must proud Achilles carry the day, and think I feared his threats? What frivolous care disturbs my anxious mind! He loves my daughter; she'll make another blessed. Eurybates, call hither Clytemnestra and the princess; tell them they need not fear. Exit Eurybates.\n\nAlmighty powers! If your immortal hatred perseveres to wrest her from my hands, what can weak mortals do? I know my love destroys what I would save; yet such a victim does at least deserve a confirmation of your rigorous laws, and that you should demand it once again.\n\nBy Acalchas and Ulysses, take, go. Fly! And may the gods, contented with my tears, spare me the sight of Iphigenia for a long time. Guards, attend the queen.\n\nClytemnestra: Oh, weep, Iphigenia. Oh, weep, Agamemnon.\n\nOnce more, avoid the impatient, be gone. The fatal sacrifice till the next day.\n\nExeunt all but Eriphile and Doemas.\n\nEriphile: Do, madam, this way.\n\nDo: Madam, Achilles' tenderness fills me with rage.\n\nCome, Eriphile and Doris.\n\nExeunt Eriphile and Doris.\nIphigenia:\nAegina, cease and let me go. Return to my abandoned Mother. The angry gods must be appeased; see how they are provoked by our attempts to rob them of their victim. Behold what storm is gathering thick around us; consider to what state the Queen has been reduced. See how boldly they brandish their spears, stopping our passage.\n\nAegina:\nDear madam, stay. Don't run to certain ruin.\n\nIphigenia:\nAll hope is vanished. Our guards have been repulsed. My mother is in a swoon. Oh, why should I expose her any more or wait for her feeble help in vain? No, rather, let me fly from her while her troubled senses will. See, see how all conspires for my undoing. Even my father, when he bids me live, commands my death.\n\nAegina:\nHe, madam? How!\n\nIphigenia:\nI suppose it is Achilles who has offended him, too eager to defend his injured love. Yet, as he hates him, I must hate him too. My heart must offer up this sacrifice, this horrid, cruel sacrifice of love. Arcas declared to me my father's will.\nHe orders I shall never speak to him. (Aegina)\nOh, Cruel Father! (Iphigenia)\nOh, Fatal Doom!\nThe milder Gods demanded but my life; then set,\nHeaven! 'Tis Achilles.\nEnter Achilles.\nA: Come, My My lord,\nOf that weak crowd they\nDo not open themselves to me.\nMy Patroclus,\nWith all the choice of my Thessalian troops.\nThe rest assembled near my tent will offer\nThe impenetrable bulwark of their ranks.\nBehind this shield,\nTo all your people,\nApproach A's tent. But, Madam, is this\nYour second intention?\nOnly with tear\nBefore your father,\nIphigenia:\nMy Lord, too well I know it, and therefore\nI have no hopes but from my certain death.\nA: Oh,\nYou're joined to me: Consider all my bliss\nDepends on you.\u2014\nIphigenia:\nNo, No: The Gods did never intend\nTo join our love deceitfully:\nMy lord,\nYet all those fields of honor will prove barren,\nUnless besprinkled with my fatal blood.\nIn vain my father strove that Caesar had pronounced\nLoudly combined.\nA: Madam,\nAchilles will encounter the whole camp,\nAnd silence their loud threats.\nIpomene.\nNow Priamus alarms Troy, wasting the hated City. Leave my Dardanus,\nTo be lamented Trojan Widows. I die contented with these pleasing hopes,\nThat if my cruel stars do not permit, I should live happily with my dear Achilles. Yet after,\nWith your immortal deeds, and that my deity\nThe spring of your famed actions, will be\nThe wondrous story.\u2014\nFarewell, my prince: Blessed be\nFarewell.\u2014\nAchilles.\nNo, no: You shall not take your fatal leave.\nIn vain your cruel words and\nServe your barb. In vain you're obstinate to your undoing,\nAnd strive to make my honor an accomplishment.\nWho, for the love of\nIf I could not secure my promised bride?\nMy love, my honor, both\nMadam, obey their call, and\nIphigenia.\nWhat! Sir, rebel against my father!\nAnd so deserve that death you bid me shun.\nWhat must become of my respect, my daughter?\nAchilles.\nDischarge them both in following a\nYour father has approved. In vain he tried\nTo rob me of that title; I'll never be\nThe violator of his solemn promise.\nMadam, your own self, whom rigid duty awed,\nIphig.:\nDid you not consider me your father, when he gave me to you? Do you only obey his sovereign will when you cease to be his daughter? But, Madam, Iphigenia,\n\nAnd hasten my completion, my crime,\nAlas! My lips:\nSpare my affliction,\nThat rigorous law would strive to oppose the swift hand of fate.\nMadam, what can he do? What valor could dispel\nThat multitude?\nThen let them come and prove their threat,\nOn me.\nDeath, death alone is able to unclasp\nMy grasping lips.\nMy soul shall first be severed\nFrom my dear daughter\u2014\nIphigenia:\nOh! Madam! What cruel star did\nInaugerate\nThe unhappy object of your tender love?\nAlas! What can your weak eyes endure?\nAbandoned as we are, you must encounter\nThe rage of a fierce multitude.\nDo not meet the charge,\nAgainst me.\nStrive not in vain to save me,\nDo not aggravate my woes with your tears.\nOf a dear mother basely dragged along,\nBy a licentious band of furious soldiers.\nGo\u2014let the Greeks appease the angry gods\nAnd leave for ever this detested shore.\nFly from the sight of those devouring Flames,\nWhich oppress your tender Heart, while they consume\nYour Guiltless Daughter. And, as you love me\nWith Maternal Fondness, I beg you, Clytemnestra,\n\nWhat! Not reproach the wild Barbarian\nWho leads his Daughter to a Murdering Priest?\n\nIphigenia,\nConsider all he has done to save me, and prevent\nYour cruel Woe.\n\nClytemnestra,\nOh! By what Treachery\nThe Fates have taken my Daughter from me: Yet Death\nTakes not from you the only offspring of our nuptial Joys,\nOur mutual love,\nIn young Orestes. May he prove less\nTo his dear Mother, than his wretched Sister.\n\nYou hears shouts within.\n\nSummon, take my daughter, Clytemnestra,\nArcas,\nLead to the Altar.\n\nExeunt Iphigenia, Arcas.\n\nClytemnestra,\nWhere's my Daughter?\nRecovering.\nGuards stop her Passage.\nOr hold her.\n\nEnter Calchas and Tisiphone.\n\nWhat,\nDaughters of the Gods,\nNeptune see his altar\nWretched Greeks\nIn the dark bottom of the wave,\nShall\nTheir guilty Fleet?\n\nAnd thou, immortal Sun, who on this shore\nBehold'st Atrides,\nWith Iphigenia crowned,\nLike a mighty hand, your father is prepared to strike\u2014Hold, Bacchus.\nThe blood you spill derives from Jove\u2014Hold\u2014Hold.\nShe runs off with him.\nExeunt omnes.\nWhile a symphony plays, an altar is raised near the sea shore.\nEnter King Agamemnon, weeping; Menelaus, Nestor, and others.\nCalchas the high priest; Iphigenia between two priests; Eriphile, Dorian.\nA chorus of priests.\n\nOh, Diana! Whose dread eye\nDelights in human sacrifice:\nOh, Diana! Cease to frown\nAnd with gentle smiles look down,\nWhile this virgin bleeds for bright renown;\nAnd on her virgin head\nThe pure libation shed,\nWhile these chaste measures guard\nGuardian of each hill and grove,\nAnd queen of the great gods above,\nFill, oh, fill with prosperous gale\nOur spreading sails;\nAnd to the Phrygian coast\nConvey the Greek fleet.\n\nThat with avenging arm's\nThy adulterous guest, with his perjured guest, Clytemnestra,\nThy vengeful husband.\n\nSee, see the fleet now big with war,\nTroy shore.\n\nNow, now the clangor sounds,\nAnd all around,\nThe lamentations rebound,\nOh! The wild furies of battle!\nThe victor's crown.\nThey run, they run, they run:\nI. Hector, great Hector is slain. Tis: His leading to be.\nSee, see, how they fall,\nIo Last Chorus.\nNow, now the drums rattle, &c. &c.\nCalch.\nWhat mean these Horrors!\nThou, I, Senecae,\nAlas, Love himself, with threatening Thunder,\nEo Oh! Dionysus, how I tremble.\nClas.\nEnter And Followers.\nWI.\nHecuba.\nMy Lord, condemn\nThe Gods but\nP.\nNow, Do all my Fates\nYet, though\nI fear,\nAlmighty Love now stabs\nAchilles. Dear\u2014Achilles.\nDi Iphigenia.\nUn Thunder and Lightning; The Altar is lighted; The Goddess, in a Machine,\nCalch.\nGives Iphigenia to Agamemnon.\nAi is\nAgamemnon.\nMEmbraces her.\nAchilles.\nOh! Infinite\nArcas.\nTell her the Princess live.\nYou will To Agamemnon.\nMy Achilles.\nOh! Transports of Delight! Oh! Raputrous Bliss!\nMy love is crowned; The winds begin to roar,\nAnd fill our spreading sails; to Troy, to Troy,\nTo Victory and Fame.\u2014\nCalch.\nLet Aft.\nTo reverence the God's supreme Decrees:\nFor they are just, and ever recompense,\nTrue Piety, and spotless Innocence.\nFINIS.\nPage 11. Line 1. Deser Read d", "creation_year": 1714, "creation_year_earliest": 1714, "creation_year_latest": 1714, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase1"},
{"content": "We, who have never known peace,\nLovers of Change, Disorder, Riot,\nOld Sticklers for a Commonwealth,\n(If you believe us) wish you Health,\nA long, a safe, a prosperous Reign;\n(The wicked Tories think we feign:)\nWe who all monarchy despise,\nHope to find Favor in your eyes;\nThink you a Protestant so hearty\nAs not to displease our Party,\nAnd humbly beg at any rate\nTo be Chief Ministers of State,\nOr else your person we shall hate:\nFor though Religion bears the name,\nIts Government is all our aim.\nWe'll be as faithful and as just\nAs to your uncle, Charles the First:\nGrant this request, and we'll own your cause,\nAnd ease the burden of the crown;\nMake it the easiest ever worn,\nYou'll scarcely know you have any on.\nBut if (Great Sir,) we find you slight us,\nOurselves can tell which way to right us;\nAnd let you know, by fair or disasters,\nThough you are Lord, yet we are Masters.\nThis truth you cannot choose but know,\nWe proved it sixty years ago;\nYet shall you find us now on trial.\nYour faithfull Subjects, OR WE LYE ALL.\nLONDON, Printed by R. Ward, in the Strand.", "creation_year": 1714, "creation_year_earliest": 1714, "creation_year_latest": 1714, "source_dataset": "EEBO", "source_dataset_detailed": "EEBO_Phase2"}
]